Trends in cannabis use among U.S. adults amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on mental health and alcohol use in the US, however there is little research on its impacts on cannabis use. Considering the role of cannabis as a coping strategy or self-medicating behavior, there is a need to understand how individuals who use cannabis have adapted their use amid the pandemic. Therefore, this study examined changes in self-reported cannabis use among US adults in the context of COVID-19 pandemic by (1) describing trends of use during the first 8 months of the pandemic among adults who used cannabis in this period; and (2) characterizing trends of use within sociodemographic subgroups and by state cannabis policy status. METHODS: The sample consisted of 1,761 US adults who used cannabis at least once during the 8-month study period from the nationally representative Understanding America Study. Linear mixed-effect models were used to model changes in the number of days of past-week cannabis use across 16 waves from March 10, 2020, to November 11, 2020. RESULTS: Compared to early March, the number of days cannabis was used per week was significantly higher at the start of April (ß=0.11, 95% CI=0.03, 0.18) and May (ß=0.21,95% CI=0.05, 0.36). In subsequent months (June - November), the number of days of cannabis use attenuated to levels comparable to March. Trends of cannabis use across the study period generally did not differ across sociodemographic characteristics and state cannabis policy status. CONCLUSION: Though increases in use were marginal among many groups, the evolving pandemic and the growing concern for the mental health of segments of the U.S. population warrant close monitoring of coping behaviors, including substance use.

Burden of mental distress in the US associated with trust in media for COVID-19 information.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, news and social media outlets have played a major role in dissemination of information. This analysis aimed to study the association between trust in social and traditional media and experiences of mental distress among a representative sample of US adults. Data for this study came from National Pandemic Pulse, a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey that sampled participants on the Dynata platform. Participants included 6435 adults surveyed between 15-23 December 2020. Ordinal logistic regression analyses examined the associations of trust in (i) social media, (ii) print media, (iii) broadcast TV and (iv) cable TV, for COVID-19-related information with self-reported mental distress (4-item Patient Health Questionnaire), controlling for sociodemographics and census region. Compared with those who distrusted social media, those who trusted social media had 2.09 times (95% CI = 1.84-2.37) greater adjusted odds of being in a more severe category of mental distress. In contrast, compared with those who distrusted print media, those who trusted print media had 0.80 times (95% CI = 0.69-0.93) lower adjusted odds of being in a more severe category of mental distress. No significant associations were found between mental distress and trust in broadcast or cable TV for accessing news about COVID-19. Trust in different news outlets may be associated with mental distress during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies should explore mechanisms behind these associations, including adherence to best practices for crisis reporting among different media sources and exposure of individuals to misinformation.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, both, traditional channels like print, TV and cable news, as well as social media, have been major sources to obtain news about the pandemic. In this manuscript, we study the association between trust in social and traditional media and symptoms of mental distress among a nationally representative sample of 6435 US adults surveyed in December 2020. Our findings show that those who reported trusting traditional print media were less likely to report more severe mental distress. Conversely, those who reported trusting social media were more likely to report more severe levels of mental distress. This highlights the urgent need for understanding the diffusion patterns of misinformation and rumors that circulate on social media, and consumers' reactions to them. It is important that during a public health emergency, we follow best practices for crisis communication to reduce panic, address uncertainty, promote protective behaviors and mental health.

Burden of mental distress in the United States is associated with delayed medical visits and missed prescription refills during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to poor health due to a decrease in healthcare utilization and those with mental health problems may be impacted. For this analysis, data came from a cross-sectional, nationally representative December 2020 survey. Logistic regression analyses examined associations between (1) mental distress and delayed medical visits, (2) mental distress and missed prescription refills, controlling for sociodemographics, pre-existing chronic conditions, and access to health insurance. We found that, compared to those that exhibited normal levels of mental distress, those with mild (aOR = 2.83, 95% CI = 2.47-3.24), moderate (aOR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.95-3.99), and severe (aOR = 4.96, 95% CI = 4.21-5.84) mental distress showed greater odds of delaying medical visits. Similarly, compared to those that exhibited normal levels of mental distress, those with mild (aOR =3.93, 95% CI = 3.04-5.09), moderate (aOR =6.52, 95% CI = 5.07-8.43), and severe (aOR =8.69, 95% CI = 6.71-11.32) mental distress showed greater odds of missing prescription refills. Our study shows that individuals who showed signs of mental distress had increased odds of delayed medical visits and missed prescription refills, compared to those that showed normal levels of mental distress.

