"Examining associations between COVID-19 stressors, intimate partner violence, health, and health behaviors": Corrigendum

Reports an error in "Examining associations between COVID-19 stressors, intimate partner violence, health, and health behaviors" by Abriana M. Gresham, Brett J. Peters, Gery Karantzas, Linda D. Cameron and Jeffry A. Simpson (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2021[Aug], Vol 38[8], 2291-2307). In the original article, an incorrect version of Table 2 was published. The incorrect version and the corrected version of the table are given in this corrigendum. (The following of the original article appeared in record 2021-69112-001). The economic, social, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to increase the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. IPV victimization may, in turn, contribute to physical and mental health, substance use, and social distancing behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective of the current study was to understand the extent to which 1) COVID-19 stressors are associated with IPV victimization and 2) IPV victimization is associated with health and health behaviors. Participants (N = 1,813) completed an online survey between May 15 and 28, 2020 that assessed COVID-19 stressors (financial anxiety, social disconnection, health anxiety, COVID-19-specific stress), IPV victimization, physical and mental health, substance use, and movement outside of the home. Structural equation modeling indicated that greater COVID-19-related stressors were associated with greater IPV victimization during the pandemic, even after controlling for enduring vulnerabilities associated with IPV victimization. Additionally, greater IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher levels of substance use and movement outside of the home, but not poorer physical and mental health. COVID-19 stressors may have detrimental relationship effects and health implications, underscoring the need for increased IPV intervention and support services during the pandemic. Findings from the current work provide preliminary correlational evidence for a theoretical model centered on IPV victimization, rather than perpetration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Coping with global uncertainty: Perceptions of COVID-19 psychological distress, relationship quality, and dyadic coping for romantic partners across 27 countries

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 39(1) of Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (see record 2022-18336-005). Three new authors (Adnan Adil, Emmanuel Asampong, and Rahmattullah Khan Abdul Wahab Khan) were not initially listed in the Epub ahead of print. Table 1 also contained some errors. The corrections are given in the erratum.] Following the global outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, individuals report psychological distress associated with the "new normal"-social distancing, financial hardships, and increased responsibilities while working from home. Given the interpersonal nature of stress and coping responses between romantic partners, based on the systemic transactional model this study posits that perceived partner dyadic coping may be an important moderator between experiences of COVID-19 psychological distress and relationship quality. To examine these associations, self-report data from 14,020 people across 27 countries were collected during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-July, 2020). It was hypothesized that higher symptoms of psychological distress would be reported post-COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 restrictions (Hypothesis 1), reports of post-COVID-19 psychological distress would be negatively associated with relationship quality (Hypothesis 2), and perceived partner DC would moderate these associations (Hypothesis 3). While hypotheses were generally supported, results also showed interesting between-country variability. Limitations and future directions are presented. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Predicting the Trajectories of Parents' Relationship Well-Being During COVID-19 Lockdowns and Beyond: a Vulnerability, Stress and Adaptation Model Perspective.

Strict lockdowns have been employed by many of the world's nations as a public health response to COVID-19. However, concerns have been expressed as to how such public health responses disturb the human ecosystem. In this paper, we report on findings from a longitudinal study of Australian parents in which we investigated how state differences in government-mandated lockdowns affect the relationship well-being (i.e., relationship satisfaction and loneliness) of parents. We situated the study of the relational effects of strict lockdowns within the Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model (VSAM, Karney & Bradbury, 1995) that considers the role of parents' pre-existing vulnerabilities (i.e., psychological distress and attachment insecurity), life stressors (pre-pandemic and COVID-19 stressors), and adaptive relationship processes (constructive communication and perceived partner support). A total of 1942 parents completed 14 waves of assessments of relationship satisfaction and loneliness over a 13.5-month period as well as baseline assessments of personal vulnerabilities, life stressors, and adaptive relationship processes. Parents with high relationship adaptations and low vulnerabilities evidenced the highest relationship well-being (i.e., high satisfaction and low loneliness) during changes in lockdown restrictions, while parents with moderate relationship adaptations and vulnerabilities experienced the poorest well-being. Differences in state lockdown restrictions (i.e., Victoria [long and strict lockdown policy] vs all other states) were associated with differences in relationship well-being for parents with high relationship adaptations. Specifically, Victorian parents experienced significant declines in relationship well-being compared to non-Victorian parents. Our findings provide novel insights into how government-mandated social restrictions can disrupt the relational ecology of parents.

