Gender Differences and the Impact of Partnership and Children on Quality of Life During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic and its protective measures have changed the daily lives of families and may have affected quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to analyze gender differences in QoL and to examine individuals living in different partnership and family constellations. Methods: Data from the Gutenberg COVID-19 cohort study (N = 10,250) with two measurement time points during the pandemic (2020 and 2021) were used. QoL was assessed using the EUROHIS-QOL questionnaire. Descriptive analyses and autoregressive regressions were performed. Results: Women reported lower QoL than men, and QoL was significantly lower at the second measurement time point in both men and women. Older age, male gender, no migration background, and higher socioeconomic status, as well as partnership and children (especially in men), were protective factors for QoL. Women living with children under 14 and single mothers reported significantly lower QoL. Conclusion: Partnership and family were protective factors for QoL. However, women with young children and single mothers are vulnerable groups for lower QoL. Support is especially needed for women with young children.

Mental health state and its determinants in German university students across the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from three repeated cross-sectional surveys between 2019 and 2021.

Background: Students were at an increased risk for elevated mental symptoms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels. As universities remained closed much longer than anticipated, the mental burden was expected to persist through the second year of the pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate the prevalence of mental distress from 2019 through 2021 and identify risk factors for elevated mental burden, focusing on gender. Methods: We analyzed three cross-sectional online surveys among students at the University of Mainz, conducted in 2019 (n = 4,351), 2020 (n = 3,066), and 2021 (n = 1,438). Changes in the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and loneliness were calculated using Pearson's chi-square tests and analyses of variance. Multiple linear regressions yielded associated risk factors. Results: The proportion of students with clinically relevant depressive symptoms was significantly higher during the pandemic (38.9% in 2020, and 40.7% in 2021), compared to pre-pandemic (29.0% in 2019). Similarly, more students reported suicidal ideation and generalized anxiety during the pandemic with a peak in the second pandemic year (2021). The level of loneliness was significantly higher in 2020, compared to 2019, and remained at a high level in 2021 (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.142). Female and diverse/open gender, being single, living alone, and being a first-year student were identified as risk factors associated with mental burden during the pandemic. Discussion: Mental burdens remained elevated among students through the second year of the pandemic and were associated with socio-demographic risk factors and pandemic-related concerns. Future research should monitor recovery and evaluate the need for psychosocial support.

Informiert = Geimpft? Das Informationsverhalten und die COVID-19-Impfentscheidung bei Studierenden

ZusammenfassungEine zu geringe Impfbereitschaft zählt zu den größten globalen Gesundheitsgefahren und war in der COVID-19-Pandemie auch in Deutschland eine der großen Herausforderungen der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Die Identifikation potenzieller Einflussfaktoren auf das Impfverhalten ist deshalb für eine zielgruppengerechte Gesundheitskommunikation von großer Bedeutung. Studierende sind eine besonders wichtige Zielgruppe der Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Der Beitrag geht mit Hilfe einer Online-Befragung der Studierenden einer westdeutschen Universität (n = 1398) im Sommersemester 2021 den Fragen nach, inwieweit sich geimpfte und ungeimpfte Studierende mit hoher bzw. niedrigerer Impfintention hinsichtlich a) ihrer Medien- und Informationsnutzung und b) ihres Vertrauens in Medien und Informationsquellen in der COVID-19-Pandemie unterschieden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen z. T. deutliche Differenzen. Während geimpfte Studierende sich intensiver informierten und hierfür auch stärker auf klassische Medienangebote zurückgriifen, vertrauten insbesondere ungeimpfte Studierende mit niedrigerer Impfintention u. a. mehr auf alternative Nachrichtenseiten und Blogs.

Screening for loneliness in representative population samples: Validation of a single-item measure.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is a highly relevant public mental health issue. This work presents the validation of a single-item measure of loneliness and its subjective experience: "I am frequently alone/have few contacts". It can be used in large-scale population surveys where an economical assessment is of key importance. METHODS: Data was drawn from two representative German population surveys conducted in early and late 2020 (combined N = 4,984; 52.9% women; age: M = 48.39 years (SD = 17.88)). We determined the prevalence of loneliness in men and women across different age groups. In order to test concurrent validity, bivariate correlation analyses and Chi-square tests were performed. Convergent and discriminant validity were tested by investigating intercorrelations of the single-item measure of loneliness with another loneliness measure, other mental health outcomes, and associations with sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Based on the single-item measure, 23.4% of participants reported some degree of loneliness, 3.4% among them severe loneliness. Comparisons with the LS-S showed similar prevalence rates of loneliness. A moderately positive relationship between the two loneliness measures was found by bivariate correlation analysis (ρ = .57, p < .001), but results indicated only weak convergent validity. Construct validity was supported by associations with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, satisfaction with life, household size, and partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness is frequently reported in the general population. The single-item measure of loneliness is suitable as a brief screening measure in population-based assessments.

