Mental Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Several recent studies focus on adverse impacts of the pandemic on particular subpopulations. In the first, Mitchell, Banyard, Ybarra & Dunsiger (2022) published “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Youth with a History of Exposure to Self-directed Violence” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. They begin by observing that, “The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a sudden shift in the social lives of youth with important negative impacts on mental health. The current article aims to understand how the pandemic may have differentially impacted the mental health of adolescents and young adults with recent (1 year or less) and past (> 1 year) exposure to self-directed violence (SDV).” Here’s more from the abstract: “Data were collected online from 990 youth and young adults, aged 13–23 years between November 27, 2020 and December 11, 2020. Results: Participants who had recently been exposed to SDV reported being more impacted by the pandemic and had poorer mental health indicators. Participants with past SDV exposure who engaged in a high number of prosocial activities (e.g., talking with friends) were less likely to report depressive symptoms (β = −.13, p = .01) than similarly engaged nonexposed participants; the same was true for recently exposed participants (β = −.14, p = .02). Conclusions: Findings highlight that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of young people are compounded by exposure to mental health concerns of people in their network.”
It is not surprising that individuals who have recently engaged in self-directed violence benefit from engaging in prosocial activities.
In the second study, Lenzo et al. (2022) published “Fear of COVID-19 and Future Orientation: Different profiles in dealing with the pandemic and associations with loneliness and posttraumatic growth” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Here’s its edited abstract:
This study aimed to examine the profiles of reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic based on the combination of fear and future orientation, as well as their sociodemographic, situational, and relational predictors. We also compared posttraumatic growth between the profiles. A sample of 640 Italian participants completed the Multidimensional Assessment of COVID-19-Related Fears (MAC-RF), the Future Orientation Scale (FOS), the UCLA Loneliness Scale–Version 3, and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). Latent profile analysis indicated a 4-class solution as the best-fitting model. The first profile (“Detached”) comprised 9.9% of the sample and was characterized by both low fear and future orientation. The second profile (“Hopeful”) concerned 49.9% of the sample and it featured low fear and high future orientation. The third profile (“Constructively Preoccupied”) involved 35.5% of the sample and was distinguished by high fear and high future orientation. The fourth profile (“Fearful”) included 4.6% of the sample and was marked by high fear and low future orientation. Multinomial logistic regressions indicated that the female gender was more likely to be associated with the Constructively Preoccupied profile, while older age was more likely to be associated with the Hopeful one. Higher perceived loneliness was associated with all profiles except the Hopeful. Results of comparisons showed substantial differences in posttraumatic growth between the profiles. The Constructively Preoccupied profile showed the greatest posttraumatic growth. Overall, these results point out the various profile of reaction to the pandemic and that adopting a person-oriented approach could enhance their grasp.
It is notable that older people more often fell into the Hopeful category while more females fell into the Constructively Preoccupied category. Loneliness was related to being Detached, Constructively Preoccupied, or Fearful. While the Fearful group is the smallest by percentage, they are perhaps the most concerning in terms of likely engagement in and benefit from intervention. It may be that prosocial activities offer protection for this group as well.
The third study examines interpersonal relationships. Mayo et al. (2022) published “I feel you: Prepandemic physiological synchrony and emotional contagion during COVID-19” in Emotion. Here’s their abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on mental well-being and interpersonal relationships. Nonetheless, little is known about the complex interactions between one’s overall perceived interpersonal closeness and physiological or psychological aspects of interpersonal functioning. This study aimed to understand the interaction between perceived interpersonal closeness during COVID-19 and interpersonal mechanisms in predicting well-being. We focused on two interpersonal mechanisms, one physiological and the other psychological: (a) prepandemic physiological synchrony, a physiological measure of interpersonal coupling, and (b) peripandemic emotional contagion, one’s tendency to “catch” others’ emotions. One hundred fifty-five participants took part in the study. Cardiological interbeat interval synchrony was collected 1.5 to 3 years prior to the beginning of the COVID pandemic in two previous lab studies. Participants were recontacted during the pandemic, this time to complete several questionnaires tapping into perceived interpersonal closeness, tendency for emotional contagion, and psychological well-being during COVID. As hypothesized, overall perceived interpersonal closeness was positively related to well-being. Moreover, this effect was moderated by one’s tendency for emotional contagion or by physiological synchrony. Thus, individuals with higher emotional contagion scores or higher physiological synchrony had higher well-being if their interpersonal closeness was perceived as greater. Conversely, their well-being was lower if they perceived their interpersonal closeness as weaker. These results emphasize that individuals may be differentially susceptible to the effects of their relationships on their well-being. Future mental health interventions should consider both the quality of one’s perceived interpersonal closeness and the extent to which one is sensitive to others’ emotional experiences.
While not surprising, these findings are helpful in recognizing the interdependence of emotional contagion and interpersonal relationships. The fourth study examined depression in rural communities. Cannon, Ferreira, Buttell & Anderson (2022) published “Changes in depression levels for U.S. rural communities before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic” in Traumatology. Here’s the abstract:
The objective of this research is to identify whether there were statistically significant changes in depression severity for rural residents in the United States before the COVID-19 pandemic and after its start in 2020. This study uses paired-sample t tests to differentiate between depression levels, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, before the pandemic and after its start for a sample of rural residents (n = 324), as well as a subsample of women (n = 224) and Black clients (n = 55). Results indicate that the average Patient Health Questionnaire-9 decreased from 11.86 to 11.77 for the total sample and from 12 to 11.99 for the subsample of women, whereas the subsample of Black residents increased from 10.58 to 11.27 for prepandemic versus postpandemic levels, though the differences are not statistically significant. Given the urban/rural differences in coping with challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States cannot have a one-size-fits-all pandemic response policy.
Generally, scores of 10 or more are seen as evidence of depression. While the findings are not significant statistically, this study illustrates the importance of targeted interventions.
The final study examined trauma in adolescents. Lewis, Jayakumar, Breaux, Dvorsky, Langberg, & Becker (2022) published “Prospective Examination of Psychological Trauma Among Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic” in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. This work is especially important because it is longitudinal, examining 236 adolescents (130 males; Mage = 16.74 years in spring 2020; 49.6% diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; 16.1% diagnosed with an anxiety or depressive disorder) in the United States who completed online questionnaires at four timepoints (spring 2020, summer 2020, fall 2020, spring 2021). Here’s part of the abstract:
Repeated measures ANOVA showed that psychological trauma was highest during stay-at-home orders in spring 2020, and decreased for a majority of adolescents by the summer of 2020. However, ~20% of adolescents exhibited moderate-to-clinical levels of psychological trauma at each timepoint. Four groups were identified based on the presence of psychological trauma symptoms: (a) resilient group (normal range across all timepoints; 60.6%); (b) moderate fluctuating group (moderate range at 1 or more timepoints; 18.2%); (c) severe fluctuating group (clinical range at 1 or more timepoints; 14.0%); and (d) chronic psychological trauma group (moderate or clinical range across all timepoints; 7.2%). Females, adolescents with preexisting internalizing disorders, and participants whose families were most impacted by the pandemic were more susceptible to experiencing psychological trauma symptoms. Conclusions: Findings highlight at-risk populations and suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in psychological trauma symptoms for approximately 20% of adolescents at some point during the first year of the pandemic. There is critical need to provide mental health services to adolescents, such as through school-based services, to reduce the negative long-term psychological impact of the pandemic.
Like the previous study of depression in rural areas, this study emphasizes the importance of targeted interventions when adolescents are subjected to highly stressful situations.