Contextualizing Engagement With Health Information on Facebook: Using the Social Media Content and Context Elicitation Method.

BACKGROUND: Most of what is known regarding health information engagement on social media stems from quantitative methodologies. Public health literature often quantifies engagement by measuring likes, comments, and/or shares of posts within health organizations' Facebook pages. However, this content may not represent the health information (and misinformation) generally available to and consumed by platform users. Furthermore, some individuals may prefer to engage with information without leaving quantifiable digital traces. Mixed methods approaches may provide a way of surpassing the constraints of assessing engagement with health information by using only currently available social media metrics. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to discuss the limitations of current approaches in assessing health information engagement on Facebook and presents the social media content and context elicitation method, a qualitatively driven, mixed methods approach to understanding engagement with health information and how engagement may lead to subsequent actions. METHODS: Data collection, management, and analysis using the social media content and context elicitation method are presented. This method was developed for a broader study exploring how and why US Latinos and Latinas engage with cancer prevention and screening information on Facebook. The study included 20 participants aged between 40 and 75 years without cancer who participated in semistructured, in-depth interviews to discuss their Facebook use and engagement with cancer information on the platform. Participants accessed their Facebook account alongside the researcher, typed cancer in the search bar, and discussed cancer-related posts they engaged with during the previous 12 months. Engagement was defined as liking, commenting, and/or sharing a post; clicking on a post link; reading an article in a post; and/or watching a video within a post. Content engagement prompted questions regarding the reasons for engagement and whether engagement triggered further action. Data were managed using MAXQDA (VERBI GmbH) and analyzed using thematic and content analyses. RESULTS: Data emerging from the social media content and context elicitation method demonstrated that participants mainly engaged with cancer prevention and screening information by viewing and/or reading content (48/66, 73%) without liking, commenting, or sharing it. This method provided rich content regarding how US Latinos and Latinas engage with and act upon cancer prevention and screening information on Facebook. We present 2 emblematic cases from the main study to exemplify the additional information and context elicited from this methodology, which is currently lacking from quantitative approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The social media content and context elicitation method allows a better representation and deeper contextualization of how people engage with and act upon health information and misinformation encountered on social media. This method may be applied to future studies regarding how to best communicate health information on social media, including how these affect assessments of message credibility and accuracy, which can influence health outcomes.

"I got a bunch of weed to help me through the withdrawals": Naturalistic cannabis use reported in online opioid and opioid recovery community discussion forums.

A growing body of research has reported on the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis and cannabinoids, but less is known about specific mechanisms. The present research examines cannabis-related posts in two large online communities on the Reddit platform ("subreddits") to compare mentions of naturalistic cannabis use by persons self-identifying as actively using opioids versus persons in recovery. We extracted all posts mentioning cannabis-related keywords (e.g., "weed", "cannabis", "marijuana") from December 2015 through August 2019 from an opioid use subreddit and an opioid recovery subreddit. To investigate how cannabis is discussed at-scale, we identified and compared the most frequent phrases in cannabis-related posts in each subreddit using term-frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) weighting. To contextualize these findings, we also conducted a qualitative content analysis of 200 random posts (100 from each subreddit). Cannabis-related posts were about twice as prevalent in the recovery subreddit (n = 908; 5.4% of 16,791 posts) than in the active opioid use subreddit (n = 4,224; 2.6% of 159,994 posts, p < .001). The most frequent phrases from the recovery subreddit referred to time without using opioids and the possibility of using cannabis as a "treatment." The most frequent phrases from the opioid subreddit referred to concurrent use of cannabis and opioids. The most common motivations for using cannabis were to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms in the recovery subreddit, often in conjunction with anti-anxiety and GI-distress "comfort meds," and to enhance the "high" when used in combination with opioids in the opioid subreddit. Despite limitations in generalizability from pseudonymous online posts, this examination of reports of naturalistic cannabis use in relation to opioid use identified withdrawal symptom management as a common motivation. Future research is warranted with more structured assessments that examines the role of cannabis and cannabinoids in addressing both somatic and affective symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

