ArticlePDF Available

Psychological Outcomes Associated with Stay-at-Home Orders and the Perceived Impact of COVID-19 on Daily Life

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the widespread implementation of extraordinary physical distancing interventions (e.g., stay-at-home orders) to slow the spread of the virus. Although vital, these interventions may be socially and economically disruptive, contributing to adverse psychological outcomes. This study examined relations of both stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life to psychological outcomes (depression, health anxiety, financial worry, social support, and loneliness) in a nationwide U.S. community adult sample (N = 500; 47% women, mean age = 40). Participants completed questionnaires assessing psychological outcomes, stay-at-home order status, and COVID-19’s impact on their daily life. Being under a stay-at-home order was associated with greater health anxiety, financial worry, and loneliness. Moreover, the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life was positively associated with health anxiety, financial worry, and social support, but negatively associated with loneliness. Findings highlight the importance of social connection to mitigate negative psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Content may be subject to copyright.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 1
Running Head: IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
Psychological Outcomes Associated with Stay-at-Home Orders and the Perceived Impact of
COVID-19 on Daily Life
Matthew T. Tull*,1, Keith A. Edmonds1, Kayla M. Scamaldo1, Julia R. Richmond1, Jason P.
Rose1, and Kim L. Gratz1
1Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA
MANUSCRIPT IN PRESS AT PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Tull, M. T., Edmonds, K. A., Scamaldo, K. M., Richmond, J. R., Rose, J. P., & Gratz, K. L.
(2020). Psychological outcomes associated with stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of
COVID-19 on daily life. Psychiatry Research, 113098.
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew T. Tull, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, Mail Stop 948, University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft Street,
Toledo, OH 43606, USA; Phone: 419-530-4302; E-mail: matthew.tull@utoledo.edu.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 2
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the widespread implementation of extraordinary
physical distancing interventions (e.g., stay-at-home orders) to slow the spread of the virus.
Although vital, these interventions may be socially and economically disruptive, contributing to
adverse psychological outcomes. This study examined relations of both stay-at-home orders and
the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life to psychological outcomes (depression, health
anxiety, financial worry, social support, and loneliness) in a nationwide U.S. community adult
sample (N = 500; 47% women, mean age = 40). Participants completed questionnaires assessing
psychological outcomes, stay-at-home order status, and COVID-19’s impact on their daily life.
Being under a stay-at-home order was associated with greater health anxiety, financial worry,
and loneliness. Moreover, the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life was positively
associated with health anxiety, financial worry, and social support, but negatively associated
with loneliness. Findings highlight the importance of social connection to mitigate negative
psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: anxiety; coronavirus; COVID-19; loneliness, social support
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 3
1. Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced on January 30, 2020 that the severe
acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern. Currently, COVID-19 has infected over 2 million people and resulted in
over 150,000 deaths across 210 countries (WHO, 2020). Currently, approximately 900,000
individuals in the U.S. have been infected with COVID-19 and over 50,000 have died due to the
virus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). Moreover, due to COVID-19’s
long incubation period, ease of transmission, high mortality rate (relative to the seasonal flu), and
lack of pharmacological interventions (Linton et al., 2020; Shereen et al., 2020), governments
have had to implement extraordinary physical distancing interventions to slow the spread of the
virus. Within the U.S., stay-at-home orders have been implemented in most states and the
District of Columbia (Mervosh et al., 2020).
From a public health perspective, there is strong justification for such interventions
physically separating people is an effective strategy for preventing the spread of infectious
diseases (Ahmed et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2014; Qualls et al., 2017), including COVID-19
(Flaxman et al., 2020; Thakkar et al., 2020). However, although stay-at-home orders are vital for
protecting physical health (CDC, 2020), such interventions can also be socially and economically
disruptive (Chen et al., 2011; Reger et al., 2020; Thunström et al., 2020). Indeed, recent reviews
have suggested that the negative social and economic consequences of current stay-at-home
orders and the COVID-19 pandemic itself (e.g., economic downturn, frequent exposure to
distressing media coverage) could contribute to adverse psychological outcomes, including
increased loneliness, reduced social support, depression, anxiety, and financial concerns
(Asmundson & Taylor, 2020; Courtet et al., 2020; Reger et al., 2020). Given the recent and
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 4
sudden emergence of COVID-19, research in this area is understandably limited. However,
several studies from China during the initial COVID-19 outbreak revealed associations of
COVID-19 with increased anxiety, depression, and stress (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020;
Zhang et al., 2020). Further, the overall impact of COVID-19 on the economy, daily life, and
social activity, greater social isolation, and the inability to work were associated with greater
psychological difficulties (Cao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Although research on the
psychological outcomes associated with COVID-19 is limited, available findings are consistent
with those obtained in past studies on the psychological consequences of other pandemics. For
example, Hawryluck et al. (2004) found that quarantine during the 2003 SARS outbreak was
associated with high rates of depression (31.2%) and anxiety (28.9%). Likewise, elevated levels
of anxiety were observed during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (Wheaton et al., 2012).
To extend this research to the psychological impact of COVID-19 in the U.S., the present
study examined associations of stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on
daily life to relevant psychological outcomes (i.e., depression, health anxiety, financial worry,
perceived social support, and loneliness). We predicted that both stay-at-home orders and the
perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life would evidence significant positive associations
with all psychological difficulties and a significant negative association with social support when
controlling for relevant demographic variables. We also predicted a significant interaction of
stay-at-home orders and perceived impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of interest, such that
the relation of stay-at-home order status to negative psychological outcomes would be stronger
for participants who perceived COVID-19 as having a greater impact on their daily life.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 5
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants included a nationwide community sample of 500 adults from 45 states in the
U.S. who completed online measures through an internet-based platform (Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk; MTurk) from March 27, 2020, through April 5, 2020. The study was posted to MTurk via
CloudResearch (cloudresearch.com), an online crowdsourcing platform linked to MTurk that
provides additional data collection features (e.g., creating selection criteria). MTurk is an online
labor market that provides “workers” with the opportunity to complete different tasks in
exchange for monetary compensation, such as completing questionnaires for research. As such,
MTurk provided the opportunity to collect a large nationwide sample in a relatively short amount
of time, facilitating timely examination of the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the
U.S. Data provided by MTurk-recruited participants have been found to be as reliable as data
collected through more traditional methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011). MTurk samples also have
the advantage of being more diverse than other internet-recruited or college student samples
(Buhrmester et al., 2011). For the present study, inclusion criteria included (1) U.S. resident, (2)
at least a 95% approval rating as an MTurk worker, (3) completion of at least 5,000 previous
MTurk tasks (referred to as Human Intelligence Tasks [HITS]), and (4) valid responses on
questionnaires (i.e., assessed by accurate completion of multiple attention check items).
Participants (47% women; 51.8% men; 0.2% transgender; 0.6% non-binary; 0.4% other)
ranged in age from 20 to 74 years (Mage = 40.0 ± 11.6). All states in the U.S. were represented,
with the exception of Delaware, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.
