Understanding inequalities in mental health by family structure during COVID-19 lockdowns: evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic increased psychiatric distress and impacts differed by family structure. We aimed to identify mechanisms contributing to these inequalities. METHODS: Survey data were from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Psychiatric distress (GHQ-12) was measured in April 2020 (first UK lockdown; n = 10,516), and January 2021 (lockdown re-introduced following eased restrictions; n = 6,893). Pre-lockdown family structure comprised partner status and presence of children (< 16 years). Mediating mechanisms included: active employment, financial strain, childcare/home-schooling, caring, and loneliness. Monte Carlo g-computation simulations were used to adjust for confounding and estimate total effects and decompositions into: controlled direct effects (effects if the mediator was absent), and portions eliminated (PE; representing differential exposure and vulnerability to the mediator). RESULTS: In January 2021, after adjustment, we estimated increased risk of distress among couples with children compared to couples with no children (RR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.15-1.82), largely because of childcare/home-schooling (PE RR: 1.32; 95% CI 1.00-1.64). Single respondents without children also had increased risk of distress compared to couples with no children (RR: 1.55; 95% CI 1.27-1.83), and the largest PE was for loneliness (RR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.27), though financial strain contributed (RR: 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.12). Single parents demonstrated the highest levels of distress, but confounder adjustment suggested uncertain effects with wide confidence intervals. Findings were similar in April 2020 and when stratified by sex. CONCLUSION: Access to childcare/schooling, financial security and social connection are important mechanisms that need addressing to avoid widening mental health inequalities during public health crises.

Study protocol: examining the impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures on pregnancy and birth outcomes in Scotland-a linked administrative data study.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol outlines aims to test the wider impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on pregnancy and birth outcomes and inequalities in Scotland. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will analyse Scottish linked administrative data for pregnancies and births before (March 2010 to March 2020) and during (April 2020 to October 2020) the pandemic. The Community Health Index database will be used to link the National Records of Scotland Births and the Scottish Morbidity Record 02. The data will include about 500 000 mother-child pairs. We will investigate population-level changes in maternal behaviour (smoking at antenatal care booking, infant feeding on discharge), pregnancy and birth outcomes (birth weight, preterm birth, Apgar score, stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-eclampsia) and service use (mode of delivery, mode of anaesthesia, neonatal unit admission) during the COVID-19 pandemic using two analytical approaches. First, we will estimate interrupted times series regression models to describe changes in outcomes comparing prepandemic with pandemic periods. Second, we will analyse the effect of COVID-19 mitigation measures on our outcomes in more detail by creating cumulative exposure variables for each mother-child pair using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Thus, estimating a potential dose-response relationship between exposure to mitigation measures and our outcomes of interest as well as assessing if timing of exposure during pregnancy matters. Finally, we will assess inequalities in the effect of cumulative exposure to lockdown measures on outcomes using several axes of inequality: ethnicity/mother's country of birth, area deprivation (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation), urban-rural classification of residence, number of previous children, maternal social position (National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification) and parental relationship status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care scrutinised and approved the use of these data (1920-0097). Results of this study will be disseminated to the research community, practitioners, policy makers and the wider public.

Inequalities in mental health among children aged 5–11 before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: findings from the UK Household Longitudinal Study*

BackgroundThere are concerns that social mitigation measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to declines in child mental health and widened mental health inequalities, because affluent families had greater access to resources to cope with restrictions. We investigated how existing inequalities in child mental health changed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, using population-representative longitudinal data.MethodsData were from 14,854 observations of 7,929 children in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Child mental health measures using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were taken at ages 5 and 8 during annual surveys between 2011 and 2019 and from children aged 5–11 over three waves of data collection between April 2020 and March 2021. In order to estimate the impact of the pandemic on inequalities, we modelled mental health using a mixed effects generalised linear model with an indicator for surveys taken during the pandemic, and interactions between the pandemic and sex, ethnicity, family structure, parent education, employment, household income and area deprivation on mental health. Models were weighted for survey design and non-response, and adjusted for age, year (linear trend), and sex.ResultsChildhood mental health declined between 2011 and 2021. In most cases advantaged groups (including children with coupled parents, highly educated parents, employed parents and higher income households) experienced a more rapid decline in mental health during COVID-19 than less advantaged groups, leading to narrowing of inequalities. Before the pandemic, for example, not having an employed parent was associated with a 1.63 point higher SDQ score (95% confidence intervals: 0.90 to 2.35), while during the pandemic this gap reduced to -0.50 points (95% CI: -1.70 to 0.69). Disadvantages related to male sex and living in deprived areas were maintained during COVID-19, while the mental health advantage of ethnic minorities increased. These patterns were apparent for both internalising and externalising mental health symptoms, and when SDQ scores were treated as a binary outcome indicating mental health difficulties.ConclusionUK children have experienced a ‘levelling down’ of mental health during COVID-19, with mental health becoming worse overall, and children from more advantaged groups experiencing the most rapid declines. Understanding what has created this pattern will be important for developing interventions and policies to improve child mental health in all sociodemographic groups, and prevent inequalities becoming re-established during the pandemic recovery.

