Mental health in relation to changes in sleep, exercise, alcohol and diet during the COVID-19 pandemic: examination of four UK cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have included lockdowns and social distancing with considerable disruptions to people's lives. These changes may have particularly impacted on those with mental health problems, leading to a worsening of inequalities in the behaviours which influence health. METHODS: We used data from four national longitudinal British cohort studies (N = 10 666). Respondents reported mental health (psychological distress and anxiety/depression symptoms) and health behaviours (alcohol, diet, physical activity and sleep) before and during the pandemic. Associations between pre-pandemic mental ill-health and pandemic mental ill-health and health behaviours were examined using logistic regression; pooled effects were estimated using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Worse mental health was related to adverse health behaviours; effect sizes were largest for sleep, exercise and diet, and weaker for alcohol. The associations between poor mental health and adverse health behaviours were larger during the May lockdown than pre-pandemic. In September, when restrictions had eased, inequalities had largely reverted to pre-pandemic levels. A notable exception was for sleep, where differences by mental health status remained high. Risk differences for adverse sleep for those with the highest level of prior mental ill-health compared to those with the lowest were 21.2% (95% CI 16.2-26.2) before lockdown, 25.5% (20.0-30.3) in May and 28.2% (21.2-35.2) in September. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our findings suggest that mental health is an increasingly important factor in health behaviour inequality in the COVID era. The promotion of mental health may thus be an important component of improving post-COVID population health.

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

Examining children and adolescent mental health trajectories during the covid-19 pandemic: Findings from a year of the co-space study

Background A major concern throughout the COVID-19 pandemic has been on young people's experiences with mental health. In this study we mapped children and adolescents' mental health trajectories over 13 months of the pandemic and examine whether family, peer, and individual-level factors were associated with trajectory membership. Methods This study focuses on a sub-sample from the Co-SPACE study of 3322 children and adolescents (aged 4-16 years) for whom parents completed a survey at Time 0 and at least one follow-up survey between March 2020 and May 2021. We used growth mixture models to examine trajectories in emotional, conduct, and hyperactivity/inattention difficulties using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and multinomial logistic regression models to estimate factors associated with individual trajectory membership. Results The average trend in young people's mental health appeared to follow changes in national guidelines regarding the pandemic. Distinct trends in GMM models highlighting individual differences showed that a 5-trajectory model best explained the changes in emotional problems whilst 4-trajectory models best explained variation in hyperactivity/inattention and conduct problems. While most young people followed low stable (62%-85%) or moderate stable (28%) symptom trajectories, 14%-31% experienced very high, high stable or increasing mental health difficulties. Young people following high stable trajectories were more likely to have special educational needs and/or neurodevelopmental disorders, parents reporting higher levels of distress and parent-child conflict, and were less likely to have at least one close friend. Conclusions Most young people adapted well and experienced low stable symptoms, but nearly one third experienced high stable or increasing mental health difficulties. Young people with complex needs and parents with higher psychological distress were particularly vulnerable to high stable problems while those with positive peer relationships were less vulnerable. This study offers insight into potential factors that can be addressed using targeted interventions to improve the wellbeing of parents and young people in the event of future lockdowns and school closures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Promoting mental health and well-being in schools: examining mindfulness, relaxation and strategies for safety and well-being in English primary and secondary schools-study protocol for a multi-school, cluster randomised controlled trial (INSPIRE).

There are increasing rates of internalising difficulties, particularly anxiety and depression, being reported in children and young people in England. School-based universal prevention programmes are thought to be one way of helping tackle such difficulties. This paper describes an update to a four-arm cluster randomised controlled trial ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16386254 ), investigating the effectiveness of three different interventions when compared to usual provision, in English primary and secondary pupils. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was put on hold and subsequently prolonged. Data collection will now run until 2024. The key changes to the trial outlined here include clarification of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, an amended timeline reflecting changes to the recruitment period of the trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic and clarification of the data that will be included in the statistical analysis, since the second wave of the trial was disrupted due to COVID-19.Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16386254. Registered on 30 August 2018.

Psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction following COVID-19 infection: evidence from 11 UK longitudinal population studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We aimed to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with deterioration in mental health while considering pre-pandemic mental health, time since infection, subgroup differences, and confirmation of infection via self-reported test and serology data. METHODS: We obtained data from 11 UK longitudinal studies with repeated measures of mental health (psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction; mental health scales were standardised within each study across time) and COVID-19 status between April, 2020, and April, 2021. We included participants with information available on at least one mental health outcome measure and self-reported COVID-19 status (suspected or test-confirmed) during the pandemic, and a subset with serology-confirmed COVID-19. Furthermore, only participants who had available data on a minimum set of covariates, including age, sex, and pre-pandemic mental health were included. We investigated associations between having ever had COVID-19 and mental health outcomes using generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education, and pre-pandemic mental health, whether the strength of the association varied according to time since infection, and whether associations differed between self-reported versus confirmed (by test or serology) infection. FINDINGS: Between 21 Dec, 2021, and July 11, 2022, we analysed data from 54 442 participants (ranging from a minimum age of 16 years in one study to a maximum category of 90 years and older in another; including 33 200 [61·0%] women and 21 242 [39·0%] men) from 11 longitudinal UK studies. Of 40 819 participants with available ethnicity data, 36 802 (90·2%) were White. Pooled estimates of standardised differences in outcomes suggested associations between COVID-19 and subsequent psychological distress (0·10 [95% CI 0·06 to 0·13], I2=42·8%), depression (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=20·8%), anxiety (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=0·0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0·06 [-0·08 to -0·04], I2=29·2%). We found no evidence of interactions between COVID-19 and sex, education, ethnicity, or pre-pandemic mental health. Associations did not vary substantially between time since infection of less than 4 weeks, 4-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks, and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50 years and older. Participants who self-reported COVID-19 but had negative serology had worse mental health outcomes for all measures than those without COVID-19 based on serology and self-report. Participants who had positive serology but did not self-report COVID-19 did not show association with mental health outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Self-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings emphasise the need for greater post-infection mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Inequalities in healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK population-based longitudinal studies.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated associations between multiple sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Coordinated analysis of prospective population surveys. SETTING: Community-dwelling participants in the UK between April 2020 and January 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Over 68 000 participants from 12 longitudinal studies. OUTCOMES: Self-reported healthcare disruption to medication access, procedures and appointments. RESULTS: Prevalence of healthcare disruption varied substantially across studies: between 6% and 32% reported any disruption, with 1%-10% experiencing disruptions in medication, 1%-17% experiencing disruption in procedures and 4%-28% experiencing disruption in clinical appointments. Females (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40; I2=54%), older persons (eg, OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72; I2=77% for 65-75 years vs 45-54 years) and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; I2=0% vs white) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions (eg, OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional), but no clear differences were observed by education. We did not find evidence that these associations differed by shielding status. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and smoking, alcohol consumption and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Employment disruptions can impact smoking and alcohol consumption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented furlough schemes to prevent job loss. We examine how furlough was associated with smoking, vaping and alcohol consumption in the UK. METHODS: Data from 27,841 participants in eight UK adult longitudinal surveys were analysed. Participants self-reported employment status and current smoking, current vaping and alcohol consumption (>4 days/week or 5+ drinks per typical occasion) both before and during the early stages of the pandemic (April-July 2020). Risk ratios were estimated within each study using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for a range of potential confounders, including pre-pandemic behaviour. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Compared to stable employment and after adjustment for pre-pandemic characteristics, furlough was not associated with smoking (ARR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; I2: 10%), vaping (ARR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; I2: 0%) or drinking (ARR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; I2: 48%). There were similar findings for no longer being employed, and stable unemployment, though this varied by sex: stable unemployment was associated with smoking for women (ARR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00-1.82; I2: 47%) but not men (0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.05; I2: 0%). No longer being employed was associated with vaping among women (ARR = 2.74; 95% CI: 1.59-4.72; I2: 0%) but not men (ARR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.83-1.87; I2: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence of furlough or unemployment having adverse impacts on smoking, vaping or drinking behaviours during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Differences in risk compared to those who remained employed were largely explained by pre-pandemic characteristics.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) to minimise job losses. Our aim was to investigate associations between furlough and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed data on 25,092 participants aged 16-66 years from eight UK longitudinal studies. Changes in employment, including being furloughed, were based on employment status before and during the first lockdown. Health behaviours included fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and sleep. Study-specific estimates obtained using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic health and health behaviours, were statistically pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Associations were also stratified by sex, age, and education. RESULTS: Across studies, between 8 and 25% of participants were furloughed. Compared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were slightly less likely to be physically inactive (RR = 0.85; [95% CI 0.75-0.97]; I 2 = 59%) and did not differ overall with respect to low fruit and vegetable consumption or atypical sleep, although findings for sleep were heterogenous (I 2 = 85%). In stratified analyses, furlough was associated with lower fruit and vegetable consumption among males (RR = 1.11; [1.01-1.22]; I 2 = 0%) but not females (RR = 0.84; [0.68-1.04]; I 2 = 65%). Considering changes in quantity, furloughed workers were more likely than those who remained working to report increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and hours of sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Those furloughed exhibited similar health behaviours to those who remained in employment during the initial stages of the pandemic. There was little evidence to suggest that adoption of such social protection policies in the post-pandemic recovery period and during future economic crises had adverse effects on population health behaviours.