The states with the greatest representation in the sample were Florida (11.2%), California
(8.6%), Pennsylvania (6%), Texas (5.6%), New York (5.4%), North Carolina (4.6%), Michigan
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 6
(4.4%), Ohio (4%), Illinois (3.4%), and Washington (3%). Most participants identified as White
(85%), followed by Black/African-American (8.4%), Asian/Asian-American (6.6%), Latinx
(1.9%), and Native American (1.6%). Regarding educational attainment, 11.8% had completed
high school or received a GED, 35.6% had attended some college or technical school, 43% had
graduated from college, and 9.6% had advanced graduate/professional degrees. Most participants
were employed full-time (69.2%), followed by employed part-time (16.2%) and unemployed
(14.6%). Annual household income varied, with 30.6% of participants reporting an income of <
$35,000, 33.6% reporting an income of $35,000 to $64,999, and 35.8% reporting an income of >
$65,000. Regarding household composition, 58.6% of participants reported living alone and the
remaining 41.4% reported living with at least one other person (ranging from 2-8 other
household members; mean = 3.2 ± 1.1). In addition, 44.1% of participants reported having at
least one child in their household (ranging from 1-3 children in the household; mean = 0.72 ±
0.94). Few participants reported having sought out testing for COVID-19 (1%) or having been
infected with COVID-19 (0.8%).
2.2. Procedure
All procedures received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board. To
ensure the study was not being completed by a bot (i.e., an automated computer program used to
complete simple tasks), participants first responded to a Completely Automatic Public Turing
test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA) prior to providing informed consent. On
the consent form, participants were also informed that “…we have put in place a number of
safeguards to ensure that participants provide valid and accurate data for this study. If we have
strong reason to believe your data are invalid, your responses will not be approved or paid and
your data will be discarded.” Data were collected in blocks of nine participants at a time and all
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 7
data, including attention check items and geolocations, were examined by researchers before
compensation was provided. Attention check items included three explicit requests embedded
within the questionnaires (e.g., “If you are paying attention, choose ‘2’ for this question”), two
multiple-choice questions (e.g., “How many words are in this sentence?”), a math problem (e.g.,
“What is 4 plus 2”), and a free-response item (e.g., “Please briefly describe in a few sentences
what you did in this study”). Participants who failed one or more attention check items were
removed from the study (n = 53 of 553 completers). Workers who completed the study and
whose data were considered valid (based on attention check items and geolocations; N = 500)
were compensated $3.00 for their participation.
2.3. Measures
A demographic questionnaire assessed age, sex, annual income, household composition,
and racial/ethnic background.
COVID-19 related experiences and stressors were assessed via a 20-item measure
developed for this study. Participants were asked about a variety of relevant experiences
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Of interest to the present study were two questions
from this measure assessing: (1) stay-at-home order status (i.e., “Do you live in a state that has
instituted a stay-at-home order?” [0 = no; 1 = yes]); and (2) perceived impact of COVID-19 (i.e.,
“To what extent has the situation associated with COVID-19 affected the way you live your
life?”). Participants responded to the latter question using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (no impact at all) to 5 (impacted my life a great deal).
Current depression symptoms were assessed using the depression subscale of the 21-item
version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).
Participants are presented with a series of statements reflecting the experience of symptoms of
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 8
depression (e.g., “I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things,” “I felt that I had
nothing to look forward to”). Participants are instructed to rate each item on a 4-point Likert-type
scale indicating the extent to which the item applied to them in the past week (0 = “did not apply
to me at all”, 1 = “applied to me some of the time”, 2 = “applied to me a good part of the time”, 3
= “applied to me most of the time”). All items from the depression subscale were summed to
create one composite score (ranging from 0 21), with higher scores indicating greater
depression symptoms. This measure has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995). Internal consistency of the depression subscale was acceptable ( = .90).
The Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI; Abramowitz et al., 2007; Salkovskis et al.,
2002) is an 18-item self-report measure assessing health anxiety symptoms. For each item,
participants choose one response from a group of four statements of increasing severity (e.g., 1 =
I do not worry about my health, 2 = I occasionally worry about my health, 3 = I spend
much of my time worrying about my health, 4 = I spend most of my time worrying about my
health). The SHAI has demonstrated good reliability, internal consistency, and construct
validity (Salkovskis et al., 2002). All items were summed to create one composite score (ranging
from 18 72), with higher scores indicated greater health anxiety. Internal consistency in the
present sample was acceptable ( = .93).
Financial worry was assessed using three items from the Family Economic Strain Scale
(FESS; Hilton & Devall, 1997), which assesses concerns about the availability of finances in the
future (“I am afraid that my income will decrease;” “I worry about having money to celebrate
holidays and other special occasions;” and “I worry about financial matters”). Participants rate
items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Previous research
using the full scale has provided evidence for its reliability and construct validity (Hilton &
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 9
Devall, 1997). All items were summed to create one composite score (ranging from 3 15), with
higher scores indicting greater financial worry. Internal consistency of the items used in this
study were acceptance (α = 86).
The UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 (ULS-3; Russell, 1996) is a 20-item self-report
measure of perceptions of loneliness and social isolation. Participants rate items (e.g., “No one
really knows me well;” “I lack companionship;” “There are people I feel close to [reverse
scored]”) based on how often they apply to themselves on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Higher scores are indicative of greater loneliness. The ULS-3 has
demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability and good construct validity (Russell, 1996). All
items were summed to create one composite score (ranging from 20 80), with higher scores
indicating greater loneliness. Internal consistency in the present sample was acceptable (α = .94).
Perceived availability of social support was assessed using the Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988). The MSPSS is a 12-item measure
designed to assess perceived availability of social support from three primary sources: family
(e.g., “ I can talk about my problems with my family”), friends (e.g., “I can count on my friends
when things go wrong”), and significant others/special persons (e.g., “There is a special person
who is around when I am in need”). Participants rate items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The MSPSS has demonstrated good
test-retest reliability and discriminant and construct validity (Zimet et al., 1988). All items were
summed to create one composite score (ranging from 12 84), with higher scores indicating
greater social support. Internal consistency in the present sample was acceptable (α = 96).
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 10
2.4. Analysis Plan
Descriptive statistics for the primary variables of interest (stay-at-home order status,
perceived impact of COVID-19, depression symptom severity, health anxiety, financial worry,
loneliness, and social support) were computed, as were point-biserial and Pearson product-
moment correlations to examine zero-order associations among variables. Next, a series of
hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate hypotheses. Demographic
variables (i.e., age, sex, racial/ethnic background [racial/ethnic minority vs. non-minority],
income level [< $50,000/year vs. < $50,000/year], and whether participants lived alone or with
others) relevant to the outcome variables were entered in the first step of each model. Stay-at-
home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 (centered) were entered in the second step
of each model, followed by the product of these variables in the third step. Depression symptom
severity, health anxiety, financial worry, loneliness, and social support served as dependent
variables. Given that five regression models were conducted, p was set at .01. Unstandardized
betas are presented to allow evaluation of effect size. A power analysis demonstrated that a
sample size of 500 offered sufficient power (≥ .80) to detect a medium effect with an alpha level
of p = .01 (Faul et al., 2009).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
At the time of data collection, 82.4% (n = 412) of participants were living in states with
active stay-at-home orders. Participants living in states with stay-at-home orders had been under
these orders for an average of 5.71 days (SD = 4.54). Descriptive data for and correlations among
the primary variables of interest are presented in Table 1. Of note, one participant did not
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 11
complete the perceived impact of COVID-19 item and another did not complete the financial
worry items.
