26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Editorial: Do lockdowns scar? Three putative mechanisms through which COVID‐19 mitigation policies could cause long‐term harm to young people's mental health

      Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The use of lockdown to slow the spread of COVID‐19 has been unprecedented in its scale, scope and duration despite early predictions that such a measure would have a negative impact on the mental health and well‐being of many young people and their families. From a developmental psychopathology perspective both direct and indirect effects of lockdown‐related harms to young people’s mental health were predictable: Direct effects, for instance, being due to the negative psychological impact of social isolation and confinement on children; Indirect effects being exerted via negative impacts on family and parent mental health and wellbeing. That these effects would vary from person‐to‐person was also predicted from this perspective; with vulnerable individuals with pre‐existing conditions and those living in high‐risk settings being at particular risk. The presumption has been that such negative effects, if they do occur, would be time limited and that everything would return to normal once lockdowns ended. But this is not necessarily the case. In this editorial we ask whether lockdowns could have long‐term effects on young people's mental health and then briefly outline three putative mechanisms through which such long‐term effects might occur.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          The COVID-19 pandemic poses an acute threat to the well-being of children and families due to challenges related to social disruption such as financial insecurity, caregiving burden, and confinement-related stress (e.g., crowding, changes to structure, and routine). The consequences of these difficulties are likely to be longstanding, in part because of the ways in which contextual risk permeates the structures and processes of family systems. The current article draws from pertinent literature across topic areas of acute crises and long-term, cumulative risk to illustrate the multitude of ways in which the well-being of children and families may be at risk during COVID-19. The presented conceptual framework is based on systemic models of human development and family functioning and links social disruption due to COVID-19 to child adjustment through a cascading process involving caregiver well-being and family processes (i.e., organization, communication, and beliefs). An illustration of the centrality of family processes in buffering against risk in the context of COVID-19, as well as promoting resilience through shared family beliefs and close relationships, is provided. Finally, clinical and research implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Child mental health in England before and during the COVID-19 lockdown

