4.6 Article

COVID-19 and mental health deterioration by ethnicity and gender in the UK

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244419

关键词

-

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There was an overall deterioration in mental health during the pandemic, but the increase in mental distress varies by ethnicity and gender. Women and BAME men experienced a higher increase in mental distress compared to White men, leading to a widening gender gap in mental health among White British individuals. Specific changes in mental health by ethnicity and gender persisted even after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Additionally, Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani men exhibited the highest increase in mental distress compared to White British men.
We use the UK Household Longitudinal Study and compare pre-COVID-19 pandemic (2017-2019) and during-COVID-19 pandemic data (April 2020) for the same group of individuals to assess and quantify changes in mental health as measured by changes in the GHQ-12 (General Health Questionnaire), among ethnic groups in the UK. We confirm the previously documented average deterioration in mental health for the whole sample of individuals interviewed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we find that the average increase in mental distress varies by ethnicity and gender. Both women -regardless of their ethnicity- and Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) men experienced a higher average increase in mental distress than White British men, so that the gender gap in mental health increases only among White British individuals. These ethnic-gender specific changes in mental health persist after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Finally, we find some evidence that, among men, Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani individuals have experienced the highest average increase in mental distress with respect to White British men.

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

4.6
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