One year on: What we have learned about the psychological effects of COVID-19 social restrictions: A meta-analysis.

This article reports on the first meta-analysis of studies on the association between government-imposed social restrictions and mental health outcomes published during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-three studies (N = 131,844) were included. Social restrictions were significantly associated with increased mental health symptoms overall (d = .41 [CI 95% .17-.65]), including depression (d = .83 [CI 95% .30-1.37]), stress (d = .21 [CI 95% .01-.42]) and loneliness (d = .30 [CI 95% .07-.52]), but not anxiety (d= .26 [CI 95% -.04-.56]). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the strictness and length of restrictions had divergent effects on mental health outcomes, but there are concerns regarding study quality. The findings provide critical insights for future research on the effects of COVID-19 social restrictions.

Parent and child mental health trajectories April 2020 to May 2021: Strict lockdown versus no lockdown in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To control a second-wave COVID-19 outbreak, the state of Victoria in Australia experienced one of the world's first long and strict lockdowns over July-October 2020, while the rest of Australia experienced 'COVID-normal' with minimal restrictions. We (1) investigate trajectories of parent/child mental health outcomes in Victoria vs non-Victoria and (2) identify baseline demographic, individual and COVID-19-related factors associated with mental health trajectories. METHODS: Online community sample of 2004 Australian parents with rapid repeated assessment over 14 time-points over April 2020 to May 2021. Measures assessed parent mental health (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-21), child depression symptoms (13-item Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire) and child anxiety symptoms (four items from Brief Spence Children's Anxiety Scale). RESULTS: Mental health trajectories shadowed COVID-19 infection rates. Victorians reported a peak in mental health symptoms at the time of the second-wave lockdown compared to other states. Key baseline predictors, including parent and child loneliness (standardized regression coefficient [ß] = 0.09-0.46), parent/child diagnoses (ß = 0.07-0.21), couple conflict (ß = 0.07-0.18) and COVID-19 stressors, such as worry/concern about COVID-19, illness and loss of job (ß = 0.12-0.15), predicted elevated trajectories. Effects of predictors on parent and child mental health trajectories are illustrated in an online interactive app for readers (https://lingtax.shinyapps.io/CPAS_trend/). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence of worse trajectories of parent and child mental health symptoms at a time coinciding with a second COVID-19 outbreak involving strict lockdown in Victoria, compared to non-locked states in Australia. We identified several baseline factors that may be useful in detecting high-risk families who are likely to require additional support early on in future lockdowns.

Coping with global uncertainty: Perceptions of COVID-19 psychological distress, relationship quality, and dyadic coping for romantic partners across 27 countries

Following the global outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, individuals report psychological distress associated with the ?new normal??social distancing, financial hardships, and increased responsibilities while working from home. Given the interpersonal nature of stress and coping responses between romantic partners, based on the systemic transactional model this study posits that perceived partner dyadic coping may be an important moderator between experiences of COVID-19 psychological distress and relationship quality. To examine these associations, self-report data from 14,020 people across 27 countries were collected during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic (March?July, 2020). It was hypothesized that higher symptoms of psychological distress would be reported post-COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 restrictions (Hypothesis 1), reports of post-COVID-19 psychological distress would be negatively associated with relationship quality (Hypothesis 2), and perceived partner DC would moderate these associations (Hypothesis 3). While hypotheses were generally supported, results also showed interesting between-country variability. Limitations and future directions are presented.

Dealing with loss in the face of disasters and crises: Integrating interpersonal theories of couple adaptation and functioning.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the significant and varied losses that couples can experience during times of global and regional disasters and crises. What factors determine how couples navigate their close relationships during times of loss? In this paper, we elaborate and extend on one of the most influential frameworks in relationship science-the Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model (VSAM, Karney and Bradbury, 1995)-to enhance the model's power to explain relationships during loss-themed disasters/crises. We do so by elaborating on attachment theory and integrating interdependence theory (emphasizing partner similarities and differences). Our elaboration and extension to the VSAM provides a comprehensive framework to guide future research and inform practice and policy in supporting relationships during and beyond loss-themed disasters/crises.

