The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems and mental health service use before and 9 months after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general Dutch population. A 3-wave prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Gain insight into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems among the Dutch general population and different age groups in November-December 2020, compared with the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors in the same period in 2018 and 2019. More specifically, the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, and use of medicines for sleep problems, medicines for anxiety and depression, and mental health service. METHODS: We extracted data from the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel that is based on a probability sample of the Dutch population of 16 years and older by Statistics Netherlands. We focused on three waves of the longitudinal Health module in November-December 2018 (T1), November-December 2019 (T2), and November-December 2020 (T3), and selected respondents who were 18 years and older at T1. In total, 4,064 respondents participated in all three surveys. Data were weighted using 16 demographics profiles of the Dutch adult population. The course of mental health problems was examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal ordinal data and differences in incidence with logistic regression analyses. In both types of analyses, we controlled for sex, age, marital status, employment status, education level, and physical disease. RESULTS: Among the total study sample, no significant increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, use of medicines for sleep problems, of medicines for anxiety and depression, and of mental health service in November-December 2020 was observed, compared with the prevalence in November-December 2018 and 2019 (T3 did not differ from T1 and T2). Among the four different age categories (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65 years old and older respondents), 50-64 years respondents had a significantly lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms at T3 than at T1 and T2, while the prevalence at T1 and T2 did not differ. A similar pattern among 65+ respondents was found for mental health service use. We found no indications that the incidence of examined health problems at T2 (no problems at T1, problems at T2) and T3 (no problems at T2, problems at T3) differed. Risk factors for mental health problems at T2 were mostly similar to risk factors at T3; sex and age were less/not a risk factor for sleep problems at T3 compared with at T2. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of the examined mental health problems examined nine months after the COVID-19 outbreak appear to be very stable across the end of 2018, 2019, and 2020 among the Dutch adult population and different age categories, suggesting that the Dutch adult population in general is rather resilient given all disruptions due to this pandemic.

Mental health problems among Dutch adolescents of the general population before and 9 months after the COVID-19 outbreak: A longitudinal cohort study.

The aim of the present study is to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of mental health problems (MHP) in adolescents nine months post-outbreak. For this purpose, a longitudinal cohort study was conducted based on a probability sample of the Dutch population. We compared the prevalence and incidence of MHP in 16-20 year-old adolescents in November-December 2020 (N = 251) with the prevalence and incidence in adolescents in November-December 2012 (N = 346) and November-December 2016 (N = 253). Results showed a higher prevalence of moderate anxiety and depression symptoms in the 2020 than in the 2012 and 2016 cohorts, but differences in mean scores were absent or small. The prevalence of sleep problems, fatigue, use of medicines for symptoms did not differ between the three cohorts. The use of mental health services was more prevalent in the 2020 than in 2016 cohort, but there was already a statistical trend of higher use in the 2016 compared to the 2012 cohort. No differences in the incidence of any MHP, based on data of the previous year (2011, 2015, and 2019, respectively) were found. Results suggest a very limited negative effect of this pandemic on MHP among Dutch adolescents 9 months post-COVID-19 outbreak.

Differences in mental health problems, coping self-efficacy and social support between adults victimised before and adults victimised after the COVID-19 outbreak: population-based prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Victims of violence, accidents and threats are at risk for mental health problems. Lower coping self-efficacy and social support levels increase this risk. Although highly relevant, it is unknown if the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic amplifies these risks. AIMS: To examine if the prevalence, incidence and/or mean scores for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems, coping self-efficacy, lack of emotional support and social acknowledgement are higher among adults victimised in the year after the COVID-19 outbreak compared with adults victimised in a similar period before the outbreak. Also, to compare symptoms, problems and support within non-victims during the same period. METHOD: Data was extracted from four surveys of the VICTIMS study (March 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021), based on a random sample of the Dutch population. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and mixed-effects models were used to examine differences between the two victim groups (2019: n = 421, 2021: n = 319) and non-victims (n = 3245). RESULTS: Adults victimised after the outbreak more often had PTSD, anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems and lower coping self-efficacy than those victimised before. They did not differ in lack of support and acknowledgement. Both victim groups differed from non-victims, where mental health problems and lack of support levels were much lower and almost stable. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and coping self-efficacy levels of victims, whereas mental health problems among non-victims remained virtually stable. Mental healthcare workers, general practitioners and victim services should take this impact into account.

