Search

Background: There has been much research into the mental health impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and how it is related to time-invariant individual characteristics. However, there is still a lack of research showing long-term trajectories of mental health across different stages of the pandemic. And little is known regarding the longitudinal association of time-varying factors with mental health outcomes. This study aimed to provide a longitudinal profile of how mental health in adults changed across different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and to examine their longitudinal associations with time-varying contextual (e.g., COVID-19 policy response and pandemic intensity) and individual level factors. Methods and findings: This study used data from a large panel study of over 57,000 adults living in England, who were followed up regularly for 2 years between March 2020 and April 2022. Mental health outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms. Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder assessment (GAD-7). Entropy balancing weights were applied to restore sample representativeness. After weighting, approximately 50% of participants were female, 14% from ethnic minority backgrounds, with a mean age of 48 years. Descriptive analyses showed that mental health changes were largely in line with changes in COVID-19 policy response and pandemic intensity. Further, data were analysed using fixed-effects (FE) models, which controlled for all time-invariant confounders (observed or not). FE models were fitted separately across 3 stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the first national lockdown (21/03/2020–23/08/2020), second and third national lockdowns (21/09/2020–11/04/2021), and "freedom" period (12/04/2021–14/11/2021). We found that more stringent policy response (measured by stringency index) was associated with increased depressive symptoms, in particular, during lockdown periods (β = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.18 to 0.28], p < 0.001; β = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.21 to 0.39], p < 0.001; β = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.03 to 0.12], p = 0.262). Higher COVID-19 deaths were also associated with increased depressive symptoms, but this association weakened over time (β = 0.29, 95% CI = [0.25 to 0.32], p < 0.001; β = 0.09, 95% CI = [0.05 to 0.13], p < 0.001; β = −0.06, 95% CI = [−0.30 to 0.19], p = 0.655). Similar results were also found for anxiety symptoms, for example, stringency index (β = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.12 to 0.21], p < 0.001; β = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.06 to 0.21], p = 0.001; β = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.03 to 0.17], p = 0.005), COVID-19 deaths (β = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.04 to 0.10], p < 0.001; β = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.00 to 0.07], p = 0.03; β = 0.16, 95% CI = [−0.08 to 0.39], p = 0.192). Finally, there was also evidence for the longitudinal association of mental health with individual level factors, including confidence in government/healthcare/essentials, COVID-19 knowledge, COVID-19 stress, COVID-19 infection, and social support. However, it is worth noting that the magnitudes of these longitudinal associations were generally small. The main limitation of the study was its non-probability sample design. Conclusions: Our results provided empirical evidence on how changes in contextual and individual level factors were related to changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms. While some factors (e.g., confidence in healthcare, social support) clearly acted as consistent predictors of depressive and/or anxiety symptoms, other factors (e.g., stringency index, COVID-19 knowledge) were dependent on the specific situations occurring within society. This could provide important implications for policy making and for a better understanding of mental health of the general public during a national or global health crisis. Author summary: Why was this study done?: There is increasing research showing worsening mental health during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence for mental health changes across different stages of the pandemic, but there is a lack of long-term longitudinal research with regular follow-ups. Few studies have examined how changes in contextual and individual factors are related to mental health outcomes. What did the researchers do and find?: Drawing data from over 57,000 participants, we showed descriptively how depressive and anxiety symptoms changed over time between March 2020 and April 2022. Using fixed-effects (FE) analyses, we found evidence for longitudinal associations of depressive and anxiety symptom with both contextual (e.g., stringency index, COVID-19 cases) and individual factors (e.g., COVID-19 knowledge, social support). Some of these longitudinal associations (e.g., stringency index, COVID-19 knowledge) differed across different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, and differential relationships were also found between depressive and anxiety symptoms. What do these findings mean?: These findings from observational data provide empirical evidence for the longitudinal association between contextual factors and people's mental health, offering important implications for policy making. Our study highlights the importance of individual level factors such as confidence in healthcare services and perceived social support in supporting better mental health. Further research is needed to monitor mental health changes over longer periods and to use alternative mental health assessment tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between March 2020 and March 2021, the United Kingdom (UK) experienced three lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the evident association between arts engagement and wellbeing, this study was designed to compare the predictors and patterns of home-based arts engagement during these lockdowns. Data analysed in this study were from the UK COVID-19 Social Study run by University College London. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify predictors of arts engagement and compare (i) respondents' engagement levels during the first lockdown in April/May 2020 and their levels in pre-pandemic times (N = 23,086), (ii) their engagement levels during the second lockdown in November/December 2020 with their levels during the first lockdown (N = 11,481), and (iii) their engagement levels during the third lockdown in January/February 2021 with their levels during the first lockdown (N = 13,270). During first lockdown, 1 in 4 increased their arts engagement and 1 in 6 decreased it. Of those who increased, 2 in 5 maintained or further increased their engagement in subsequent lockdowns, but just 7% of those who had decreased their engagement increased it. Younger adults (aged 18–29) showed initial increases in first lockdown, whilst people who were not employed and those with a physical health condition showed decreases and people with a mental health condition showed changes during the first lockdown (both increases and decreases). Females and people with higher education showed continuous changes across the three lockdowns, with women being more likely to increase their engagement and those with higher education being less likely to decrease. People of ethnic minorities and those with higher income declined their engagement in the third lockdown. This study provides insight into levels of arts engagement across the three national lockdowns in the UK and suggests that the pandemic may have affected long-term cultural behaviours for some groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Arts and cultural engagement are associated with a range of mental and physical health benefits, including promoting heathy aging and lower incidence of age-related disabilities such as slower cognitive decline and slower progression of frailty. This suggests arts engagement constitutes health-promoting behaviour in older age. However, there are no large-scale studies examining how the predictors of arts engagement vary with age. Methods: Data from the Health and Retirement Study (2014) were used to identify sociodemographic, life satisfaction, social, and arts appreciation predictors of (1) frequency of arts engagement, (2) cultural attendance, (3) difficulty participating in the arts, and (4) being an interested non-attendee of cultural events. Logistic regression models were stratified by age groups [50–59, 60–69, ≥70] for the frequency of arts participation outcome and [50–69 vs ≥70] all other outcomes. Results: Findings indicated a number of age-related predictors of frequent arts engagement, including gender, educational attainment, wealth, dissatisfaction with aging, and instrumental activities of daily living (iADL). For cultural event attendance, lower interest in the arts predicted lack of engagement across age groups, whereas higher educational attainment and more frequent religious service attendance became predictors in older age groups (≥ 70). Adults in both age groups were less likely to report difficulties engaging in the arts if they had lower neighbourhood safety, whilst poor self-rated health and low arts appreciation also predicted reduced likelihood of this outcome, but only in the younger (50–69) age group. Adults in the older (≥ 70) age group were more likely to be interested non-attendees of cultural events if they had higher educational attainment and less likely if they lived in neighbourhoods with low levels of safety. Conclusions: Our results suggest that certain factors become stronger predictors of arts and cultural engagement and barriers to engagement as people age. Further, there appear to be socioeconomic inequalities in engagement that may increase in older ages, with arts activities overall more accessible as individuals age compared to cultural engagement due to additional financial barriers and transportation barriers. Ensuring that these activities are accessible to people of all ages will allow older adults to benefit from the range of health outcomes gained from arts and cultural engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]