3.2. Primary Analyses
Outcomes for all regression models evaluating hypotheses are presented in Table 2.
3.2.1. Depression
The overall model was significant, accounting for 7% of the variance in depression
symptom severity, F (8, 490) = 4.53, p < .001, f = .24. However, neither stay-at-home order
status nor perceived impact of COVID-19 accounted for a significant amount of unique variance
in depression symptom severity above and beyond the covariates, ΔR2 = .01, F (2, 491) = 2.16, p
= .116, f = .07, although both age and income level were uniquely negatively associated with
depression symptom severity in this step of the model. The addition of the interaction between
stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 did not significantly improve the
model, ΔR2 = .00, F (1, 490) = .02, p = .879, f = .00.
3.2.2. Health Anxiety
The overall model was significant, accounting for 8% of the variance in health anxiety, F
(8, 490) = 5.24, p < .001, f = .26. The addition of stay-at-home order status and perceived impact
of COVID-19 in the second step of the model accounted for significant variance in health
anxiety above and beyond covariates, ΔR2 = .05, F (2, 491) = 12.02, p < .001, f = .21, with both
stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 demonstrating significant unique
positive associations with health anxiety. Likewise, female sex was uniquely positively
associated with health anxiety and income level was uniquely negatively associated with health
anxiety in this step of the model. The addition of the interaction between stay-at-home order
status and perceived impact of COVID-19 did not significantly improve the model, ΔR2 = .00, F
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 12
(1, 490) = 1.02, p = .312, f = .01.
3.2.3. Financial Worry
The overall model was significant, accounting for 14% of the variance in financial worry,
F (8, 489) = 9.60, p < .001, f = .37. Stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-
19 accounted for significant unique variance in financial worry above and beyond covariates,
ΔR2 = .04, F (2, 490) = 10.21, p < .001, f = .19, with both stay-at-home order status and
perceived impact of COVID-19 emerging as significant unique predictors. In addition, income
level was uniquely negatively associated with financial worry in this step of the model. The
addition of the interaction between stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19
did not significantly improve the model, ΔR2 = .00, F (1, 489) = 0.27, p = .605, f = .00.
3.2.4. Loneliness
The overall model was significant, accounting for 10% of the variance in loneliness, F (8,
490) = 7.08, p < .001, f = .31. The addition of stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of
COVID-19 in the second step of the model accounted for significant variance in loneliness above
and beyond covariates, ΔR2 = .04, F (2, 491) = 9.64, p < .001, f = .19. However, whereas stay-at-
home order status was significantly positively associated with loneliness, the perceived impact of
COVID-19 was significantly negatively associated with loneliness. In addition, income level was
uniquely negatively associated with loneliness in this step of the model. The addition of the
interaction between stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 did not
significantly improve the model, ΔR2 = .00, F (1, 490) = 0.08, p = .783, f = .00.
3.2.5. Perceived Social Support
The overall model was significant, accounting for 12% of the variance in perceived social
support, F (8, 490) = 8.13, p < .001, f = .34. Stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 13
COVID-19 accounted for significant variance in perceived social support above and beyond the
covariates, ΔR2 = .03, F (2, 491) = 9.27, p < .001, f = .18. However, only perceived impact of
COVID-19 was uniquely associated with perceived social support, and this association was
positive (vs. negative as hypothesized). In addition, income level was uniquely positively
associated with perceived social support in this step of the model. The addition of the interaction
between stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 did not significantly
improve the model, ΔR2 = .00, F (1, 490) = 0.07, p = .792, f = .00.
3.3. Exploratory Analyses
Given evidence of robust age and sex differences in the outcomes of interest (Altemus,
2006; Borys & Perlman, 1985; Christensen et al., 1999; Luhman & Hawkley, 2016), as well as
evidence that the impact of COVID-19 may vary as a function of age and sex (Dowd et al., 2020;
Wenham et al., 2020), a series of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to
explore whether age or sex moderated associations between (a) stay-at-home orders and
psychological outcomes (2-way interaction); (b) the perceived impact of COVID-19 and
psychological outcomes (2-way interaction); and (c) the interaction of stay-at-home order status
and the perceived impact of COVID-19 and psychological outcomes (3-way interaction). None
of the examined interactions significantly improved the models. Specifically, none of the 2-way
or 3-way interactions involving age accounted for significant variance in any of the
psychological outcomes (ΔR2s = .00 to .01, Fs < 1.80, ps > .148, fs < .07). Likewise, none of the
interactions involving sex accounted for significant unique variance in any psychological
outcomes (ΔR2s = .00 to .005, Fs < .95, ps > .332, fs = .00).
Finally, given that the presence of children in the household could exacerbate some of the
negative psychological outcomes associated with COVID-19 and related stay-at-home orders
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 14
(e.g., health anxiety, financial worries), an exploratory hierarchical linear regression was
conducted to examine the main and interactive effects of having children in the home on
psychological outcomes. Given the overlap between variables representing whether participants
lived alone and whether participants had children in their home 2 = 78.91, p < .001), the former
variable was removed from this model. Results revealed no significant unique associations
between having children in the home and any of the psychological outcomes of interest (bs = -
.29 to .29, ps > .023). Likewise, none of the interactions of having children in the home with
stay-at-home order status or the perceived impact of COVID-19 were significant in any of the
models R2s = .00 to .008, Fs < 1.42, ps > .237, fs < .06). Notably, the same pattern of non-
significant associations for all main and interactive effects involving having children in the home
was found when using a continuous variable reflecting the number of children in the household
(vs. the dichotomous variable reflecting the presence or absence of children in the home).
4. Discussion
The goal of the present study was to examine associations of stay-at-home orders and the
perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life to relevant psychological outcomes (i.e., depression,
health anxiety, financial worry, perceived social support, and loneliness). Study hypotheses were
partially supported. Although the interaction of stay-at-home order status and the perceived
impact of COVID-19 on daily life did not account for significant variance in any of the
outcomes, each of these factors was independently associated with several psychological
outcomes. As predicted, being under a stay-at-home order was associated with greater health
anxiety, financial worry, and loneliness, consistent with the theorized unintended negative
consequences of such orders (Reger et al., 2020) and past research on the psychological
consequences of quarantine during a pandemic (Brooks et al., 2020). Moreover, consistent with
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 15
research on the psychological consequences of COVID-19 in China (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et
al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020) and past research on the psychological consequences of other
pandemics (Tausczik et al., 2012; Wheaton et al., 2012), the perceived impact of COVID-19 on
daily life was associated with greater health anxiety and financial worry. Contrary to predictions,
the perceived impact of COVID-19 was negatively associated with loneliness and positively
associated with social support.
Stay-at-home orders or experiencing changes to daily life habits due to COVID-19 may
increase perceptions of risk for harm to one’s physical, social, and financial health, resulting in
increased health anxiety and financial worry. Moreover, stay-at-home orders may result in
sudden changes to one’s social life. Reduced contact with once common social connections may
initially bring about increased feelings of loneliness and social isolation. However, findings also
suggest that one potential positive outcome of this pandemic may be an increase in social support
seeking or connectedness as individuals try to adjust to changes in daily life. Although being
under a stay-at-home order was associated with increased loneliness, the perception that COVID-
19 had a greater impact on one’s daily life was associated with increased social support and
reduced loneliness. These findings are consistent with suggestions that the wide-spread shared
experience of COVID-19 may increase closeness and social cohesion (Courtet et al., 2020),
similar to what has been observed in past mass tragedies (Calo-Blanco et al., 2017; Hawdon &
Ryan, 2011).