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK coronavirus job retention scheme: Evidence from nine longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major economic disruptions. In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme - known as furlough - to minimize the impact of job losses. We investigate associations between change in employment status and mental and social wellbeing during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: Data were from 25,670 respondents, aged 17-66, across nine UK longitudinal studies. Furlough and other employment changes were defined using employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown (April-June 2020). Mental and social wellbeing outcomes included psychological distress, life satisfaction, self-rated health, social contact, and loneliness. Study-specific modified Poisson regression estimates, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic mental and social wellbeing, were pooled using meta-analysis. Associations were also stratified by sex, age, education, and household composition. RESULTS: Compared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were at greater risk of psychological distress (adjusted risk ratio, ARR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.97, 1.29), low life satisfaction (ARR = 1.14; 95%CI: 1.07, 1.22), loneliness (ARR = 1.12; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.23), and poor self-rated health (ARR = 1.26; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.50). Nevertheless, compared to furloughed workers, those who became unemployed had greater risk of psychological distress (ARR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.52), low life satisfaction (ARR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.98, 1.38), and loneliness (ARR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.08, 2.59). Effects were not uniform across all sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: During the early stages of the pandemic, those furloughed had increased risk of poor mental and social wellbeing, but furloughed workers fared better than those who became unemployed, suggesting that furlough may have partly mitigated poorer outcomes.

Long COVID burden and risk factors in 10 UK longitudinal studies and electronic health records.

The frequency of, and risk factors for, long COVID are unclear among community-based individuals with a history of COVID-19. To elucidate the burden and possible causes of long COVID in the community, we coordinated analyses of survey data from 6907 individuals with self-reported COVID-19 from 10 UK longitudinal study (LS) samples and 1.1 million individuals with COVID-19 diagnostic codes in electronic healthcare records (EHR) collected by spring 2021. Proportions of presumed COVID-19 cases in LS reporting any symptoms for 12+ weeks ranged from 7.8% and 17% (with 1.2 to 4.8% reporting debilitating symptoms). Increasing age, female sex, white ethnicity, poor pre-pandemic general and mental health, overweight/obesity, and asthma were associated with prolonged symptoms in both LS and EHR data, but findings for other factors, such as cardio-metabolic parameters, were inconclusive.

Psychological Distress Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Adults in the United Kingdom Based on Coordinated Analyses of 11 Longitudinal Studies.

Importance: How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, and the consequences for health inequalities are unclear. Objective: To investigate changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adult participants from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with prepandemic measures of psychological distress. Analyses were coordinated across these studies, and estimates were pooled. Data were collected from 2006 to 2021. Exposures: Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed in the prepandemic period (time period 0 [TP 0]) and at 3 pandemic TPs: 1, initial lockdown (March to June 2020); 2, easing of restrictions (July to October 2020); and 3, a subsequent lockdown (November 2020 to March 2021). Analyses were stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, education, age, and UK country. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from the prepandemic period across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Kessler 6, the 9-item Malaise Inventory, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, the 8-item or 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression across different studies. Results: In total, 49 993 adult participants (12 323 [24.6%] aged 55-64 years; 32 741 [61.2%] women; 4960 [8.7%] racial and ethnic minority) were analyzed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from prepandemic scores across all 3 pandemic periods, but there was considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific estimated effect sizes (pooled estimate for TP 1: standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25; TP 2: SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; TP 3: SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in women (TP 3: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.35) than men (TP 3: SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26) and lower in individuals with below-degree level education at TP 3 (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30) compared with those who held degrees (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.38). Increased psychological distress was most prominent among adults aged 25 to 34 years (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14-0.84) and 35 to 44 years (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.60) compared with other age groups. No evidence of changes in distress differing by race and ethnicity or UK country were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic period. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with women, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25 to 44 years more affected than other groups.

