Search

The devastation of the Covid-19 pandemic on society raised the question of how best to gauge society's psychological adaptation to continually evolving global disruptor events, such as Covid-19. This paper aims to illustrate the use of different approaches to monitor society's psychological response to Covid-19, in order to argue for a more comprehensive, multi-model, approach. The results from different approaches are presented in two studies employing measures of mental disorders and mental distress, respectively, using South African samples for demonstration. The first study presents findings from repeat administration of measures of common mental disorders (major depressive and generalized anxiety disorders) across three consecutive years, while the second study presents findings from mood response profiles (measured with the Brunel Mood Scale) collected across five time points during the Covid-19 pandemic. Both studies showed that the Covid-19 pandemic was temporally associated with adverse mental health outcomes across the mental health continuum, and that mental health profiles were associated with both time since onset of Covid-19 and subsequent wave occurrence. Elevated prevalence of common mental disorders, as well as fluctuating patterns of mood response profiles, are discussed against the context of Covid-19. The paper concludes that a multi-modal approach, for instance measuring specific mental disorders as well as more general mental distress, is crucial to comprehensively understand society's psychological adaptation to major disruptor events, and guide health sector responses. The paper serves as a reminder to continue to observe mental health more inclusively to appropriately respond to the psychological needs of communities. Plain Language Summary: Measuring mental health across Covid-19 waves The impact of Covid-19 on mental health raised the question of how can we best measure how society adapts, psychologically, to major events that disrupt life. This article looked at two specific ways to measure and monitor society's psychological response to Covid-19. The first study looked at the prevalence of mental disorders, and the second looked at levels of mental distress. Both studies used South African samples to demonstrate this. The first study presented data from a repeat administration of scales that identify depressive and anxiety disorders, completed across three consecutive years. The second study presented findings from mood response profiles (measured with the Brunel Mood Scale) collected across five time points during the Covid-19 pandemic. The results showed that the pandemic was associated with adverse mental health outcomes—across the mental health continuum—and that mental health profiles were associated with both time since the start of Covid-19 and fluctuated with the subsequent waves across the pandemic time-line. This article demonstrated the importance of using a multi-modal approach to fully understand society's psychological response to major life disruptions. It also acted as reminder to monitor mental health continuously to be able to respond to the psychological needs of communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article interrogates the continuing emphasis on personal sources of resilience; it also amends the inattention to the protective factors and processes (PFPs) that support the mental health resilience of African emerging adults. To that end, we report a study that explored which PFPs distinguished risk-exposed South African 18- to 29-year-olds with negligible depression symptoms from those who reported moderate to severe symptoms. Using an arts-based approach, young people volunteered the PFPs they had personally experienced as resilience-enabling. An inductive thematic analysis of visual and narrative data, generated by young people self-reporting high exposure to family and community adversity (n = 233; mean age: 24.63, SD: 2.43), revealed patterns in the PFPs relative to the severity of self-reported depression symptoms. Specifically, young people reporting negligible depression symptoms reported a range of PFPs associated with psychological, social, and ecological systems. In contrast, the PFPs identified by those reporting more serious depression symptoms were mostly restricted to personal strengths and informal relational supports. In the interests of youth mental health, the findings direct society's attention to the criticality of facilitating young people's access to a composite of resources rooted in personal, social, and ecological systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]