Notably, despite evidence that the impact of COVID-19 may vary as a function of age
and sex (Dowd et al., 2020; Wenham et al., 2020), results revealed few associations between age
or sex and the psychological outcomes of interest. Likewise, none of the examined associations
of stay-at-home order status or the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life with
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 16
psychological outcomes varied as a function of age or sex. Together, these results suggest that
the associations of stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 with
psychological outcomes at least in the early stages of this pandemic and related public health
interventions do not differ as a function of age or sex. However, whether these associations
will become stronger for individuals of a particular sex or age group as the pandemic persists
remains to be determined. Conversely, income level was uniquely inversely associated with
health anxiety, financial worry, and loneliness, and uniquely positively associated with perceived
social support. As such, these findings suggest that individuals with lower incomes may be
particularly at-risk for the negative psychological outcomes of COVID-19 and related social and
economic consequences. As this pandemic and related social distancing interventions persist
(even if to a lesser degree), widespread interventions focused on promoting mental health and
well-being (including a sense of connection) among less financially secure individuals are also
needed.
Study limitations warrant consideration. The use of cross-sectional data precludes
conclusions about the nature or direction of the associations examined. We also do not know the
extent with which these psychological symptoms existed prior to COVID-19 and the
implementation of stay-at-home orders. Likewise, self-report questionnaires may be influenced
by social desirability or recall difficulties that could affect the validity of provided data. Future
studies would benefit from incorporating structured clinical interviews and/or timeline follow-
back procedures to assess psychological symptoms and their temporal relation to physical
distancing or COVID-19-related stressors. Given our recruitment methods and sample (relatively
non-diverse self-selected MTurk workers), results may not generalize to the larger U.S.
population, other countries, or vulnerable populations (e.g., individuals with chronic medical
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 17
conditions; health care workers; hospitalized patients). Replication of findings is needed within
other samples and populations.
In addition, results only speak to the early associations of stay-at-home orders and the
perceived impact of COVID-19 to psychological outcomes, and these variables accounted for
only a modest amount of the variance in the examined outcomes. Longer-term prospective
studies are needed to evaluate if the observed relations increase or decrease in magnitude as the
pandemic continues. Indeed, studies on the trajectory of psychological symptoms over the course
of past pandemics have found that, although initial reactions tend to be characterized by elevated
levels of anxiety and worry, these symptoms tend to decrease over the course of the pandemic
(Jones & Salathé, 2009; Tausczik et al., 2011). Given the relatively high mortality rate associated
with COVID-19, the lack of adequate testing in some countries, and the absence of effective
pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19, it remains to be seen whether a similar trajectory
will occur with the current pandemic. Finally, it will be important for future research to examine
the relation of these psychological outcomes to future adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. For
example, individuals with elevated health anxiety may engage in greater help-seeking behavior
(e.g., visiting emergency rooms, visiting multiple doctors), taxing health care resources.
Alternatively, health anxiety may be associated with the avoidance of seeking out care due to
fears of contagion, potentially putting the individual’s physical health at risk if they are infected
with COVID-19 or suffering from another medical problem that requires attention (Asmundson
& Taylor, 2020). Likewise, loneliness may contribute to alcohol abuse (Åkerlind & Hörnquist,
1992) or increased suicide risk (Calati et al., 2019; Joiner et al., 2012).
Despite limitations, results of this study highlight associations between stay-at-home
orders, the perceived impact of COVID-19 on an individual’s life, and a variety of positive and
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 18
negative psychological outcomes. In the absence of effective infection prevention efforts, wide-
spread testing and tracking, and/or pharmacological interventions (e.g., vaccines) for COVID-19,
large-scale public health interventions such as physical distancing or stay-at-home orders are
necessary to reduce the spread of the virus and infection-related mortality. However, in the
context of these necessary public health interventions, results of this study highlight the need for
concurrent psychological interventions aimed at mitigating the potential negative psychological
consequences of COVID-19 and related social distancing interventions, including interventions
aimed at increasing social connection and social support (Reger et al., 2020). In particular, as this
pandemic persists, it is imperative that evidence-based tele-mental health services are made
available and accessible to vulnerable individuals throughout the duration of stay-at-home orders
and other social distancing interventions (Reger et al., 2020).
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 19
References
Abramowitz JS, Deacon BJ, Valentiner DP, 2007. The Short Health Anxiety Inventory:
Psychometric properties and construct validity in a non-clinical sample. Cognit. Ther.
Res. 31, 871-883.
Ahmed F, Zviedrite N, Uzicanin A, 2018. Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures
in reducing influenza transmission: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 18, 518.
Åkerlind I, Hörnquist JO, 1992. Loneliness and alcohol abuse: A review of evidences of an
interplay. Soc. Sci. Med. 34, 405-414.
Altemus M, 2006. Sex differences in depression and anxiety disorders: potential biological
determinants. Horm. Behav. 50, 534-538.
Asmundson GJ, Taylor S, 2020. How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like
COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals
need to know. J. Anxiety Disord. 71, 102211.
Borys S, Perlman D, 1985. Gender differences in loneliness. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 11, 63-74.
Brooks SK, Webster RK., Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, Rubin GJ, 2020.
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the
evidence. Lancet. 395, 912-920.
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD, 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of
inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3-5.
Calati R, Ferrari C, Brittner M, Oasi O, Olié E, Carvalho AF, Courtet P, 2019. Suicidal thoughts
and behaviors and social isolation: A narrative review of the literature. J. Affect. Disord.
245, 653-667.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 20
Calo-Blanco A, Kovářík J, Mengel F, Romero JG, 2017. Natural disasters and indicators of
social cohesion. PloS one. 12, e0176885.
Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, Zheng J, 2020. The psychological impact of the
COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 287, 112934.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19).
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
Chen WC, Huang AS, Chuang JH, Chiu CC, Kuo HS, 2011. Social and economic impact of
school closure resulting from pandemic influenza A/H1N1. J. Infect. 62, 200-203.
Christensen H, Jorm AF, Mackinnon AJ, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Henderson AS, Rodgers B,
1999. Age differences in depression and anxiety symptoms: a structural equation
modelling analysis of data from a general population sample. Psychol. Med. 29, 325-339.
Courtet P, Olié E, Debien C, Vaiva G, 2020. Keep socially (but not physically) connected and
carry on: Preventing suicide in the age of COVID-19. J. Clin. Psychiatry. 81,
20com13370.
Dowd JB, Andriano L, Brazel DM, Rotondi V, Block P, Ding X, ... & Mills MC, 2020.
Demographic science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 9696-9698.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG, 2009. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1:
Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Meth. 41, 1149-1160.
Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, Unwin HJT, Coupland H, Mellan T, . . . Bhatt S, 2020.