Changes in drinking days among United States adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: To examine changes in drinking behavior among United States (US) adults between March 10 and July 21, 2020, a critical period during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Longitudinal, internet-based panel survey. SETTING: The Understanding America Study (UAS), a nationally representative panel of US adults age 18 or older. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4298 US adults who reported alcohol use. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in number of reported drinking days from March 11, 2020 through July 21, 2020 in the overall sample and stratified by sex, age, race/ethnicity, household structure, poverty status, and census region. FINDINGS: Compared with March 11, the number of drinking days per week was significantly higher on April 1 by an average of 0.36 days (95% CI = 0.30, 0.43), on May 1 by an average of 0.55 days (95% CI = 0.47, 0.63), on June 1 by an average of 0.41 days (95% CI = 0.33, 0.49), and on July 1 by an average of 0.39 days (95% CI = 0.31, 0.48). Males, White participants, and older adults reported sustained increases in drinking days, whereas female participants and individuals living under the federal poverty line had attenuated drinking days in the latter part of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Between March and mid-July 2020, adults in the United States reported increases in the number of drinking days, with sustained increases observed among males, White participants, and older adults.

Associations of household structure and presence of children in the household with mental distress during the early stages of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The objectives of the current study were to (1) assess associations between household structure (i.e., living with spouse compared to living alone, with children, or with a spouse and children), presence of children, and mental distress in April 2020 and change in mental distress (between April and August 2020); and (2) determine whether these associations are moderated by income or sex. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,214 adults aged 25-55 from the April and August 2020 waves of the Understanding America study were included in the analytic sample. STUDY METHOD: Multivariable, survey-weighted linear regression models were used to examine associations between explanatory variables (i.e., household structure and number of children) and outcome variables (mental distress in April and change in mental distress), measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-4. RESULTS: In adjusted models, each additional child under the age of 12 was associated with lower mental distress in April 2020 (ß = -.30, p = .002). Having children aged 13 to 18 and household structure were not significantly associated with mental distress. In interaction models, living with children only was associated with decreased mental distress among individuals reporting low income (interaction ß = -1.28, p = .016) but not high income. Similarly, living with children only was associated with decreased mental distress in females (interaction ß = -1.09, p = .025) but not males. CONCLUSION: This study supports prior literature that demonstrates the positive association of child rearing with psychological well-being and suggests that these benefits may be present even under stay-at-home orders in the early stages of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Differences in beliefs about COVID-19 by gun ownership: a cross-sectional survey of Texas adults.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between gun ownership and perceptions about COVID-19 among Texas adults as the pandemic emerged. We considered perceived likelihood that the pandemic would lead to civil unrest, perceived importance of taking precautions to prevent transmission and perceptions that the threat of COVID-19 has been exaggerated. METHODS: Data were collected from 5 to 12 April 2020, shortly after Texas' stay-at-home declaration. We generated a sample using random digit dial methods for a telephone survey (n=77, response rate=8%) and by randomly selecting adults from an ongoing panel to complete the survey online (n=1120, non-probability sample). We conducted a logistic regression to estimate differences in perceptions by gun ownership. To account for bias associated with use of a non-probability sample, we used Bayesian data integration and ran linear regression models to produce more accurate measures of association. RESULTS: Among the 60% of Texas adults who reported gun ownership, estimates of past 7-day gun purchases, ammunition purchases and gun carrying were 15% (n=78), 20% (n=100) and 24% (n=130), respectively. We found no evidence of an association between gun ownership with perceived importance of taking precautions to prevent transmission or with perceived likelihood of civil unrest. Results from the logistic regression (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63) and the linear regression (ß=0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.29) suggest that gun owners may be more likely to believe the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with those without guns, gun owners may have been inclined to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early in the pandemic.