Informiert = Geimpft? Das Informationsverhalten und die COVID-19-Impfentscheidung bei Studierenden Informed = vaccinated? Information behavior and COVID-19 vaccination decision among university students

Eine zu geringe Impfbereitschaft zählt zu den größten globalen Gesundheitsgefahren und war in der COVID-19-Pandemie auch in Deutschland eine der großen Herausforderungen der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Die Identifikation potenzieller Einflussfaktoren auf das Impfverhalten ist deshalb für eine zielgruppengerechte Gesundheitskommunikation von großer Bedeutung. Studierende sind eine besonders wichtige Zielgruppe der Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Der Beitrag geht mit Hilfe einer Online-Befragung der Studierenden einer westdeutschen Universität (n = 1398) im Sommersemester 2021 den Fragen nach, inwieweit sich geimpfte und ungeimpfte Studierende mit hoher bzw. niedrigerer Impfintention hinsichtlich a) ihrer Medien- und Informationsnutzung und b) ihres Vertrauens in Medien und Informationsquellen in der COVID-19-Pandemie unterschieden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen z. T. deutliche Differenzen. Während geimpfte Studierende sich intensiver informierten und hierfür auch stärker auf klassische Medienangebote zurückgriifen, vertrauten insbesondere ungeimpfte Studierende mit niedrigerer Impfintention u. a. mehr auf alternative Nachrichtenseiten und Blogs.

Medical appointments and provision of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mainz, Germany.

Previous evidence suggested that non-COVID-19-related medical care was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it remained unclear whether or to which extent this effect lasted beyond the first wave, or existed in a longer time frame. Here, we consider questionnaire data of the Gutenberg-COVID-19 study together with pre-pandemic baseline data of the Gutenberg Health Study concerning the region around Mainz, Germany, to study the effects of the pandemic on the provision of medical care until April 2021. We observed that the proportion of cancelled medical appointments was low and that the fraction of participants with a medical appointment as an indicator for the number of appointments being made was in line with pre-pandemic levels. Appointments were more likely cancelled by the patient (rather than the provider), and more likely cancelled by medical specialists such as dentists or ophthalmologists (rather than GPs). In conclusion, we found some evidence that, at least with regard to realized appointments, the medical system and the provision of medical care were not harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic on a longer time scale.

The burdens of poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background Individuals living at-risk-of-poverty have an increased risk of poor mental health. The pandemic and its societal impacts might have negative effects especially on this group widening the gap between rich and poor and also exacerbate gender gaps, which in turn might impact social cohesion. Aim The objective of this longitudinal study was to determine if people living at-risk-of-poverty were more vulnerable to economic and psychosocial impacts of the pandemic and showed poorer mental health. Moreover, gender differences were analyzed. Method We drew data from a sample of N = 10,250 respondents of two time points (T1 starting from October 2020, T2 starting from March 2021) of the Gutenberg COVID-19 Study. We tested for differences between people living at-risk-of-poverty and more affluent respondents regarding economic impacts, psychosocial stressors, as well as depressiveness, anxiety and loneliness, by comparing mean and distributional differences. To test for significant discrepancy, we opted for chi-square- and t-tests. Results The analysis sample compromised N = 8,100 individuals of which 4,2% could be classified as living at-risk-of-poverty. 23% of respondents living at-risk-of-poverty had a decrease in income since the beginning of the pandemic–twice as many as those not living at-risk-of-poverty, who reported more often an increase in income. Less affluent individuals reported a decrease in working hours, while more affluent people reported an increase. Between our survey time points, we found a significant decrease in these economic impacts. Gender differences for economic changes were only found for more affluent women who worked more hours with no change in income. Less affluent respondents were more impacted by psychosocial stressors, depressiveness, anxiety, and loneliness. Gender differences were found particularly with regard to care responsibilities. Discussion Our results indicate a widening in the gap between the rich and the poor at the beginning of the pandemic. Gender differences concerning economic changes affect more affluent women, but women in both income groups are more burdened by care responsibilities, which might indicate a heightened resurgence of gender role in times of crisis. This increase in inequality might have impacted social cohesion.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression, anxiety, loneliness, and satisfaction in the German general population: a longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Cross-sectional studies found high levels of depression and anxiety symptoms, and loneliness during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reported increases were lower in longitudinal population-based findings. Studies including positive outcomes are rare. This study analyzed changes in mental health symptoms, loneliness, and satisfaction. METHODS: Respondents of the German Socio-Economic Panel (N = 6038) were surveyed pre-pandemic (2017/2019) and during the first (June 2020) and second wave (January and February 2021) of the pandemic. Self-report screeners assessed depression and anxiety symptoms, loneliness, life and health satisfaction. Difference scores were analysed using ANCOVAs focusing on time, gender, age groups. RESULTS: Depression and anxiety symptoms and health satisfaction increased from pre-pandemic to the first wave, but declined in the second pandemic wave. Loneliness increased and life satisfaction decreased during the first and the second wave of the pandemic. Young adults and women reported more distress and loneliness, even after controlling for pre-pandemic scores, education, and income. All effects remained stable when controlling for self-reported previous diagnosis of depression or region of residence. CONCLUSION: Increases and decreases in mental health symptoms and health satisfaction showed little variation. Of concern are the strong increases of loneliness and decreased life satisfaction being important targets for interventions. Main risk factors are young age and female gender.