Estimating the number of infections and impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on
COVID-19 in 11 European countries. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team,
London, March 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.25561/77731
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 21
Jackson C, Mangtani P, Hawker J, Olowokure B, Vynnycky E, 2014. The effects of school
closures on influenza outbreaks and pandemics: Systematic review of simulation
studies. PLoS One. 9, e97297.
Joiner TA, Ribeiro JD, Silva C, 2012. Nonsuicidal self-injury, suicidal behavior, and their co-
occurrence as viewed through the lens of the interpersonal theory of suicide. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 21, 342-347.
Jones JH, Salathe M, 2009. Early assessment of anxiety and behavioral response to novel swine-
origin influenza A (H1N1). PLoS One. 4, e8032.
Hawdon J, Ryan J, 2011. Social relations that generate and sustain solidarity after a mass
tragedy. Soc. Forces. 89, 1363-1384.
Hawryluck L, Gold WL, Robinson S, Pogorski S, Galea S, Styra R, 2004. SARS control and
psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 1206-1212.
Hilton JM, Devall EL, 1997. The Family Economic Strain Scale: Development and evaluation of
the instrument with single-and two-parent families. J. Fam. Econ. Issues. 18, 247-271.
Linton M, Kobayashi T, Yang Y, Hayashi K, Akhmetzhanov AR, Jung S, Yuan B, Kinoshita R,
Nishiura H, 2020. Incubation period and other epidemiological characteristics of 2019
novel coronavirus infections with right truncation: A statistical analysis of publicly
available case data. J. Clin. Med. 9, 538.
Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH, 1995. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety
Inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 33, 335-343.
Luhmann M, Hawkley LC, 2016. Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest
old age. Dev. Psychol. 52, 943-959.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 22
Mervosh S, Lu D, Swales V, 2020, April 7. See which states and cities have told residents
to stay at home. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html
Reger MA, Stanley IH, Joiner TE, 2020. Suicide mortality and coronavirus disease 2019- A
perfect storm? JAMA Psychiatry. Published online April 10, 2020.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1060.
Russell DW, 1996. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. J. Pers. Assess. 66, 20-40.
Salkovskis PM, Rimes KA, Warwick HMC, Clark DM, 2002. The Health Anxiety Inventory:
Development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and
hypochondriasis. Psychol. Med. 32, 843-853.
Shereen MA, Khan S, Kazmi A, Bashir N, Siddique B, 2020. COVID-19 infection: Origin,
transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses. J. Adv. Res. 24, 91-98.
Tausczik Y, Faasse K, Pennebaker JW, Petrie KJ, 2012. Public anxiety and information seeking
following the H1N1 outbreak: blogs, newspaper articles, and Wikipedia visits. Health
Commun. 27, 179-185.
Thakkar N, Burstein R, Hu H, Selvajar P, Klein D, 2020. Social distancing and mobility
reductions have reduced COVID-19 transmission in King County, WA. Report prepared
by Institute for Disease Modeling. Published online March 29, 2020. Retrieved from
https://covid.idmod.org/data/Social_distancing_mobility_reductions_reduced_COVID_S
eattle.pdf
Thunström L, Newbold SC, Finnoff SC, Ashworth M, Shogren JF, 2020. The benefits and costs
of flattening the curve for COVID-19. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-17.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 23
Wang C, Riyu P, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, Ho CS, Ho RC, 2020. Immediate psychological
responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health. 17, 1729.
Wenham C, Smith J, Morgan R, 2020. COVID-19: The gendered impacts of the outbreak.
Lancet. 395, 846-848.
Wheaton MG, Abramowitz JS, Berman NC, Fabricant LE, Olatunji BO, 2012. Psychological
predictors of anxiety in response to the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. Cognit. Ther. Res.
36, 210-218.
World Health Organization, 2020. Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-
happen
Zhang SX, Wang Y, Rauch A, Wei F, 2020. Unprecedented disruption of lives and work: Health,
distress, and life satisfaction of working adults in China one month into the COVID-19
outbreak. Psychiatry Res. 288, 112958.
Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK, 1988. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support. J. Pers. Assess. 52, 30-41.
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 24
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for and correlations among primary variables of interest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
---
.06
(.190)
.08
(.080)
.10
(.020)
.09
(.030)
.13
(.005)
-.08
(.078)
---
.00
(.957)
.19
(<.001)
.13
(.004)
-.16
(<.001)
.20
(<.001)
---
.47
(<.001)
.40
(<.001)
.54
(<.001)
-.39
(<.001)
---
.41
(<.001)
.38
(<.001)
-.24
(<.001)
---
.34
(<.001)
.24
(<.001)
---
-.79
(<.001)
---
82.4%
3.97
7.51
32.29
8.67
2.01
5.38
---
1.05
9.05
9.32
3.53
0.66
1.41
Note. p values are presented in parentheses below the correlation statistic. Stay-at-home = “Do
you live in a state that has instituted a stay-at-home order?” (0 = no; 1 = yes); COVID-19 impact
= “To what extent has the situation associated with COVID-19 affected the way you live your
life?”
COVID-19 and Psychological Outcomes 25
Table 2. Main and interactive associations of stay-at-home order status and perceived impact of COVID-19 to psychological outcomes (N =
500).
Depression Severity
___________________
Health Anxiety
_________________
Financial Worry
__________________
Loneliness
__________________
Social Support
___________________
Variable
b
SE
p
b
SE
p
b
SE
p
b
SE
p
b
SE
p
Step 1
Race
-1.03
1.12
.358
-0.22
1.17
.850
0.42
0.43
.328
-0.12
0.08
.152
0.44
0.17
.011
Age
-0.14
0.04
.000
-0.05
0.04
.180
0.001
0.01
.925
-0.01
0.003
.015
0.01
0.01
.197
Sex
0.54
0.81
.503
2.35
0.85
.006
0.77
0.31
.014
-0.07
0.06
.244
0.21
0.13
.091
Income
-2.83
0.81
.001
-1.74
0.85
.042
-2.04
0.31
.000
-0.27
0.06
.000
0.56
0.13
.000
Live alone
0.82
1.03
.427
1.59
1.08
.141
0.99
0.40
.013
-0.05
0.08
.505
0.36
0.16
.023
Step 2
Race
-0.68
1.13
.548
0.52
1.16
.656
0.70
0.43
.101
-0.10
0.08
.231
0.44
0.17
.011
Age
-0.14
0.04
.000
-0.07
0.04
.072
-0.003
0.01
.816
-0.01
0.003
.032
0.01
0.01
.369
Sex
0.61
0.81
.458
2.19
0.84
.009
0.75
0.31
.015
-0.04
0.06
.455
0.16
0.12
.200
Income
-3.02
0.82
.000
-2.17
0.84
.010
-2.20
0.31
.000
-0.28
0.06
.000
0.56
0.12
.000
Live alone
0.85
1.04
.415
1.14
1.07
.285
0.89
0.39
.023
-0.01
0.08
.897
0.27
0.16
.092
Stay-at-
Home
2.11
1.05
.045
2.78
1.08
.010
1.28
0.40
.001
0.25
0.08
.001
-0.32
0.16
.043
COVID-19
Impact
0.17
0.39
.666
1.60
0.40
.000
0.43
0.15
.003
-0.09
0.03
.002
0.23
0.06
.000
Step 3
Interaction
0.16
1.06
.879
1.10
1.08
.312
0.21
0.40
.605
0.02
0.08
.783
-0.04
0.16
.792
Note. p values listed as .000 are p < .001. Race = Racial/ethnic background (0 = racial/ethnic minority, 1 = non-minority); Sex (0 = Male; 1 =
Female); Income = income level (0 = < $50,000/year; 1 = < $50,000/year); Live alone = Whether participants live alone or have other
individuals in their household (0 = live alone; 1 = live with others); Stay-at-home = “Do you live in a state that has instituted a stay-at-home
order?” (0 = no; 1 = yes); COVID-19 impact = “To what extent has the situation associated with COVID-19 affected the way you live your
life?;” Interaction = Stay-at-home status × Perceived impact of COVID-19.