Pre-pandemic mental health and disruptions to healthcare, economic and housing outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable. AIMS: Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing. METHOD: We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies. RESULTS: Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3-33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20-1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20-1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 -1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

The individual, place, and wellbeing - a network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has examined individual-level and place characteristics as correlates of subjective wellbeing, with many studies concluding that individual factors (e.g. health, finances) are more strongly related to wellbeing. However, this 'dualistic' approach has been challenged, with some arguing that it is impossible to disentangle the effects of the two domains, and that wellbeing should be considered as part of a network of mutually reinforcing relationships between individual, community and place characteristics. We used network analysis to explore these complex associations. METHODS: Data were from a large sample of adults from a socioeconomically disadvantaged region of the United Kingdom (N = 4319). Wellbeing was assessed using the 7-item version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS). Mixed graphical networks were estimated including wellbeing, place and individual-characteristic variables as nodes. RESULTS: We found a densely connected network in which wellbeing was associated, both directly and indirectly, with all of the individual, community and place characteristics assessed. Wellbeing was most strongly connected with individual characteristics, in particular financial difficulty and subjective physical health. However, controlling for all other variables in the network model, wellbeing was positively associated with local greenspace usage, civic agency, and neighbourhood cohesion, and negatively associated with housing disrepair. Greater specificity in these associations was observed when the wellbeing construct was broken down into its constituent parts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the complex relationships that exist between individual, community and place characteristics in the context of subjective wellbeing, and that all domains need to be considered when developing population-level strategies to improve wellbeing. Further consideration needs to be given to how this might happen in practice, for example through a combination of consistent use of community engagement methodologies alongside Health in All Policy (HiAP) approaches.

Mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing during COVID-19: findings from 12 UK longitudinal population surveys

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic with its associated virus suppression measures have disrupted many domains of life for many people. Increasingly it is recognised that negative disruptive impacts of the pandemic are not experienced equally and may exacerbate existing inequalities. People already suffering from psychological distress may have been especially vulnerable to disruptions. We investigated associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress and disruptions to healthcare, economic activity, and housing, and whether these associations were moderated by age, sex, ethnicity or education.MethodsData were from 59,482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal adult population surveys with both pre-pandemic and COVID-19 surveys. Participants self-reported disruptions since the start of the pandemic to: healthcare (medication access, procedures, or appointments);economic activity (negative changes in employment, income or working hours);and housing (change of address or household composition). These were also combined into a cumulative measure indicating how many of these three domains had been disrupted. Logistic regression models were used within each study to estimate associations between pre-pandemic standardised psychological distress scores and disruption outcomes. Analyses were weighted for sampling design and attrition, and adjusted for age, sex, education, ethnicity, and UK country. Findings were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood. Effect modification by sex, education, ethnicity and age was assessed using group-difference tests during meta-analysis.ResultsWhile exact prevalence varied between studies, pre-pandemic psychological distress was generally more common among women, ethnic minorities, younger age groups, and those with less education. One standard deviation higher psychological distress was associated with raised odds of health care disruptions (OR 1.40;95% CI: 1.29–1.51;Heterogeneity I2: 79.4%) and with experiencing disruptions in two or more of the three domains examined (OR 1.22;95% CI: 1.14–1.31;Heterogeneity I2: 75.8%), but not specifically with disruptions to economic activity (OR 1.03;95% CI: 0.95–1.13;Heterogeneity I2: 89.5%) or housing (OR 1.00;95% CI: 0.97–1.03;Heterogeneity I2: 0.0%). We did not find evidence of these associations differing by sex, ethnicity, education, or age group.ConclusionThose suffering from psychological distress before the pandemic have been more likely to experience healthcare disruptions during the pandemic, and clusters of disruptions across multiple life domains. Individuals suffering from distress may need additional support to manage these disruptions, especially in relation to healthcare. Otherwise, considering psychological distress was already unequally distributed, the pandemic may exacerbate existing inequalities related to gender, ethnicity, education and age.

Examining changes in parent-reported child and adolescent mental health throughout the UK's first COVID-19 national lockdown.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed the lives of children and adolescents, forcing them into periods of prolonged social isolation and time away from school. Understanding the psychological consequences of the UK's lockdown for children and adolescents, the associated risk factors, and how trajectories may vary for children and adolescents in different circumstances is essential so that the most vulnerable children and adolescents can be identified, and appropriate support can be implemented. METHODS: Participants were a convenience sample of parents and carers (n = 2,988) in the UK with children and adolescents aged between 4 and 16 years who completed an online survey about their child's mental health. Growth curve analysis was used to examine the changes in conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and emotional symptoms between the end of March/beginning of April and July using data from monthly assessments over four months. Additionally, growth mixture modelling identified mental health trajectories for conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and emotional symptoms separately, and subsequent regression models were used to estimate predictors of mental health trajectory membership. RESULTS: Overall levels of hyperactivity and conduct problems increased over time, whereas emotional symptoms remained relatively stable, though declined somewhat between June and July. Change over time varied according to child age, the presence of siblings, and with Special Educational Needs (SEN)/Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ND). Subsequent growth mixture modelling identified three, four, and five trajectories for hyperactivity/inattention, conduct problems, and emotional symptoms, respectively. Though many children maintained 'stable low' symptoms, others experienced elevated symptoms by July. These children were more likely to have a parent/carer with higher levels of psychological distress, to have SEN/ND, or to be younger in age. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support previous literature and highlight that certain risk factors were associated with poorer mental health trajectories for children and adolescents during the pandemic.