Anxiety and depression symptoms, the recovery from symptoms, and loneliness before and after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population: Findings from a Dutch population-based longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and loneliness in the general population. More specifically, the study focused on prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, the extent to which individuals with existing symptoms recovered or not, the prevalence of subtypes of loneliness, and the extent to which loneliness before and during this pandemic was associated with anxiety and depression symptoms. METHODS: Data was extracted from the longitudinal LISS panel, based on a probability sample of the Dutch population, with assessments on loneliness in October 2019 (T1) and June 2020 (T4), and anxiety and depression symptoms in November 2019 (T2), March 2020 (T3) and June 2020 (T4; Ntotal = 4,084). Loneliness was examined with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale and anxiety and depression symptoms with the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5). RESULTS: Repeated measures multivariate logistic regression analyses (RMMLRA) showed a statistical significant lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms after the outbreak (T4 = 15.3%) than before (T2 = 16.8%) and during the COVID-19 outbreak (T3 = 17.2%). According to the Reliable Change Index, the distribution of recovery categories (remission, improvement, unchanged and worsening symptoms) after the outbreak did not differ significantly from the distribution of these categories before the outbreak. RMMLRA revealed that the prevalence of emotional loneliness increased significantly after the outbreak (T1 = 18.4%, T4 = 24.8%). Among individuals who were not lonely before and after the outbreak the prevalence of symptoms decreased significantly (T2 = 7.0%, T4 = 4.4%) and, likewise, among those who were not lonely anymore after the outbreak (T2 = 21.5%, T4 = 14.5%). However, the prevalence of symptoms increased significantly among those who became lonely during the pandemic (T2 = 17.9%, T4 = 26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that this pandemic did not negatively affect the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms nor the normal recovery of symptoms among the general population during the first four months, but that emotional loneliness increased.

Anxiety and depression symptoms, and lack of emotional support among the general population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A prospective national study on prevalence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and emotional support among the general population are unclear. We therefore assessed if the prevalence of high Anxiety and Depression Symptoms (ADS) levels and lack of Emotional Support (ES) increased, and if risk factors of ADS and ES changed. METHODS: Data was extracted from surveys conducted with the Dutch longitudinal population-based LISS panel (N = 3,983). ADS and ES were assessed in March 2019 and 2020. Risk factors for ADS and ES were extracted from surveys in November 2018 and 2019. These were: ADS, gender, education, domestic situation, employment, age, ethnicity, lung and heart problems, and diabetes. RESULTS: The prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES did not increase compared to the pre-outbreak prevalence. ADS, non-native ethnic background, (partial) work disabilities and lung problems were predictive of both ADS and lack of ES in March 2019 and 2020. Job seekers, students and those who take care of housekeeping were more at risk for ADS in March 2020, but not in 2019. While 35-49 years old respondents were less at risk for ADS in March 2019, they were more at risk in 2020. Parents with child(ren) at home and those who take care of housekeeping more often lacked ES in March 2020, but not in 2019. LIMITATIONS: No other mental health problems were assessed. CONCLUSIONS: No increase in the prevalence of ADS and lack of ES was found. Some risk factors remained significant after the outbreak, while others changed notably.

Pre-outbreak determinants of perceived risks of corona infection and preventive measures taken. A prospective population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Assess how people perceive the risks of coronavirus infection, whether people take preventive measures, and which pre-outbreak factors contribute to the perceived risks and measures taken, such as pre-outbreak respiratory problems, heart problems, diabetes, anxiety and depression symptoms, loneliness, age, gender, marital and employment status and education level. METHODS: Data were collected in the longitudinal LISS panel, based on a random sample of the Dutch population. The coronavirus survey started on March 2, and the data collection ended on March 17 2020. Data were linked with surveys on health and social integration conducted at the end of 2019 (Nstudy sample = 3,540). RESULTS: About 15% perceived the risk of infection as high, and 11% the risk becoming ill when infected. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed the following. Older age-groups perceived the risk for coronavirus infection as lower (all adjusted Odd Ratio's [aOR] ≤ .070). In total, 43.8% had taken preventive measures, especially females (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.26-1.70). Those with lower education levels less often used preventive measures (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.45-0.67). Those with pre-outbreak respiratory problems (aOR = 2.75, 95% CI = 2.11-3.57), heart problems (aOR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.34-2.92) and diabetes (aOR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02-4.82) perceived the risk becoming ill when infected as higher than others. However, respondents with pre-outbreak respiratory problems and diabetes did not more often take preventive measures. CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable patients more often recognize that they are at risk becoming ill when infected by the coronavirus, but many do not take preventive measures. Interventions to stimulate the use of preventive measures should pay additional attention to physically vulnerable patients, males and those with lower education levels.