... COVID-19 has had a tumultuous and uncertain course. Infection exacerbated the atmosphere of uncertainty and existential dread [117,122,123], resulting in economic insecurity and panic over the loss of critical resources such as possible accomplishments, relatedness, and monetary resource attainments for meeting essential physiological needs [124,125]. Restrictions and impositions, on the other hand, are stressful and debilitating, as they breed marginalization, isolation, and social rejection [126]. ...
... Traumatic occurrences, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cause extreme dread and, as a result, an unpleasant, terrible, and agonizing sense of hopelessness. These findings align with Jahangiry et al. (2020) [117], Killgore and Cloonan (2020) [122], and Tull et al. (2020) [123], supporting Cypryanska and Nezlek's (2020) [116] findings, as well as Obrenovic et al.'s (2021) [137] and Aguilar-Quintana's (2021) [138]. ...
... Traumatic occurrences, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cause extreme dread and, as a result, an unpleasant, terrible, and agonizing sense of hopelessness. These findings align with Jahangiry et al. (2020) [117], Killgore and Cloonan (2020) [122], and Tull et al. (2020) [123], supporting Cypryanska and Nezlek's (2020) [116] findings, as well as Obrenovic et al.'s (2021) [137] and Aguilar-Quintana's (2021) [138]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an abundance of news and information dominating media outlets, leading to a widespread atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, potentially having adverse effects on mental health. This study aims to explore whether social media exposure contributes to anxiety and depression. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted using a standardized questionnaire to collect data on social media exposure, fear of COVID-19, depression, and anxiety from 327 employed individuals in the United States. Structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the relationships between social media exposure, fear of COVID-19, anxiety, and depression. The results suggest that fear of COVID-19 leads to anxiety and depression, and that social media exposure leads to fear, anxiety, and depression. These findings highlight the potential adverse effects of social media exposure and fear on mental health and suggest that reducing social media exposure could help minimize anxiety levels. It also emphasizes the significance of understanding the impact of fear of COVID-19 on anxiety and depression and provides guidance for managing and coping with fear in this pandemic. This study’s relevance lies in gaining critical insights into the pros and cons of using social media for health-related information during a pandemic. The novelty of this study lies in its unique perspective on the impact of adverse information that has distinct psychological and social implications.
... posttraumatic stress, perceived social support) might have been better off during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. 8,11,12,14 Although there may be numerous reasons for the mixed evidence on changes in well-being during the public health crisis (e.g. sample variation), these findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may not have had a homogenous impact on different facets of wellbeing. ...
Article
Objectives: Examine differences in multidimensional well-being from before (January 2020) to three timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020, January 2021, January 2022). Study design: Repeated cross-sectional design. Methods: Nationally representative cross-sectional cohorts of US adults completed the Secure Flourish Index before (January 2020 cohort: N = 1010) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020 cohort: N = 3020; January 2021 cohort: N = 3366; January 2022 cohort: N = 2598). We estimated differences in indicators, domains, and composite well-being between the January 2020 cohort and each of the subsequent cohorts. We also explored whether changes in well-being between January 2020 and January 2022 varied based on age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Results: Initial declines in well-being observed by June 2020 were largely followed by a return to prepandemic levels in January 2022, with some exceptions. Notably, general declines in mental health have persisted through to January 2022. On the other hand, there was evidence of general improvements in character & virtue that exceeded prepandemic levels in January 2022. Young adults and racial/ethnic minorities reported lower financial & material stability in January 2022 compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Although there are promising signs that the well-being of US adults has mostly recovered to prepandemic levels, a coordinated response is urgently needed to support population mental health and the financial security of vulnerable groups. As society continues the journey toward postpandemic recovery, continued tracking of multidimensional well-being will be important for making informed decisions about public health priorities.
... От своя страна това може да окаже сериозни негативни последствия върху семейството, включително проява на симптоми на посттрав матичен стрес у децата (Demaria and Vicari, 2021). Според други автори мерките за оставане по домовете са свързани с повишаване на тревожността за здравето, притеснения за финансовото състояние и усещането за самота (Tull et al., 2020). ...
Book
Full-text available
This volume is compiled from selected texts and presentations delivered at the International Conference “Ethnography of Disasters”, which took place in May 2021 in Sofia, in the premises of the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of sciences. The conference was implemented within the project “Local Disasters and the Quality of Life: Cultural Strategies in Coping with Natural, Technological and Biological Disasters”, funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund 2018–2022 (DN 20/5: 11.12.2017 – 09.06.2022). The scholar event was designed to bring together scholars from different fields of humanities and social sciences to initiate an interdisciplinary discussion on historical and contemporary research on different categories of disasters – natural, biological and technological – but also to address disaster management, recovery, evacuation and mobility, and their cultural implications in local, national and global contexts. The Forum presented research on disasters and catastrophes with different foci: studying the ways in which cultural belief systems, behaviours, institutions, and stereotypes specific to a group or society put at the centre of the catastrophe befalling that society, susceptibility/vulnerability, preparation, mobilisation, prevention and recovery. Everyday culture, locally and as a whole, contains cultural mechanisms (peculiar programs or strategies) by which disaster is triggered or facilitated, as well as met, in order to respond. The pandemic of COVID–19, which occurred in the early 2020s, has created new aspects and contexts in disaster studies, which has inevitably affected not only their methodology but has also broadened their thematic circles. The collection contains four parts that bring together different research issues and interdisciplinary techniques of inquiry and analysis. Part I, Approaches to Disaster Studies, includes texts that focus on specific methods in thematic studies of disasters in the past and present. Part Two, Fieldwork Research and Local Disasters, offers a variety of local investigations and features fieldwork across a wide spatial range. The third part, entitled Disaster Containment and Management, brings together different cases of coping with disasters and overcoming their effects as a result of the efforts of different communities, institutions, and organizations. The fourth part, Ethnography of a Global Disaster – COVID-19, is devoted to research on the COVID-19 pandemic and reflects a palette of current research issues. The authors in this collection are responsible for the content of their texts, the correct spelling of sources cited, and the use of copyrighted material. It was a challenge for the initiators and editors to create this compilation of diverse perspectives on the emerging topic of “Ethnography of Disasters.” We hope that the collection will make an initial but continuing contribution to the development of research on this topic and will draw scholarly, public, and institutional attention to the issues discussed. We thank the BNSF for the opportunity to make the Project, the International Conference and its publication possible!
