Public mental health during and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Opportunities for intervention via emotional self-efficacy and resilience.

Importance: During the pandemic, the number of United States adults reporting clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression sky-rocketed, up from 11% in 2020 to more than 40% in 2021. Our current mental healthcare system cannot adequately accommodate the current crisis; it is therefore important to identify opportunities for public mental health interventions. Objective: Assess whether modifiable emotional factors may offer a point of intervention for the mental health crisis. Design setting and participants: From January 13 to 15, 2022, adults living in the United States were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk to complete an anonymous survey. Main outcomes and measures: Linear regressions tested whether the primary outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (depressive and anxiety symptoms, burnout) were associated with hypothesized modifiable risk factors (loneliness and need for closure) and hypothesized modifiable protective factors (the ability to perceive emotions and connect with others emotionally; emotion-regulation efficacy; and resilience, or the ability to "bounce back" after negative events). Results: The sample included 1,323 adults (mean [SD] age 41.42 [12.52] years; 636 women [48%]), almost half of whom reported clinically significant depressive (29%) and/or anxiety (15%) symptoms. Approximately 90% of participants indicated feeling burned out at least once a year and nearly half of participants (45%) felt burned out once a week or more. In separate analyses, depressive symptoms (Model A), anxiety symptoms (Model B), and burnout (Model C) were statistically significantly associated with loneliness (ßModel A, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33-0.43; ßModel B, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.26-0.36; ßModel C, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.28-0.41), need for closure (ßModel A, 0.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; ßModel B, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.97-0.17; ßModel C, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07-0.16), recent stressful life events (ßModel A, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.17; ßModel B, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.11-0.18; ßModel C, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.15), and resilience (ßModel A, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.05; ßModel B, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.13; ßModel C, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.05). In addition, depressive and anxiety symptoms were associated with emotional self-efficacy (ßModel A, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.12; ßModel B, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.06), and beliefs about the malleability of emotions (ßModel A, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.03; ßModel B, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04). Associations between loneliness and symptoms were weaker among those with more emotional self-efficacy, more endorsement of emotion malleability beliefs, and greater resilience, in separate models. Analyses controlled for recent stressful life events, optimism, and social desirability. Conclusion and relevance: Public mental health interventions that teach resilience in response to negative events, emotional self-efficacy, and emotion-regulation efficacy may protect against the development of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and burnout, particularly in the context of a collective trauma. Emotional self-efficacy and regulation efficacy may mitigate the association between loneliness and mental health, but loneliness prevention research is also needed to address the current mental health crisis.

Association of compassion and empathy with prosocial health behaviors and attitudes in a pandemic.

This investigation examined how dispositional compassion and empathy were associated with prosocial behaviors and attitudes in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Every two weeks from March 22 to June 15, 2020, we fielded a survey to a new cohort of adults in the U.S. Compassion related to whether one stayed home to protect others, more hours spent staying home and distancing from others, and more frequent mask wearing in public, in the past two weeks. Compassion also related to greater perceived ability to help others who were negatively affected. Empathy related to more endorsement of understanding others' fear of COVID-19, and less endorsement of the view that others were overreacting to COVID-19. There was an interaction between empathy and political ideology, suggesting that empathy may matter for understanding others' fear among those with more conservative-leaning beliefs. Empathy also related to greater understanding that sheltering-in-place helps prevent the spread of COVID-19. Findings suggest that messaging and interventions to increase compassion and empathy may promote public health behaviors during a pandemic regardless of political orientation. Targeting empathy may be one way to reach individuals with more conservative political beliefs, and it is important to use an evidence-based approach accounting for political party differences in motivated reasoning.

Social support coping styles and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: The moderating role of sex.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the onset and exacerbation of mental health problems, such as stress, anxiety, and depression; yet stay-at-home-orders affected individuals' ability to make use of social support as a coping skill in managing distress. We aimed to evaluate how social support (emotional and instrumental) and biological sex were associated with stress, anxiety, and depression early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants (n = 7256) had an average age of 50.13 years (SD = 16.75) and 51.6% were male. Using a cross-sequential design, seven cohorts of individuals completed baseline (T1) and one-month follow-up (T2) questionnaires online from March to July of 2020. We used a series of hierarchical regressions to identify types of social support (Brief-COPE, T1) associated with stress (Perceived Stress Scale-10, T1 and T2), anxiety and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4, T2). RESULTS: Greater emotional support was associated with less perceived stress, anxiety and depression (all ps < 0.001), whereas greater instrumental support predicted increased distress (all ps < 0.036) on all four outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that greater emotional social support was associated with lower perceived stress at T1 for both women and men, with a stronger association for women relative to men. For women, greater emotional social support predicted lower anxiety. LIMITATIONS: Self-selection may have introduced bias and participant self-report on brief measures may not have fully captured coping and distress. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions enhancing emotional social support strategies, which appear especially important for women, might help manage enduring stressors such as the COVID-19 pandemic.