Are Attitudes towards COVID-19 Pandemic Related to Subjective Physical and Mental Health?

In this paper, we investigate the relationship between a person's psychological distress, subjective physical health and their attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation was performed on the basis of data from two waves of the Saxon Longitudinal Study, carried out in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2021. The number of study participants in both waves was 291. We tested in autoregressive cross-lagged models the stability of the respondents' health status before and during the pandemic and reviewed their influence on attitudes towards COVID-19. Our results show that COVID-19-related concerns are controlled by subjective physical health, while pandemic denial is linked to psychological distress. In an unknown and critical situation, with limited control over the situation, the strategy of avoidance or suppression may be used by individuals for protection by psychologically downplaying the stressor and danger.

Protective behavior and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in the population – Results from the Gutenberg COVID-19 study

Background During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, preventive measures like physical distancing, wearing face masks, and hand hygiene have been widely applied to mitigate viral transmission. Beyond increasing vaccination coverage, preventive measures remain urgently needed. The aim of the present project was to assess the effect of protective behavior on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in the population. Methods Data of the Gutenberg COVID-19 Study (GCS), a prospective cohort study with a representative population-based sample, were analyzed. SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified by sequential sampling of biomaterial, which was analyzed by RT-qPCR and two antibody immunoassays. Self-reported COVID-19 test results were additionally considered. Information on protective behavior including physical distancing, wearing face masks, and hand hygiene was collected via serial questionnaire-based assessments. To estimate adjusted prevalence ratios and hazard ratios, robust Poisson regression and Cox regression were applied. Results In total, 10,250 participants were enrolled (median age 56.9 [43.3/68.6] years, 50.8% females). Adherence to preventive measures was moderate for physical distancing (48.3%), while the use of face masks (91.5%) and the frequency of handwashing (75.0%) were high. Physical distancing appeared to be a protective factor with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection risk independent of sociodemographic characteristics and individual pandemic-related behavior (prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.96). A protective association between wearing face masks and SARS-CoV-2 transmission was identified (PR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.96). However, the protective effect declined after controlling for potential confounding factors (PR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.68–1.36). For handwashing, this investigation did not find a beneficial impact. The adherence to protective behavior was not affected by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or immunization against COVID-19. Conclusion The present study suggests primarily a preventive impact of physical distancing of 1.5 m, but also of wearing face masks on SARS-CoV-2 infections, supporting their widespread implementation. The proper fit and use of face masks are crucial for effectively mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the population. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14310-6.

Determinants of university students' COVID-19 vaccination intentions and behavior.

Vaccination hesitancy has been a major challenge for health authorities and societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The general determinants of vaccination intentions and behavior include sociodemographic and health-related, psychological, and communication-related factors, with varying relevance for different types of vaccinations, countries, and target groups. The predictors of university students' COVID-19 vaccination behavior have not been sufficiently studied. Using a German university as an example and based on an online survey of 1398 university students, we investigated factors related to (a) the likelihood of vaccination against COVID-19 and (b) vaccination intention among those who had not been vaccinated by summer of 2021. Psychological factors showed high relevance. Field of study, trust in, and use of certain media and information channels were found to be important determinants of students' vaccination decision. Our findings can help better understand university students' vaccination behavior to develop and implement tailored strategies and campaigns.

Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic and measures aimed at its mitigation, such as physical distancing, have been discussed as risk factors for loneliness, which increases the risk of premature mortality and mental and physical health conditions. To ascertain whether loneliness has increased since the start of the pandemic, this study aimed to narratively and statistically synthesize relevant high-quality primary studies. This systematic review with meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (ID CRD42021246771). Searched databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library/Central Register of Controlled Trials/EMBASE/CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database, supplemented by Google Scholar and citation searching (cutoff date of the systematic search December 5, 2021). Summary data from prospective research including loneliness assessments before and during the pandemic were extracted. Of 6,850 retrieved records, 34 studies (23 longitudinal, 9 pseudolongitudinal, 2 reporting both designs) on 215,026 participants were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD, Hedges' g) for continuous loneliness values and logOR for loneliness prevalence rates were calculated as pooled effect size estimators in random-effects meta-analyses. Pooling studies with longitudinal designs only (overall N = 45,734), loneliness scores (19 studies, SMD = 0.27 [95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.40], Z = 4.02, p < .001, I 2 = 98%) and prevalence rates (8 studies, logOR = 0.33 [0.04-0.62], Z = 2.25, p = .02, I 2 = 96%) increased relative to prepandemic times with small effect sizes. Results were robust with respect to studies' overall RoB, pseudolongitudinal designs, timing of prepandemic assessments, and clinical populations. The heterogeneity of effects indicates a need to further investigate risk and protective factors as the pandemic progresses to inform targeted interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The Prevalence of Pharmacological Neuroenhancement Among University Students Before and During the COVID-19-Pandemic: Results of Three Consecutive Cross-Sectional Survey Studies in Germany.

Background: According to the literature, the conditions of studying and living as well as the psychological, social and health behavior-related variables, which were strongly related to pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) before the pandemic, significantly changed during the pandemic. For this reason, it is expected that the prevalence of PN among university students is higher during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate and compare the prevalence of PN among university students before and during the COVID-19-pandemic. Methods: Three online surveys assessing the 12-month prevalence of PN were conducted among university students at the University of Mainz, Germany. The first survey took place in summer term 2019 (before the pandemic), the second in summer term 2020 (during the first German lockdown), and the third in summer term 2021 (after the second German lockdown). Pearson's chi-square test was used to test whether the 12-month prevalence of PN differed significantly between the three surveys. Results: The 12-month prevalence of PN was 10.4% in 2019, 11.3% in 2020, and 8.0% in 2021. Chi-square tests revealed no statistical difference in the prevalence of PN between 2019 and 2020. Overall, the use of PN was lower in 2021 compared to 2019 (p < 0.0001) as well as in comparison to 2020 (p = 0.001). Only the use of cannabis slightly increased from 2019 to 2020 (7.1 vs. 8.3%) and decreased in 2021 (5.4%). At all three time points, cannabis was the most commonly used substance for the purpose of PN. Consequently, the results suggest that the prevalence of PN was highly intertwined with the prevalence of cannabis use for PN. Discussion: The decrease in the prevalence of PN of around three percentage points in 2021 compared to the previous years was a surprising finding. It may be mainly due to the decrease in the prevalence of cannabis for the purpose of PN. However, the fairly high prevalence of PN of around 8% in 2021 is still an important finding that demonstrates that there is still an urgent need for prevention initiatives among university students to combat the use of PN.

Cancer as a risk factor for distress and its interactions with sociodemographic variables in the context of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a psychological challenge, especially for individuals with chronic illnesses. The aim of this study was to investigate associations of cancer with distress, including its interplay with further risk and protective factors. We conducted a representative survey of the German population (N = 2503, including N = 144 with a cancer diagnosis) during the first wave of the pandemic. In multiple linear and logistic regression analyses, we tested associations of cancer with depression and anxiety symptoms and suicidal ideation. We also investigated moderating effects of age, gender, income, living situation, marital status, and loneliness. Individuals with cancer were more likely to report anxiety symptoms (φ = .061), suicidal ideation (φ = .050), and loneliness (φ = .044) than other participants. In regression analyses that controlled for sociodemographic differences, cancer was still associated with anxiety symptoms. We also observed interaction effects, indicating that this relation was especially strong in men with cancer and that cancer survivors with a low income were particularly likely to report anxiety symptoms. The findings demonstrate that cancer survivors are a vulnerable group and that factors of different life domains interact in shaping well-being in the population, necessitating comprehensive risk assessment and support offers during the pandemic and beyond.