... El COVID-19 ocasionó bastas consecuencias desde su aparición; de acuerdo con la Organización Mundial de la Salud (WHO, 2020) a nivel mundial se produjeron más de 27 millones de casos, adicional a las defunciones que se han presentado como consecuencia de esta pandemia (Tull, 2020). Sin duda, uno de los agravantes con mayor impacto hacía la salud, tanto física, como mental de la población, y, en favor de salvaguardarla, fue la modificación de circunstancias y hábitos a los que el individuo se encontraba acostumbrado a largo plazo, lo que dio un giro completo a la forma de vivir la vida. ...
Article
Full-text available
Dadas las condiciones en las que se ha desarrollado el mundo laboral desde el año 2019, debido a la pandemia del COVID-19, es menester prestar atención cómo han influido dichas condiciones en el cansancio emocional, despersonalización y la realización personal de quienes se han visto expuestos a la pandemia. La presente investigación tiene como objetivo valorar el nivel del síndrome de Burnout y ansiedad clínica en los trabajadores de la empresa “Luminox” en el año 2022. Se aplicó el método cuali-cuantitativo, con una muestra no probabilística de 108 trabajadores, mediante el uso del cuestionario Maslach Burnout Inventory que consta de 22 ítems. Así como, del Inventario de ansiedad de Beck, test conformado por 21 preguntas. Como parte de los resultados, se evidenció que la empresa posee un 67,97% de riesgo alto para el diagnóstico en síndrome de Burnout. Se valoró un nivel de agotamiento emocional alto del 53%, despersonalización alta del 75%, realización personal baja del 75,93% y ansiedad clínica moderada de 45,37%, entre otros resultados. A partir de esto, se concluyó que la mayoría de trabajadores contagiados por COVID – 19 presentaron niveles clínicos altos de agotamiento personal, ansiedad clínica modera y bajos niveles de realización personal. El grupo de estudio con puntajes más altos para ansiedad clínica moderada fueron quienes actualmente no se encontraban estudiado y quienes poseen niveles de escolaridad básicos.
... Foi perceptível o aumento de transtornos mentais a nível mundial associados a pandemia e suas consequências. Estudos demonstram uma prevalência estimada de 33,7% para depressão, 31,9% para ansiedade e 29,6% para sintomas relacionados ao estresse durante o período pandêmico, sendo a população feminina o alvo preferencial destes problemas (4,5). ...
Article
Kovid-19 salgını insan psikolojisine dair bir tehdit oluşturmakta ve anksiyete seviyesinde artışa sebep olabilmektedir. Bireyler salgın sürecindeki belirsizlikle birlikte sağlık, ekonomi, eğitim ya da gelecek gibi farklı alanlar hakkında endişe duymaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, Yaygın Anksiyete Bozukluğu (YAB) semptomlarında artış olması beklenmektedir. Mevcut çalışma, Kovid-19 kaynaklı endişe ve YAB semptomları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi ve farkındalık, bilişsel kontrol ve bilişsel esneklik faktörlerinin bu ilişki üzerindeki aracı rollerini araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu çalışmaya 18 ile 75 yaşları arasındaki 458 kişi katılmıştır (%78.4 kadın, %21.6 erkek). Veriler Kovid-19 kaynaklı endişe (KKE), YAB semptomları, Bilinçli Farkındalık (BF), Bilişsel Esneklik (BE) ve Bilişsel Kontrol (BK) öz-bildirim ölçekleri kullanılarak çevrimiçi anket yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Mevcut çalışmanın sonuçları, KKE’nin YAB semptomlarını anlamlı biçimde yordadığını göstermiştir. Salgının sonuçlarına ilişkin endişeler arttıkça YAB semptomları da artmaktadır. Dahası, bu ilişkiye BF ve BK aracı etmektedir. Bilinçli farkındalığı ve BK yüksek olan kişiler daha az YAB semptomu raporlamışlardır. BE kaygı semptomlarını azalttığı bilinse de aracı rolü bu ilişkide anlamlı bulunmamıştır. YAB’da, bireylerin kaygıları gerçek dışı olmasa da çoğunlukla gerçek bir tehdit ile de bağlantılı değildir. Fakat salgına ilişkin endişeler gerçek bir tehdit ile ilişkili olduğundan salgın hakkındaki inançlar ve düşünceler işlevsiz olmayabilir. Bu inançları değiştirmektense, bilişsel kontrolde olduğu gibi, dikkati amaç doğrultusunda yönlendirebilme becerisine sahip olmak daha anlamlı olabilir. Ayrıca, salgın pek çok insanı olumsuz etkilemiştir. Bu deneyimleri yargılayıcı olmayan bir şekilde kabul etmek daha işlevsel bir yol olabilir. Sonuçlarımız, salgın sırasında YAB semptomlarına sahip olan bireylerin bilinçli farkındalık ve bilişsel kontrol temelli müdahalelerden faydalanabileceğini vurgulamaktadır.
Article
Full-text available
Background and Objectives Global pandemics, including COVID-19, have a significant effect on mental health, and this may be especially true for individuals with health anxiety. Although health anxiety is related to both pandemic-related fears and perceptions of health risks, there is a paucity of research on individual difference variables that might exert an influence on these relationships. The present study examined intolerance of uncertainty (IU) as a potential moderator of the relationship between health anxiety and COVID-related stress, and the relationship between health anxiety and perceived risk of contracting COVID. Design and Methods A nationally representative sample of North American adults (N = 204) completed self-report measures of health anxiety, IU, COVID-related stress, and perceived risk of contracting COVID. Results Prospective IU moderated the positive relationship between health anxiety and COVID-related stress, as the relationship was strengthened at average and higher levels of prospective IU. Neither IU subscale moderated the relationship between health anxiety and perceived risk. Conclusion These results suggest that individuals with elevated health anxiety and high prospective IU may be at higher risk of experiencing COVID-related stress, illuminating the interplay of risk factors that place anxious populations at an increased risk of experiencing stress during acute health risks.
Article
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has put more than just our physical health at risk. Due to containment measures, people have become increasingly isolated and have drastically reduced their daily social interactions. Many studies have already shown the negative effects of these measures, including fatalism. However, research linking fatalism during COVID-19 to well-being indicators is still limited. The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between COVID-19-related fatalism and well-being indicators, as well as the role of loneliness in moderating this relationship. Data was collected from 1,036 adults in Peru through an online survey that included the Quality-of-Life Index, the Fatalism Facing COVID-19 Scale, the Loneliness Scale, and the Mood Assessment Scale. Three models were tested using linear regression and ordinary least squares with bias-corrected bootstrapping. The results indicate that fatalism has a negative impact on quality of life and a positive effect on negative affect, and loneliness moderates both relationships, supporting the conclusion that fatalism exacerbates the effect of well-being indicators and negative affect.
Article
In March 2020, the U.S. declared a state of emergency and stay-at-home orders were issued. This included school closures and limitation of dental practice to emergency treatment only. While public health measures were very much needed, it was not without unintended consequences. School closures only compound the economic, health and achievement inequities, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged children, which also includes access to dental care. As we emerged from the stay-at-home orders, dental practices have had to adapt and evolve.
