| Literature DB >> 34831750 |
Yeqing Cheng1, Yan Chen1, Bing Xue2, Jinping Zhang1.
Abstract
A scientific understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological status of residents is important for improving medical services and responding to public health emergencies. With the help of some of the most popular network communication tools (including Wechat and Weiboand QQ), online questionnaires were completed by South China citizens during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic based on psychological stress theory and using a comprehensive sampling method. Through cooperation with experts from other institutions, the content of the questionnaire was designed to include interviewees' spatial locations and individual information, identify whether negative emotions were generated, and determine the level of psychological stress and the degree of perception change, etc. According to the data type, mathematical statistics and multiple logistic regression methods were used to examine regional differentiation and influencing factors regarding the psychological stress of residents using 1668 valid questionnaires from 53 municipal administrative units in South China. The results firstly showed that over the whole area there was typical regional differentiation in South China, especially in relation to negative expression and psychological stress, with this feature reflecting the dual urban-rural structure. Secondly, regional differences were obvious. Residents of Hainan showed stronger change of psychological stress than those of the other two provinces. In contrast, Guangdong residents were the least psychological stress, and the concept of a harmonious relationship between human beings and nature was not accepted as well as in the other two provinces. Thirdly, in each province the capital city acted as the regional pole, with greater psychological status. This polarization effect decreased with greater distance, reflecting the theory of growth poles in human geography. Fourthly, gender, education level, occupation, informational correction, and the possibility of infection were notable factors that affected the psychological status of interviewees facing COVID-19. However, the functions were different and were decided by the dependent variable. Lastly, based on conclusions summarized from three perspectives, it was found that regional differentiation, public information, and social structure need to focused upon in order to handle sudden major health issues.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; South China; multiple logistic regression methods; psychological status; regional differentiation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34831750 PMCID: PMC8625310 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182211995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The Cognitive Phenomenological–Transactional Model (CPT).
Descriptive statistics of the samples.
| Variable Name | Variable Assignment | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1 = male | 684 | 41.01 |
| 2 = female | 984 | 58.99 | |
| Age | 1 = under 20 years old | 272 | 16.31 |
| 2 = 20~29 years old | 728 | 43.65 | |
| 3 = 30~39 years old | 401 | 24.04 | |
| 4 = 40~49 years old | 195 | 11.69 | |
| 5 = 50~59 years old | 58 | 3.48 | |
| 6 = over 60 years old | 14 | 0.84 | |
| Residence | 1 = countryside | 495 | 29.68 |
| 2 = town | 326 | 19.54 | |
| 3 = urban suburb | 228 | 13.67 | |
| 4 = urban center | 619 | 37.11 | |
| Education level | 1 = primary school and below | 5 | 0.30 |
| 2 = junior high school | 43 | 2.58 | |
| 3 = senior high school or technical secondary school | 114 | 6.83 | |
| 4 = junior college and above | 1506 | 90.29 | |
| Possibility of infection | 1 = none | 316 | 18.94 |
| 2 = low | 571 | 34.23 | |
| 3 = no idea | 525 | 31.47 | |
| 4 = high | 254 | 15.23 | |
| 5 = very high | 2 | 0.12 | |
| Fixed income | 1 = yes | 858 | 51.44 |
| 2 = no | 810 | 48.56 | |
| Nature of employment | 1 = no fixed unit | 106 | 6.35 |
| 2 = public sector | 619 | 37.11 | |
| 3 = private sector | 323 | 19.36 | |
| 4 = no job | 620 | 37.17 | |
| Occupation | 1 = employees of enterprises and institutions | 582 | 34.89 |
| 2 = middle-level and above leading cadres | 147 | 8.81 | |
| 3 = entrepreneurs | 59 | 3.54 | |
| 4 = students | 709 | 42.51 | |
| 5 = farmers | 12 | 0.72 | |
| 6 = retires | 17 | 1.02 | |
| 7 = others | 142 | 8.51 | |
| Information reliability | 1 = 100% | 232 | 13.91 |
| 2 = 80~100% | 817 | 48.98 | |
| 3 = 60~80% | 526 | 31.53 | |
| 4 = 40~60% | 73 | 4.38 | |
| 5 = 20~40% | 14 | 0.84 | |
| 6 = under 20% | 6 | 0.36 |
Figure 2Psychological status in different areas. (A) Negative emotion (Q1); (B) Psychological stress (Q2); (C) Perception change (Q3); (D) Psychological crisis (Q4).
Psychological status in each province.
| Dimensions | Options | Hainan Province | Guangdong Province | Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative emotion | Yes | 40.90 | 35.44 | 39.66 |
| No | 59.10 | 64.56 | 60.34 | |
| Psychological stress | 0~30 | 16.32 | 20.27 | 17.91 |
| 30~50 | 28.52 | 27.48 | 25.59 | |
| 50~80 | 32.46 | 30.48 | 34.75 | |
| 80~100 | 22.70 | 21.77 | 21.75 | |
| Perception change | Decrease | 2.63 | 3.00 | 1.92 |
| No change | 17.82 | 22.97 | 18.55 | |
| Increase | 22.14 | 28.68 | 24.09 | |
| Significant increase | 57.41 | 45.35 | 55.44 | |
| Psychological crisis | Yes | 6.38 | 5.71 | 4.90 |
| No | 93.62 | 94.29 | 95.10 |
Figure 3Spatial distribution of psychological status ratios. (A) Negative emotion (Q1); (B) Psychological stress (Q2); (C) Perception change (Q3); (D) Psychological crisis (Q4).
