13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the mental health trajectories of four different types of keyworkers with non-keyworkers: 12-month follow-up observational study of 21 874 adults in England during the COVID-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          There are concerns that keyworkers may be at a greater risk for psychological distress than non-keyworkers during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little research has included keyworkers outside of the healthcare sector or has disaggregated keyworkers into different subgroups.

          Aims

          To examine longitudinal changes in mental health over 12 months during the COVID-19 pandemic comparing four different groups of keyworkers with non-keyworkers.

          Method

          Longitudinal data were from 21 874 adults living in England (21 March 2020 to 22 February 2021). Latent growth modelling was utilised to compare growth trajectories of depressive and anxiety symptoms in non-keyworkers and four types of keyworkers: (a) health and social care workers, (b) teachers and child care workers, (c) public service workers, and (d) essential services keyworkers (such as food chain or utility workers).

          Results

          When accounting for both time-invariant and time-varying covariates, keyworkers in the essential services category had consistently higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms than non-keyworkers across the whole of the study period. There was little difference in the mental health trajectories between health/social care, teachers/child care and public service worker categories and non-keyworkers.

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that the risk for poorer mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic varies within the broad category of keyworkers generally, and that those working in utility, food chain and transport roles are especially at risk. Future research should focus on identifying which aspects of working conditions may be contributing to occupational stress in these groups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population

            Summary Background The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. Methods In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23–30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. Findings Waves 6–9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8–20·0) in 2018–19 to 27·3% (26·3–28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3–11·6) in 2018–19, to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07–0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18–24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89–3·48), 25–34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96–2·18), women (0·92, 0·50–1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79–2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20–1·06). Interpretation By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population.

              The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is a practical self-report anxiety questionnaire that proved valid in primary care. However, the GAD-7 was not yet validated in the general population and thus far, normative data are not available. To investigate reliability, construct validity, and factorial validity of the GAD-7 in the general population and to generate normative data. Nationally representative face-to-face household survey conducted in Germany between May 5 and June 8, 2006. Five thousand thirty subjects (53.6% female) with a mean age (SD) of 48.4 (18.0) years. The survey questionnaire included the GAD-7, the 2-item depression module from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analyses substantiated the 1-dimensional structure of the GAD-7 and its factorial invariance for gender and age. Internal consistency was identical across all subgroups (alpha = 0.89). Intercorrelations with the PHQ-2 and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were r = 0.64 (P < 0.001) and r = -0.43 (P < 0.001), respectively. As expected, women had significantly higher mean (SD) GAD-7 anxiety scores compared with men [3.2 (3.5) vs. 2.7 (3.2); P < 0.001]. Normative data for the GAD-7 were generated for both genders and different age levels. Approximately 5% of subjects had GAD-7 scores of 10 or greater, and 1% had GAD-7 scores of 15 or greater. Evidence supports reliability and validity of the GAD-7 as a measure of anxiety in the general population. The normative data provided in this study can be used to compare a subject's GAD-7 score with those determined from a general population reference group.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                0342367
                Br J Psychiatry
                Br J Psychiatry
                The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science
                0007-1250
                1472-1465
                12 July 2022
                May 2022
                19 January 2022
                20 July 2022
                : 220
                : 5
                : 287-294
                Affiliations
                Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London. UK
                Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London. UK
                Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London. UK
                Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London. UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Feifei Bu. f.bu@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2060-3768
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6952-334X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-3740
                Article
                EMS150148
                10.1192/bjp.2021.205
                7613104
                35042571
                5a9ed6d8-dc99-4823-b806-ffc627f18c73

                This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 International license.

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19,pandemic,depression,anxiety,keyworker
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19, pandemic, depression, anxiety, keyworker

                Comments

                Comment on this article