Preprint
Full-text available
Following the emergence of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe is now experiencing large epidemics. In response, many European countries have implemented unprecedented non-pharmaceutical interventions including case isolation, the closure of schools and universities, banning of mass gatherings and/or public events, and most recently, widescale social distancing including local and national lockdowns. In this report, we use a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model to attempt to infer the impact of these interventions across 11 European countries. Our methods assume that changes in the reproductive number-a measure of transmission-are an immediate response to these interventions being implemented rather than broader gradual changes in behaviour. Our model estimates these changes by calculating backwards from the deaths observed over time to estimate transmission that occurred several weeks prior, allowing for the time lag between infection and death. One of the key assumptions of the model is that each intervention has the same effect on the reproduction number across countries and over time. This allows us to leverage a greater amount of data across Europe to estimate these effects. It also means that our results are driven strongly by the data from countries with more advanced epidemics, and earlier interventions, such as Italy and Spain. We find that the slowing growth in daily reported deaths in Italy is consistent with a significant impact of interventions implemented several weeks earlier. In Italy, we estimate that the effective reproduction number, Rt, dropped to close to 1 around the time of lockdown (11th March), although with a high level of uncertainty. Overall, we estimate that countries have managed to reduce their reproduction number. Our estimates have wide credible intervals and contain 1 for countries that have implemented all interventions considered in our analysis. This means that the reproduction number may be above or below this value. With current interventions remaining in place to at least the end of March, we estimate that interventions across all 11 countries will have averted 59,000 deaths up to 31 March [95% credible interval 21,000-120,000]. Many more deaths will be averted through ensuring that interventions remain in place until transmission drops to low levels. We estimate that, across all 11 countries between 7 and 43 million individuals have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 28th March, Page 2 of 35 representing between 1.88% and 11.43% of the population. The proportion of the population infected to date-the attack rate-is estimated to be highest in Spain followed by Italy and lowest in Germany and Norway, reflecting the relative stages of the epidemics. Given the lag of 2-3 weeks between when transmission changes occur and when their impact can be observed in trends in mortality, for most of the countries considered here it remains too early to be certain that recent interventions have been effective. If interventions in countries at earlier stages of their epidemic, such as Germany or the UK, are more or less effective than they were in the countries with advanced epidemics, on which our estimates are largely based, or if interventions have improved or worsened over time, then our estimates of the reproduction number and deaths averted would change accordingly. It is therefore critical that the current interventions remain in place and trends in cases and deaths are closely monitored in the coming days and weeks to provide reassurance that transmission of SARS-Cov-2 is slowing.
Article
Full-text available
Governments around the world must rapidly mobilize and make difficult policy decisions to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Because deaths have been concentrated at older ages, we highlight the important role of demography, particularly, how the age structure of a population may help explain differences in fatality rates across countries and how transmission unfolds. We examine the role of age structure in deaths thus far in Italy and South Korea and illustrate how the pandemic could unfold in populations with similar population sizes but different age structures, showing a dramatically higher burden of mortality in countries with older versus younger populations. This powerful interaction of demography and current age-specific mortality for COVID-19 suggests that social distancing and other policies to slow transmission should consider the age composition of local and national contexts as well as intergenerational interactions. We also call for countries to provide case and fatality data disaggregated by age and sex to improve real-time targeted forecasting of hospitalization and critical care needs.
Article
Full-text available
S We assess the health and wellbeing of normal adults living and working after one month of confinement to contain the COVID-19 outbreak in China. On Feb 20–21, 2020, we surveyed 369 adults in 64 cities in China that varied in their rates of confirmed coronavirus cases on their health conditions, distress and life satisfaction. 27% of the participants worked at the office, 38% resorted to working from home, and 25% stopped working due to the outbreak. Those who stopped working reported worse mental and physical health conditions as well as distress. The severity of COVID-19 in an individual's home city predicts their life satisfaction, and this relationship is contingent upon individuals’ existing chronic health issues and their hours of exercise. Our evidence supports the need to pay attention to the health of people who were not affected by the virus epidemiologically, especially for people who stopped working during the outbreak. Our results highlight that physically active people might be more susceptible to wellbeing issues during the lockdown. Policymakers who are considering introducing restrictive measures to contain COVID-19 may benefit from understanding such health and wellbeing implications.
Article
Full-text available
The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a highly transmittable and pathogenic viral infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in Wuhan, China and spread around the world. Genomic analysis revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to severe acute respiratory syndrome-like (SARS-like) bat viruses, therefore bats could be the possible primary reservoir. The intermediate source of origin and transfer to humans is not known, however, the rapid human to human transfer has been confirmed widely. There is no clinically approved antiviral drug or vaccine available to be used against COVID-19. However, few broad-spectrum antiviral drugs have been evaluated against COVID-19 in clinical trials, resulted in clinical recovery. In the current review, we summarize and comparatively analyze the emergence and pathogenicity of COVID-19 infection and previous human coronaviruses severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). We also discuss the approaches for developing effective vaccines and therapeutic combinations to cope with this viral outbreak.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is a public health emergency of international concern and poses a challenge to psychological resilience. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts and psychiatric symptoms during the epidemic. The aim of this study was to survey the general public in China to better understand their levels of psychological impact, anxiety, depression, and stress during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The data will be used for future reference. Methods: From 31 January to 2 February 2020, we conducted an online survey using snowball sampling techniques. The online survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms in the past 14 days, contact history with COVID-19, knowledge and concerns about COVID-19, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and additional information required with respect to COVID-19. Psychological impact was assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: This study included 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China. In total, 53.8% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 16.5% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 28.8% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 8.1% reported moderate to severe stress levels. Most respondents spent 20–24 h per day at home (84.7%); were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 (75.2%); and were satisfied with the amount of health information available (75.1%). Female gender, student status, specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, coryza), and poor self-rated health status were significantly associated with a greater psychological impact of the outbreak and higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Specific up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g., treatment, local outbreak situation) and particular precautionary measures (e.g., hand hygiene, wearing a mask) were associated with a lower psychological impact of the outbreak and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Conclusions: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, more than half of the respondents rated the psychological impact as moderate-to-severe, and about one-third reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. Our findings identify factors associated with a lower level of psychological impact and better mental health status that can be used to formulate psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Article
A COVID-19 epidemic has been spreading in China and other parts of the world since December 2019. The epidemic has brought not only the risk of death from infection but also unbearable psychological pressure. We sampled college students from Changzhi medical college by using cluster sampling. They responded to a questionnaire packet that included the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and those inquiring the participants’ basic information. We received 7,143 responses. Results indicated that 0.9% of the respondents were experiencing severe anxiety, 2.7% moderate anxiety, and 21.3% mild anxiety. Moreover, living in urban areas (OR = .810, 95% CI = .709 - .925), family income stability (OR = .726, 95% CI = .645 - .817) and living with parents (OR = .752, 95% CI = .596 - .950) were protective factors against anxiety. Moreover, having relatives or acquaintances infected with COVID-19 was a risk factor for increasing the anxiety of college students (OR = 3.007, 95% CI = 2.377 - 3.804). Results of correlation analysis indicated that economic effects, and effects on daily life, as well as delays in academic activities, were positively associated with anxiety symptoms (P < .001). However, social support was negatively correlated with the level of anxiety (P < .001). It is suggested that the mental health of college students should be monitored during epidemics.