4.7 Article

Anxiety and depression symptoms, and lack of emotional support among the general population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A prospective national study on prevalence and risk factors

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 277, 期 -, 页码 540-548

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.026

关键词

COVID-19; Anxiety symptoms; Depression symptoms; Lack of emotional support; General population; Prospective

资金

  1. Victims Support Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and emotional support among the general population are unclear. We therefore assessed if the prevalence of high Anxiety and Depression Symptoms (ADS) levels and lack of Emotional Support (ES) increased, and if risk factors of ADS and ES changed. Methods: Data was extracted from surveys conducted with the Dutch longitudinal population-based LISS panel (N = 3,983). ADS and ES were assessed in March 2019 and 2020. Risk factors for ADS and ES were extracted from surveys in November 2018 and 2019. These were: ADS, gender, education, domestic situation, employ-ment, age, ethnicity, lung and heart problems, and diabetes. Results: The prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES did not increase compared to the pre-outbreak prevalence. ADS, non-native ethnic background, (partial) work disabilities and lung problems were predictive of both ADS and lack of ES in March 2019 and 2020. Job seekers, students and those who take care of housekeeping were more at risk for ADS in March 2020, but not in 2019. While 35-49 years old respondents were less at risk for ADS in March 2019, they were more at risk in 2020. Parents with child(ren) at home and those who take care of housekeeping more often lacked ES in March 2020, but not in 2019. Limitations: No other mental health problems were assessed. Conclusions: No increase in the prevalence of ADS and lack of ES was found. Some risk factors remained significant after the outbreak, while others changed notably.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据