Changes in the behavioural determinants of health during the COVID-19 pandemic: gender, socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in five British cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have far-reaching consequences on population health. We investigated whether these consequences included changes in health-impacting behaviours which are important drivers of health inequalities. METHODS: Using data from five representative British cohorts (born 2000-2002, 1989-1990, 1970, 1958 and 1946), we investigated sleep, physical activity (exercise), diet and alcohol intake (N=14 297). We investigated change in each behaviour (pre/during the May 2020 lockdown), and differences by age/cohort, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic position (childhood social class, education attainment and adult financial difficulties). Logistic regression models were used, accounting for study design and non-response weights, and meta-analysis used to pool and test cohort differences in association. RESULTS: Change occurred in both directions-shifts from the middle part of the distribution to both declines and increases in sleep, exercise and alcohol use. Older cohorts were less likely to report changes in behaviours while the youngest reported more frequent increases in sleep, exercise, and fruit and vegetable intake, yet lower alcohol consumption. Widening inequalities in sleep during lockdown were more frequent among women, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and ethnic minorities. For other outcomes, inequalities were largely unchanged, yet ethnic minorities were at higher risk of undertaking less exercise and consuming lower amounts of fruit and vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide new evidence on the multiple changes to behavioural outcomes linked to lockdown, and the differential impacts across generation, gender, socioeconomic circumstances across life, and ethnicity. Lockdown appeared to widen some (but not all) forms of health inequality.

How did the mental health symptoms of children and adolescents change over early lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused extensive disruption to the lives of children and young people. Understanding the psychological effects on children and young people, in the context of known risk factors is crucial to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. This study set out to explore how mental health symptoms in children and adolescents changed over a month of full lockdown in the United Kingdom in response to the pandemic. METHODS: UK-based parents and carers (n = 2673) of school-aged children and young people aged between 4 and 16 years completed an online survey about their child's mental health at two time points between March and May 2020, during early lockdown. The survey examined changes in emotional symptoms, conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention. RESULTS: The findings highlighted particular deteriorations in mental health symptoms among preadolescent children, which translated to a 10% increase in those meeting possible/probable caseness criteria for emotional symptoms, a 20% increase in hyperactivity/inattention, and a 35% increase in conduct problems. In contrast, changes among adolescents were smaller (4% and 8% increase for hyperactivity/inattention and conduct problems, respectively) with a small reduction in emotional symptoms (reflecting a 3% reduction in caseness). Overall, there were few differences in change in symptoms or caseness over time according to demographic characteristics, but children and young people in low income households and those with special educational needs and/or neurodevelopmental disorders exhibited elevated symptoms (and caseness) at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight important areas of concern in terms of the potential impact of the first national lockdown on children and young people's adjustment. Developing an understanding of who has been most severely affected by the pandemic, and in what ways, is crucial in order to target effective support where it is most needed.

Looking Back to Move Forward: Reflections on the Strengths and Challenges of the COVID-19 UK Mental Health Research Response.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the swift response of mental health research funders and institutions, service providers, and academics enabled progress toward understanding the mental health consequences. Nevertheless, there remains an urgent need to understand the true extent of the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, necessitating ongoing research. Although the speed with which mental health researchers have mobilized to respond to the pandemic so far is to be commended, there are valid concerns as to whether speed may have compromised the quality of our work. As the pandemic continues to evolve, we must take time to reflect on our initial research response and collectively consider how we can use this to strengthen ensuing COVID-19 mental health research and our response to future crises. Here, we offer our reflections as members of the UK mental health research community to discuss the continuing progress and persisting challenges of our COVID-19 response, which we hope can encourage reflection and discussion among the wider research community. We conclude that (1) Fragmentation in our infrastructure has challenged the efficient, effective and equitable deployment of resources, (2) In responding quickly, we may have overlooked the role of experts by experience, (3) Robust and open methods may have been compromised by speedy responses, and (4) This pandemic may exacerbate existing issues of inequality in our workforce.