The impact of lockdown stress and loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among university students in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a shutdown of universities in Germany. In a longitudinal design, we compared mental health (depression, anxiety, somatic complaints) of university students in Germany before (June to August 2019) and in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020) and determined the impact of pandemic-related stress and loneliness on students' mental health in self-report online surveys. We investigated 443 participants (mean age 22.8 years), among them 77% female, and 10.4% medical students. A small increase of depression mean scores was observed (F(1,420) = 5.21; p = .023), anxiety and somatic complaints have not significantly changed. There was a medium increase in loneliness from pre-pandemic scores to the pandemic situation (F(1,423) = 30.56; p < .001). Analyzed with regression analyses, current loneliness and pre-pandemic distress represented the strongest associations with mental health during the pandemic. Additionally, health-related concerns during the pandemic were associated with symptoms of depression [b = 0.21; 95%CI(0.08; 0.34); t = 3.12; p = .002], anxiety [b = 0.07; 95%CI(0.01; 0.12); t = 2.50; p = .013], somatic complaints [b = 0.33; 95%CI(0.18; 0.47); t = 4.49; p < .001], and loneliness [b = 0.10; 95%CI(0.03; 0.17); t = 2.74; p = .006]. Social stress due to the pandemic situation was associated with loneliness [b = 0.38; 95%CI(0.32; 0.45); t = 11.75; p < .001]. The results imply that university students represent a risk group for psychosocial long-term ramifications of the pandemic.

A Systematic Review on Sex- and Gender-Sensitive Research in Public Mental Health During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Crisis.

Background: Sex and gender are important modifiers of mental health and behavior in normal times and during crises. We investigated whether they were addressed by empirical, international research that explored the mental health and health behavior ramifications after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We systematically searched the databases PsyArXiv, PubMed, PsycInfo, Psyndex, PubPsych, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies assessing mental health outcomes (main outcomes) as well as potential risk and protective health behavior (additional outcomes) up to July 2, 2020. Findings: Most of the 80 publications fulfilling the selection criteria reflected the static difference perspective treating sex and gender as dichotomous variables. The focus was on internalizing disorders (especially anxiety and depression) burdening women in particular, while externalizing disorders were neglected. Sex- and gender-specific evaluation of mental healthcare use has also been lacking. With respect to unfavorable health behavior in terms of adherence to prescribed protective measures, men constitute a risk group. Interpretations: Women remain a vulnerable group burdened by multiple stresses and mental health symptoms. The neglect of sex- and gender-specific evaluation of aggression-related disorders, substance addiction, and mental healthcare use in the early stage represents a potentially dangerous oversight. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020192026, PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020192026.

Mental health and loneliness in the German general population during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a representative pre-pandemic assessment.

During the pandemic, the extent of subsequent mental health strains is an important issue. A representative face-to-face survey was conducted to assess mental health consequences in the general population and to identify mental health risk factors. In a representative German sample (N = 2,503), we assessed depression and anxiety symptoms by the PHQ-4 and loneliness by a validated item. An earlier survey (2018) which used the same methods and had comparable response rates served as comparison. Scores of depression and anxiety symptoms increased from an average of 0.89 (SD = 1.21) and 0.77 (SD = 1.17) in 2018 to 1.14 (SD = 1.23) and 1.05 (SD = 1.31) in 2020. Loneliness did not increase (M = 1.35, SD = 0.68 in 2018; M = 1.38, SD = 0.78 in 2020), affecting about one in four participants to some degree. Younger participants and women were most likely to report depression, anxiety, and loneliness. As in the previous survey, social inequality factors contributed to distress and loneliness. The small overall increase of distress was consistent with recent German panel studies. In future studies and mental health interventions female sex, younger age, and socioeconomic disparities need to be considered as vulnerability factors for distress.

[Psychological stress caused by epidemics among health care workers and implications for coping with the corona crisis: a literature review]. / Psychische Belastungen durch Epidemien bei Beschäftigten im Gesundheitswesen und Implikationen für die Bewältigung der Corona-Krise: eine Literaturübersicht.

Psychological stress caused by epidemics among health care workers and implications for coping with the corona crisis: a literature review Objectives: COVID-19 has significantly changed the working and living conditions within a short period. Despite the milder course of the disease in comparison to other countries, employees in the German health care system are particularly affected by the massive impact of the disease on their professional and private lives. From a scientific point of view, summarized empirical evidence made during other epidemics and at the beginning of the COVID-19-pandemic is largely missing. Methods: Narrative review article, literature search on PubMed database. Results: A total of 56 studies were included, 35 of them on the SARS epidemic and seven on COVID-19; included studies reported overall increased stress levels, anxiety and PTSD symptoms due to health care work during various epidemics. Direct contact with patients, quarantine experiences and perceived health risks were further stress factors in epidemics. Participation in intervention studies enabled better management of epidemic-related situations. Conclusions: Healthcare workers are exposed to high workloads because of epidemics, which can have a variety of adverse effects. Recommendations are made for dealing with periods of high exposure during the COVID-19-pandemic.