Protective and Risk Factors for Mental Distress and Its Impact on Health-Protective Behaviors during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 in Germany.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is posing a global public health burden. These consequences have been shown to increase the risk of mental distress, but the underlying protective and risk factors for mental distress and trends over different waves of the pandemic are largely unknown. Furthermore, it is largely unknown how mental distress is associated with individual protective behavior. Three quota samples, weighted to represent the population forming the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study (24 March and 26 May 2020, and 9 March 2021 with >900 subjects each), were used to describe the course of mental distress and resilience, to identify risk and protective factors during the pandemic, and to investigate their associations with individual protective behaviors. Mental distress increased slightly during the pandemic. Usage of cognitive reappraisal strategies, maintenance of a daily structure, and usage of alternative social interactions decreased. Self-reported resilience, cognitive reappraisal strategies, and maintaining a daily structure were the most important protective factors in all three samples. Adherence to individual protective behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) was negatively associated with mental distress and positively associated with frequency of information intake, maintenance of a daily structure, and cognitive reappraisal. Maintaining a daily structure, training of cognitive reappraisal strategies, and information provision may be targets to prevent mental distress while assuring a high degree of individual protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effects of the respective interventions have to be confirmed in further studies.

An examination of racial and ethnic disparities in mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. South.

BACKGROUND: The mental health of racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States may be disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to greater experience of peri-pandemic stressors. Yet, few studies have systematically examined racial/ethnic differences in mental health outcomes in this context. METHODS: Data came from the COVID-19 Southern Cities Study, a probability-based, cross-sectional study conducted in May/June 2020 among adults living in the metropolitan statistical areas of Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans. Unadjusted and adjusted associations between racial/ethnic identity and past-week depression and/or anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥ 3 or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 score ≥ 3), trouble sleeping, physical reactions when thinking about COVID-19, and self-rated worsened mental health due to the pandemic were estimated in separate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Over 30% of respondents reported depression and/or anxiety symptoms, 21% reported physical reactions, 25% had trouble sleeping, and 33% worsened mental health since the pandemic began. Adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and pandemic-related stressors, odds of anxiety symptoms (odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.95) and worsened mental health (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.94) were lower among non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic white respondents. LIMITATIONS: No diagnostic assessments were used, and results may not be generalizable to later phases of the pandemic and the entire U.S. South. CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater pandemic-related stressor experience, poor mental health outcomes were not more common among racial/ethnic minority individuals. However, interventions to reduce disparities in stressor experience and promote mental health are needed.

Psychological distress among caregivers raising a child with autism spectrum disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately impact parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Loss of services and supports, heightened fears about increased infection rates, and disruption of daily routines likely adversely affect the well-being of children with ASD and their families. The goal of this study was to examine differences in psychological distress-as defined by symptoms of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and hyperarousal-between parents raising a child with ASD and parents in the US as a whole during the early stages of the pandemic (March-April 2020). Parents raising a child with ASD (n = 3556) were recruited through SPARK, a national ASD research registry, whereas a representative sample of parents in the US (n = 5506) were recruited from the Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel. All data were captured via online surveys. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions examined psychological distress at the item and summary score level. Parents of children with ASD reported higher levels of overall psychological distress (48% vs. 25%; aOR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.32, 1.84, p < 0.001). Hyperarousal, or feelings of panic when thinking about COVID-19, was particularly prevalent among parents of children with ASD compared to parents in the US (25% vs. 9%; aOR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.83, 3.07, p < 0.001). Findings highlight the importance of considering the policies and practices that contribute to poor mental health in parents, particularly those raising a child with ASD, to ensure mental health services remain accessible. LAY SUMMARY: This study examined the mental health of parents raising a child with ASD during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results demonstrated substantially higher levels of psychological distress, particularly those related to feelings of panic, among parents raising a child with ASD when compared to parents in the US as a whole. These data suggest the need for ensuring mental health services are accessible to parents, particularly those raising a child with ASD, during and after the pandemic.

