ABSTRACT
The current study analyzed the relationship between Coronavirus (COVID-19) Awareness, mental health, and willingness to seek professional psychological help. This was made through a quantitative approach, using online questionnaires to collect data from 855 subjects. The questionnaires included the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-53) to measure mental health indicators, the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale-Short Form, and the Coronavirus Awareness Scale-10 (CAS-10). An Exploratory Factor Analysis suggests that three factors underlie the CAS-10: Coronavirus Concern, Exaggerated Perception, and Immunity Perception. Results indicate a significant positive correlation between Coronavirus Concern and both general anxiety and phobic anxiety symptoms. Immunity Perception is positively related to paranoid ideation and psychotic symptoms. A Mediation Analysis determined that Coronavirus Concern has a significant positive direct effect on Openness to Seeking Psychological Treatment (OSPT), while Exaggerated Perception and Immunity Perception scores have significant direct negative effects on the Value and Need in Seeking Treatment (VNST) scores. Indirectly, the relationship between Coronavirus Concern and OPST is significantly mediated by anxiety symptoms. Similar results were found for the VNST subscale. There is a negative significant effect of Immunity Perception over OSPT mediated by Paranoid Ideation. However, the overall model only achieved small r 2 coefficients for the OSPT (0.060) and VNST (0.095) scores. Comparisons in Coronavirus Awareness between sex, age, and the presence of children and older adults at home were also made. These results are discussed regarding their practical implications for mental health providers and policymakers.
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: The purpose of the current study was to analyze the influence of coronavirus awareness, psychological stress responses, and sociodemographic variables on mental health indicators (somatization, depression, and anxiety) in residents of Honduras, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. METHODS: The study used a quantitative, cross-sectional approach. Data was collected online using the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18); the Coronavirus Awareness Scale-6 (CAS-6) and a questionnaire that included psychological and sociodemographic questions. The total sample size consisted of 1559 respondents from Honduras (34%), Chile (29%), Costa Rica (17%), Mexico (11%), and Spain (9%). RESULTS: The most common stress domains correspond to family (22.97%), financial (22.53%), academic (16.47%), leisure time constraints (14.23%), health (12.48%), peer group (7.63%), and religious concerns (3.69%). These domains are significantly associated with the respondent's country, sex, employment status, and being or not a health worker. Respondents who reported confinement stress also reported higher scores in anxiety, depression, and somatization. The Global Severity Index was significantly predicted by confinement stress, health, academic, and leisure time-related stress, sex, age, being a health worker, COVID-19 Personal Concern, and Perceived Seriousness. Non-significant predictors were employment status, the number of people at home, presence of older adults and children at home, financial, peer group, family, and religious concerns; the regression model had an R2 of 0.26. Similar analyses were conducted for somatization, depression, and anxiety subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has adverse effects on the mental health of the general population, particularly regarding anxiety, depression, and somatization. Specific populations, such as women and healthcare workers, are at particular risk of suffering a deterioration in mental wellbeing. The implications of the study for public policy are discussed.