For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
8
views
21
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      70
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A cross-sectional investigation of the mental health and wellbeing among individuals who have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 international border closure in Australia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the Australian government implementing strict international border closures. However, research has not yet investigated the mental health status of individuals impacted negatively by these international border closures.

          Methods

          The present study was a cross-sectional online survey of 3968 adults who reported being negatively affected by the border closure during June and July 2021. Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), stress with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and wellbeing with the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF).

          Results

          In total, 3968 participants reported being negatively affected by the current restrictions (63.4% in Australia, 36.6% overseas). The vast majority of respondents (83.6%) reported high or very high levels of psychological distress (mean K10 score > 22), and 74.8% reported poor mental wellbeing, with similar risk profiles for participants in Australia or overseas. The most common scenarios of affected individuals included 1) wanting to enter Australia (30.8%), 2) wanting to leave Australia (29.6%) and 3) wanting someone to enter Australia (25.6%). Reasons included wanting to be with partners, family and friends (81.1%), for employment/economic reasons (4.9%), study (4.1%), personal safety/health (2.6%) or holiday (1.4%). While psychological distress was extremely high across all groups, separated partners and those with interrupted study experienced the highest distress (mean K10 = 35.7, n  = 155).

          Conclusion

          The data suggests a highly elevated mental health risk profile among individuals who report being negatively affected by current Australian international border closures. The results provide valuable data to inform future policy decisions and have clear implications regarding effective service provision for this vulnerable group.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-022-00807-7.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

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

          Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress

          R.??C. KESSLER, G. Andrews, L.??J. COLPE … (2002)
          Article 0 comments Cited 1092 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental Illness and/or Mental Health? Investigating Axioms of the Complete State Model of Health.

            Corey Keyes (2005)
            A continuous assessment and a categorical diagnosis of the presence (i.e., flourishing) and the absence (i.e., languishing) of mental health were proposed and applied to the Midlife in the United States study data, a nationally representative sample of adults between the ages of 25 and 74 years (N = 3,032). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesis that measures of mental health (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social well-being) and mental illness (i.e., major depressive episode, generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and alcohol dependence) constitute separate correlated unipolar dimensions. The categorical diagnosis yielded an estimate of 18.0% flourishing and, when cross-tabulated with the mental disorders, an estimate of 16.6% with complete mental health. Completely mentally healthy adults reported the fewest health limitations of activities of daily living, the fewest missed days of work, the fewest half-day work cutbacks, and the healthiest psychosocial functioning (low helplessness, clear life goals, high resilience, and high intimacy). (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved.
            Article 0 comments Cited 778 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments

              Gabriele Prati, Anthony Mancini (2021)
              Lockdowns to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound effects on everyday life worldwide, but their effect on mental health remains unclear because available meta-analyses and reviews rely mostly on cross-sectional studies. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments investigating the relationship between COVID-19 lockdowns and mental health. A total of 25 studies involving 72 004 participants and 58 effect sizes were analyzed. Using a random effects model, we found that lockdowns had small effects on mental health symptoms, g = 0.17, s.e. = 0.05, 95% CI (0.06–0.24), p = 0.001, but the effects on positive psychological functioning, g = −0.12, s.e. = 0.11, 95% CI (−0.33 to 0.09), p = 0.27, were not significant. Multivariate analysis of effect sizes revealed significant and relatively small effect sizes for anxiety and depression, while those for social support, loneliness, general distress, negative affect, and suicide risk were not significant. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity among studies, but meta-regression analyses found no significant moderation effects for mean age, gender, continent, COVID-19 death rate, days of lockdown, publication status or study design. The psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdowns is small in magnitude and highly heterogeneous, suggesting that lockdowns do not have uniformly detrimental effects on mental health and that most people are psychologically resilient to their effects.
              Article 0 comments Cited 335 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Kathina Ali:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5169-0553
                kathina.ali@flinders.edu.au
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Global Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Global Health
                Title: Globalization and Health
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1744-8603
                Publication date (Electronic): 8 February 2022
                Publication date PMC-release: 8 February 2022
                Publication date Collection: 2022
                Volume: 18
                Electronic Location Identifier: 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, , Flinders University, ; Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, Órama Institute for Mental Health & Wellbeing, , Flinders University, ; Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.430453.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0565 2606, Wellbeing and Resilience Centre, Lifelong Health Theme, , South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, ; Adelaide, South Australia 5000 Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, College of Nursing and Health Science, , Flinders University, ; Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5169-0553
                Article
                Publisher ID: 807
                DOI: 10.1186/s12992-022-00807-7
                PMC ID: 8822815
                PubMed ID: 35135575
                SO-VID: f3830764-9b50-4a2e-b6a3-ca0de9b2a279
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2022
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 17 September 2021
                Date accepted : 18 January 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2022

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: covid-19,coronavirus,international border closures,mental health,psychological distress,wellbeing
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: covid-19, coronavirus, international border closures, mental health, psychological distress, wellbeing

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content70

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors339

                See all reference authors