            Although evidence has emerged of the effect of COVID-19 on adult mental health, 1 few studies around the world cover children. 2 Given the importance of probability sampling and similar prepandemic baseline measures, 3 the follow-up of England's Mental Health of Children and Young People (MHCYP) survey provides a rare resource on what the pandemic has meant for children. 4 We consider the clinical and policy implications of the initial study results. The study showed that the increase in probable mental health problems reported in adults also affected 5–16 year olds in England, with the incidence rising from 10·8% in 2017 to 16·0% in July 2020 across age, gender, and ethnic groups. As in 2017, during the pandemic young women had the highest prevalence of probable mental health problems (27·2%), indicating they should remain a group of particular policy concern. 4 More than a quarter of children (aged 5–16 years) and young people (aged 17–22) reported disrupted sleep and one in ten (5·4% of children and 13·8% of young people) often or always felt lonely. Both problems were more common in those with probable mental health problems, of whom 18·0% felt fearful of leaving the house because of COVID-19. Children with a parent in psychological distress were more likely to have a probable mental health problem. This is particularly concerning because parents, compared with working age adults without young children, have experienced larger than average increases in mental distress during the pandemic, which suggests that support for parents at this time matters for child mental health. 1 The results highlight how social protection systems must respond to the socioeconomic challenges facing families. Children with probable mental health problems were more than twice as likely to live in households newly falling behind with their bills, rent, or mortgage payments compared with those whose families were able to pay their bills. One in ten children and younger people reported that during the pandemic their family did not have enough to eat or had increased reliance on foodbanks compared with before the pandemic. These stark conditions matter more when schools close, highlighting the unequal effect of lockdown on learning. 12·0% of children had no reliable internet access at home, 19·1% no quiet space to work, and 26·9% did not have a desk at which they could study. Such socioeconomic information provides crucial context for schools planning pupils' home-based learning, and emphasises the need, where possible, to prioritise schools remaining open. Our findings reveal disrupted access to health care: 44·6% of 17–22 year olds with probable mental health problems reported not seeking help because of the pandemic. Clinicians have raised similar concerns about timely access to services, and a sharp decrease in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services referrals has been observed. 5 Children and young people have been physically distanced from adults outside their family who might monitor their wellbeing and intervene: 21·6% of children and 29·0% of young people with probable mental health problems reported having no adult at school or work to whom they could turn during lockdown. Even after schools reopened, 16·1% children who could have attended stayed at home during the 2020 summer term. Academic practitioners anticipate that the cumulative effects of not intervening will result in widening health and education inequalities. 6 Sound policy derives from strong evidence, with quality rather than quantity of data being crucial. 3 The living systematic review 2 on the mental health effect of COVID-19 screened more than 33 000 abstracts, only 19 of which were identified as sufficiently rigorous to measure change in mental health (accurate as of Dec 21, 2020). None included children. The few other studies in children with prepandemic data provide conflicting findings, which might relate to the age and circumstances of participants. A small study of 168 children (mean age 10·1 [SD 0·9] years during lockdown) in the east of England found an increase in depressive symptoms, 7 while another of approximately 1000 13–14 year olds in south west England found little overall change in anxiety, depression, or wellbeing. 8 In the study by Widnall and colleagues, 8 mental health in those who were struggling in October 2019 improved on all three measures in Spring 2020. Although parents responding to the CoSPACE survey 9 reported deteriorating mental health in children early in lockdown, young people reported no deterioration during this time, and parents of those with special educational needs and disabilities or pre-existing mental health conditions reported fewer emotional difficulties. In MHCYP, 4 54·2% of 11–16 year olds with probable mental health problems said lockdown had made their lives worse, but 27·2% said it had made their lives better. The 2020 MHCYP survey benefits from a large, national, longitudinal probability sample spanning childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood, using detailed, validated, and consistent measures. These initial descriptive results compare cross-sections of 5–16 year olds before and during the pandemic, analysed at pace to meet the urgent need to understand the circumstances of children. Our job is far from complete. Additional data collections and a range of longitudinal analyses are planned to improve understanding of the differential effects of the pandemic and inform the policy, commissioning, and practice response. Linkage of the survey responses to administrative records—such as the National Pupil Dataset—must proceed as fast as governance permits to enhance the ability to understand the effect of the pandemic on children's mental health and access to education and services over time. An enormous amount of work and engagement from children and young people underpinned the initial survey and this first follow up; therefore, there is a moral imperative to maximise the potential of the resulting data to improve the health and wellbeing of the next generation. 10 © 2021 Paul Bradbury/Caia Image/Science Photo Library 2021
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Prospective impact of COVID‐19 on mental health functioning in adolescents with and without ADHD: protective role of emotion regulation abilities

              Background The impact of chronic stressors like the COVID‐19 pandemic is likely to be magnified in adolescents with pre‐existing mental health risk, such as attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study examined changes in and predictors of adolescent mental health from before to during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. Methods Participants include 238 adolescents (132 males; ages 15–17; 118 with ADHD). Parents and adolescents provided ratings of mental health symptoms shortly before the COVID‐19 pandemic and in spring and summer 2020. Results Adolescents on average experienced an increase in depression, anxiety, sluggish cognitive tempo, inattentive, and oppositional/defiant symptoms from pre‐COVID‐19 to spring 2020; however, with the exception of inattention, these symptoms decreased from spring to summer 2020. Adolescents with ADHD were more likely than adolescents without ADHD to experience an increase in inattentive, hyperactive/impulsive, and oppositional/defiant symptoms. Adolescents with poorer pre‐COVID‐19 emotion regulation abilities were at‐risk for experiencing increases in all mental health symptoms relative to adolescents with better pre‐COVID‐19 emotion regulation abilities. Interactive risk based on ADHD status and pre‐COVID‐19 emotion regulation abilities was found for inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, such that adolescents with ADHD and poor pre‐COVID‐19 emotion regulation displayed the highest symptomatology across timepoints. Lower family income related to increases in inattention but higher family income related to increases in oppositional/defiant symptoms. Conclusions The early observed increases in adolescent mental health symptoms during the COVID‐19 pandemic do not on average appear to be sustained following the lift of stay‐at‐home orders, though studies evaluating mental health across longer periods of time are needed. Emotion dysregulation and ADHD increase risk for sustained negative mental health functioning and highlight the need for interventions for these populations during chronic stressors. Results and clinical implications should be considered within the context of our predominately White, middle class sample.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                34806768
                9011706
                10.1111/jcpp.13537
                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article