Mentoring in the Time of COVID-19: An Analysis of Online Focus Groups with Mentors to Youth.

This study explored the experiences of mentors to youth during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aims were to examine (1) the role of the pandemic on mentor-mentee interactions and relationships and (2) the ways in which mentors could be supported during the health crisis to better meet youth needs. Six online focus groups were conducted with 39 mentors. Mentor participants included 26 females and 11 males (two did not disclose gender), and 51% identified as white. Any mentor currently in a mentoring relationship, regardless of type, was eligible. Using Facebook groups, moderators posted questions and prompts, and mentor participants responded using textual comments. The text from each group was recorded, extracted, and coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. As mentors transitioned to a primarily online format, text and video chat became the most common communication methods. Mentees' access to technology and privacy were the biggest challenges faced. Mentor concerns for their mentees varied, including mental health, school, family finances, and access to instrumental support and food. Mentor help involved routinely connecting with mentees and providing academic support. Mentors requested ideas and resources for connecting with mentees and an online mentor support group. During the early weeks of the pandemic, mentors continued to engage with mentees, offering valuable support during a confusing and scary time. Mentoring programs can broaden their approach, intentionally integrating online connecting in an effort to provide safe, appropriate, and continued support to both mentors and mentees.

Addressing cigarette smoking cessation treatment challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic with social media.

This commentary reviews barriers to smoking cessation during the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential of social media-based smoking cessation programs. Several published randomized controlled trials are summarized and future directions for designing and evaluating social media-based smoking cessation programs are described.

Trajectories of Mental Distress Among U.S. Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have found that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected population-level mental health. Longitudinal studies are necessary to examine trajectories of change in mental health over time and identify sociodemographic groups at risk for persistent distress. PURPOSE: To examine the trajectories of mental distress between March 10 and August 4, 2020, a key period during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants included 6,901 adults from the nationally representative Understanding America Study, surveyed at baseline between March 10 and 31, 2020, with nine follow-up assessments between April 1 and August 4, 2020. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the association between date and self-reported mental distress (measured with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire) among U.S. adults overall and among sociodemographic subgroups defined by sex, age, race/ethnicity, household structure, federal poverty line, and census region. RESULTS: Compared to March 11, the odds of mental distress among U.S. adults overall were 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.65-2.07) times higher on April 1 and 1.92 (95% CI = 1.62-2.28) times higher on May 1; by August 1, the odds of mental distress had returned to levels comparable to March 11 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.96). Females experienced a sharper increase in mental distress between March and May compared to males (females: OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.85-2.82; males: OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.15-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the trajectory of mental health symptoms during an unprecedented pandemic, including the identification of populations at risk for sustained mental distress.

Association between psychological resilience and changes in mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Psychological responses to potentially traumatic events tend to be heterogeneous, with some individuals displaying resilience. Longitudinal associations between resilience and mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to examine the association between resilience and trajectories of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were 6,008 adults from the Understanding America Study, a probability-based Internet-panel representative of the US adult population. Baseline data were collected between March 10 and March 31, 2020, with nine follow-up waves conducted between April 1 and August 4. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the association between date and mental distress, stratified by resilience level (low, normal, or high). RESULTS: In contrast to the high resilience group, participants in the low and normal resilience groups experienced increases in mental distress in the early months of the pandemic (low: OR=2.94, 95% CI=1.93-4.46; normal: OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.55-2.35). Men, middle-aged and older adults, Black adults, and adults with a graduate degree were more likely to report high resilience, whereas adults living below the poverty line were less likely to report high resilience. LIMITATIONS: These associations should not be interpreted as causal, and resilience was measured at only one time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Trajectories of mental distress varied markedly by resilience level during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, with low-resilience adults reporting the largest increases in mental distress during this crisis. Activities that foster resilience should be included in broader strategies to support mental health throughout the pandemic.