Examining associations between COVID-19 stressors, intimate partner violence, health, and health behaviors

The economic, social, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to increase the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. IPV victimization may, in turn, contribute to physical and mental health, substance use, and social distancing behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective of the current study was to understand the extent to which 1) COVID-19 stressors are associated with IPV victimization and 2) IPV victimization is associated with health and health behaviors. Participants (N = 1,813) completed an online survey between May 15 and 28, 2020 that assessed COVID-19 stressors (financial anxiety, social disconnection, health anxiety, COVID-19-specific stress), IPV victimization, physical and mental health, substance use, and movement outside of the home. Structural equation modeling indicated that greater COVID-19-related stressors were associated with greater IPV victimization during the pandemic, even after controlling for enduring vulnerabilities associated with IPV victimization. Additionally, greater IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher levels of substance use and movement outside of the home, but not poorer physical and mental health. COVID-19 stressors may have detrimental relationship effects and health implications, underscoring the need for increased IPV intervention and support services during the pandemic. Findings from the current work provide preliminary correlational evidence for a theoretical model centered on IPV victimization, rather than perpetration.

From "It Has Stopped Our Lives" to "Spending More Time Together Has Strengthened Bonds": The Varied Experiences of Australian Families During COVID-19.

The present study uses a qualitative approach to understand the impact of COVID-19 on family life. Australian parents of children aged 0-18 years were recruited via social media between April 8 and April 28, 2020, when Australians were experiencing social distancing/isolation measures for the first time. As part of a larger survey, participants were asked to respond via an open-ended question about how COVID-19 had impacted their family. A total of 2,130 parents were included and represented a diverse range of family backgrounds. Inductive template thematic analysis was used to understand patterns of meaning across the texts. Six themes were derived from the data, including "Boredom, depression and suicide: A spectrum of emotion," "Families are missing the things that keep them healthy," "Changing family relationships: The push pull of intimacy," "The unprecedented demands of parenthood," "The unequal burden of COVID-19," and "Holding on to positivity." Overall, the findings demonstrated a breadth of responses. Messages around loss and challenge were predominant, with many families reporting mental health difficulties and strained family relationships. However, not all families were negatively impacted by the restrictions, with some families reporting positive benefits and meaning, including opportunities for strengthening relationships, finding new hobbies, and developing positive characteristics such as appreciation, gratitude, and tolerance.

Study Protocol for the COVID-19 Pandemic Adjustment Survey (CPAS): A Longitudinal Study of Australian Parents of a Child 0-18 Years.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presents significant risks to the mental health and wellbeing of Australian families. Employment and economic uncertainty, chronic stress, anxiety, and social isolation are likely to have negative impacts on parent mental health, couple and family relationships, as well as child health and development. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to: (1) provide timely information on the mental health impacts of the emerging COVID-19 crisis in a close to representative sample of Australian parents and children (0-18 years), (2) identify adults and families most at risk of poor mental health outcomes, and (3) identify factors to target through clinical and public health intervention to reduce risk. Specifically, this study will investigate the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with increased risk for parents' mental health, lower well-being, loneliness, and alcohol use; parent-parent and parent-child relationships (both verbal and physical); and child and adolescent mental health problems. METHODS: The study aims to recruit a close to representative sample of at least 2,000 adults aged 18 years and over living in Australia who are parents of a child 0-4 years (early childhood, N = 400), 5-12 years (primary school N = 800), and 13-18 years (secondary school, N = 800). The design will be a longitudinal cohort study using an online recruitment methodology. Participants will be invited to complete an online baseline self-report survey (20 min) followed by a series of shorter online surveys (10 min) scheduled every 2 weeks for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., estimated to be 14 surveys over 6 months). RESULTS: The study will employ post stratification weights to address differences between the final sample and the national population in geographic communities across Australia. Associations will be analyzed using multilevel modeling with time-variant and time-invariant predictors of change in trajectory over the testing period. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide timely information on the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on parents and children in Australia; identify communities, parents, families, and children most at risk of poor outcomes; and identify potential factors to address in clinical and public health interventions to reduce risk.