Correlation between psychological status and influencing factors.
| Variables | Negative Emotion(Q1) | Psychological Stress(Q2) | Perception Change(Q3) | Psychological Crisis(Q4) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Gender | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.513 | 0.789 |
| Age | 0.009 | 0.436 | 0 | 0.179 | 0.183 | 0.43 | 0.834 | 0.62 |
| Education level | 0.174 | 0.534 | 0.139 | 0.109 | 0.003 | 0 | 0 | 0.024 |
| Fixed income | 0.022 | 0.129 | 0.002 | 0.704 | 0.424 | 0.856 | 0.811 | 0.417 |
| Nature of employment | 0.017 | 0.795 | 0.021 | 0.533 | 0.1 | 0.329 | 0.491 | 0.93 |
| Occupation | 0.001 | 0.215 | 0.005 | 0.687 | 0.201 | 0.527 | 0 | 0 |
| Information reliability | 0.389 | 0.262 | 0 | 0.006 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 |
| Likelihood of infection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.133 | 0 | 0.002 |
Note: χ2 refers the value of the chi-squared test; LR means the value of likelihood ratio test.
The simulation results of multinational logistic regression.
| Variable | Category | Negative Emotion(Q1) | Psychological Stress(Q2) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | 30~50 (Low) | 50~80 (High) | 80~100 (Very High) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Gender | 1 | 0.279 * | 1.322 | −0.492 * | 0.611 | −0.560 * | 0.571 | −0.241 | 0.786 |
| Possibility of Infection | 1 | 1.12 | 3.066 | 17.543 * | 4.15 × 107 | 17.418 * | 3.67 × 107 | −0.607 | 0.545 |
| 2 | 1.09 | 2.975 | 17.984 * | 6.46 × 107 | 17.957 * | 6.29 × 107 | −0.715 | 0.489 | |
| 3 | 0.435 | 1.546 | 18.494 * | 1.08 × 108 | 18.675 * | 1.29 × 108 | −0.569 | 0.566 | |
| 4 | −0.014 | 0.986 | 18.100 * | 7.26 × 107 | 18.810 * | 1.48 × 108 | −0.316 | 0.729 | |
| Information reliability | 1 | −0.501 | 0.606 | −0.4 | 0.67 | −0.541 | 0.582 | ||
| 2 | 0.927 | 2.527 | 0.981 | 2.666 | 0.665 | 1.944 | |||
| 3 | 0.865 | 2.374 | 0.751 | 2.119 | 0.367 | 1.443 | |||
| 4 | 1.079 | 2.941 | 0.774 | 2.167 | 0.401 | 1.494 | |||
| 5 | −0.023 | 0.978 | 0.383 | 1.466 | −0.349 | 0.705 | |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Gender | 1 | −0.708 * | 0.493 | −0.733 * | 0.48 | −1.124 * | 0.229 | ||
| Information reliability | 1 | −2.335 * | 0.097 | −0.098 | 0.907 | −0.835 | 0.434 | −0.369 | 0.691 |
| 2 | 1.196 * | 3.307 | 2.711 * | 15.048 | 2.201 * | 9.032 | 0.638 | 1.892 | |
| 3 | 1.462 * | 4.313 | 3.218 * | 24.977 | 2.489 * | 12.053 | 1.058 | 2.882 | |
| 4 | 2.278 * | 9.754 | 3.181 * | 24.068 | 2.869 * | 17.617 | 0.714 | 2.041 | |
| 5 | 0.343 | 1.409 | 0.978 | 2.658 | 0.911 | 2.488 | 0.099 | 1.104 | |
| Education level | 1 | 18.533 * | 1.12 × 108 | −0.449 | 0.639 | 16.303 * | 1.20 × 107 | 17.442 * | 3.76 × 107 |
| 2 | 0.225 | 1.252 | −0.726 | 0.484 | −0.724 | 0.485 | −1.032 * | 0.356 | |
| 3 | −0.255 | 0.775 | −0.635 | 0.53 | −0.428 | 0.652 | −0.870 * | 0.419 | |
| Risk perception | 1 | 2.604 * | 13.511 | ||||||
| 2 | 3.008 * | 20.242 | |||||||
| 3 | 2.709 * | 15.013 | |||||||
| 4 | 1.026 | 2.789 | |||||||
| Occupation | 1 | 0.541 | 1.717 | ||||||
| 2 | 0.347 | 1.415 | |||||||
| 3 | 0.835 | 2.305 | |||||||
| 4 | 0.729 * | 2.073 | |||||||
| 5 | −1.003 | 0.367 | |||||||
| 6 | 18.204 | 8.05 × 107 | |||||||
Note: variable items are shown in Table 1. B is the regression coefficient, Exp(B) = eB. * indicates a 5% significance level.