Mental Distress in the United States at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental distress in US adults.Methods. Participants were 5065 adults from the Understanding America Study, a probability-based Internet panel representative of the US adult population. The main exposure was survey completion date (March 10-16, 2020). The outcome was mental distress measured via the 4-item version of the Patient Health Questionnaire.Results. Among states with 50 or more COVID-19 cases as of March 10, each additional day was significantly associated with an 11% increase in the odds of moving up a category of distress (odds ratio = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 1.01, 1.21; P = .02). Perceptions about the likelihood of getting infected, death from the virus, and steps taken to avoid infecting others were associated with increased mental distress in the model that included all states. Individuals with higher consumption of alcohol or cannabis or with history of depressive symptoms were at significantly higher risk for mental distress.Conclusions. These data suggest that as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, mental distress may continue to increase and should be regularly monitored. Specific populations are at high risk for mental distress, particularly those with preexisting depressive symptoms.

Psychomorbidity, Resilience, and Exacerbating and Protective Factors During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors. METHODS: The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020). RESULTS: 18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience. CONCLUSION: Stress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.

Mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among US adults without a pre-existing mental health condition: Findings from American trend panel survey.

Most individuals in the United States have no history of a mental health condition yet are at risk for psychological distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and risk and protective factors of psychological distress, during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, in this group. Data comes from the Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), a probability-based online survey panel representative of the US adult population. The analytic sample consisted of 9687 individuals with no prior history of a mental health condition who completed the survey between March 19-24, 2020. Explanatory variables included sociodemographic factors and items related to behavior, perceptions, and experiences surrounding the pandemic. The outcome was psychological distress, measured by five items on symptoms of anxiety, depression, loneliness, sleep difficulties, and hyperarousal. A multivariable linear regression model was used to identify risk and protective factors for psychological distress. Fifteen percent of the sample experienced 2 psychological distress symptoms for at least 3 days over the past week; 13% had three or more symptoms. Risk factors for higher distress included searching online or using social media to post about coronavirus, reporting that the outbreak caused major changes to personal life, and perception that the virus was a threat to the US economy, the individual's personal health or finances. This has important implications for mental health service delivery.

Associations Between Media Exposure and Mental Distress Among U.S. Adults at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to disaster-related media may be a risk factor for mental distress, but this has not been examined in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assesses whether exposure to social and traditional media during the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with mental distress among U.S. adults. METHODS: Data came from the Understanding America Study, conducted with a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of adults who completed surveys online. Participants included 6,329 adults surveyed between March 10 and March 31, 2020. Regression analyses examined the associations of (1) self-reported average time spent on social media in a day (hours) and (2) number of traditional media sources (radio, TV, and newspaper) consulted to learn about COVID-19 with self-reported mental distress (4-item Patient Health Questionnaire). Data were analyzed in April 2020. RESULTS: Participants responding at later survey dates reported more time spent on social media (ß=0.02, 95% CI=0.01, 0.03), a greater number of traditional media sources consulted to learn about COVID-19 (ß=0.01, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02), and greater mental distress (ß=0.07, 95% CI=0.04, 0.09). Increased time spent on social media and consulting a greater number of traditional media sources to learn about COVID-19 were independently associated with increased mental distress, even after adjusting for potential confounders (social media: ß=0.14, 95% CI=0.05, 0.23; traditional media: ß=0.14, 95% CI=0.08, 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to a greater number of traditional media sources and more hours on social media was modestly associated with mental distress during the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.