Comparing population-level mental health of UK workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study using Understanding Society.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers' mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers' mental health by industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age. METHODS: We used representative Understanding Society data from 6474 adults (41 207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017-2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) caseness (score: ≥4). Exposures were industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (non-England/England), gender (male/female) and age (younger/older) using three-way interaction effects. RESULTS: GHQ-12 caseness increased in relative terms most for 'professional, scientific and technical' (OR: 3.15, 95% CI 2.17 to 4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in 'hospitality' (+11.4%). For socioeconomic class, 'small employers/self-employed' were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR: 3.24, 95% CI 2.28 to 4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations, 'sales and customer service' (OR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.61 to 5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with three-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed. CONCLUSIONS: GHQ-12 caseness increases during the pandemic were concentrated among 'professional and technical' and 'hospitality' industries and 'small employers/self-employed' and 'sales and customers service' workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.

The effect of school summer holidays on inequalities in children and young people's mental health and cognitive ability in the UK using data from the millennium cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Summer learning loss has been the subject of longstanding concern among researchers, the public and policy makers. The aim of the current research was to investigate inequality changes in children's mental health and cognitive ability across the summer holidays. METHODS: We conducted linear and logistic regression analysis of mental health (borderline-abnormal total difficulty and prosocial scores on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)) and verbal cognitive ability (reading, verbal reasoning or vocabulary) at ages 7, 11 and 14, comparing UK Millennium Cohort Study members who were interviewed before and after the school summer holidays. Inequalities were assessed by including interaction terms in the outcome models between a discrete binary variable with values representing time periods and maternal academic qualifications. Coefficients of the interaction terms were interpreted as changes from the pre- to post-holiday period in the extent of inequality in the outcome between participants whose mothers had high or low educational qualifications. Separate models were fitted for each age group and outcome. We used inverse probability weights to allow for differences in the characteristics of cohort members assessed before and after the summer holidays. RESULTS: Mental health (borderline/abnormal SDQ total and prosocial scores) at ages 7 and 14 worsened and verbal cognitive ability scores at age 7 were lower among those surveyed after the summer holidays. Mental health inequalities were larger after the holidays at age 7 ([OR = 1.4; 95%CI (0.6, 3.2) and 14: [OR = 1.5; 95%CI (0.7, 3.2)], but changed little at age 11 (OR = 0.9; 95%CI (0.4, 2.6)]. There were differences in pro-social behaviours among those surveyed before/after the school holidays at age 14 [OR = 1.2; 95%CI (0.5, 3.5)] but not at age 7 or 11. There was little change in inequalities in verbal cognitive ability scores over the school holidays [Age 7: b = 1.3; 95%CI (- 3.3, 6.0); Age 11: b = - 0.7; 95%CI (- 4.3, 2.8); Age 14: b = - 0.3; 95%CI (- 1.0, 0.4)]. CONCLUSION: We found inequalities in mental health and cognitive ability according to maternal education, and some evidence or worsening mental health and mental health inequalities across school summer holidays. We found little evidence of widening inequalities in verbal cognitive ability. Widespread school closures during the COVID-19 restrictions have prompted concerns that prolonged closures may widen health and educational inequalities. Management of school closures should focus on preventing or mitigating inequalities that may arise from differences in the support for mental health and learning provided during closures by schools serving more or less disadvantaged children.

The mental health of UK workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of differential impacts across industries and social class categories*

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected mental health but its impacts are likely to differ across industries and social class groups. The ‘new normal’ in employment opportunities, patterns and conditions is likely to include a degree of fear, uncertainty, employment instability and job loss. It is imperative we identify and understand how workers have been disadvantaged by the pandemic and current working modes. We aimed to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of UK workers by industry and social class category and to investigate whether any observed impacts differed by age, gender, and country of residence within the UK.MethodsWe used the UK Household Longitudinal Study (Understanding Society) to analyse data from adults in paid employment, who participated in pre-COVID-19 Waves [9(2017/19) and 10/11(2018/20)] and in at least one COVID-19 wave. Our primary outcome was probable psychological distress, defined by ‘caseness’ (a score of 4+) in the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and exposures included industrial sectors (classified using the UK Standard Industrial Classification) and social class (using the Eight Class National Statistics Socio-economic Classification). We fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models, adjusting for age, gender, employment type, financial situation and UK country of residence and used inverse probability weights to account for attrition and non-response, to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Subsequently, we stratified by gender, UK country of residence, and age group.ResultsOur final sample includes 44,500 observations (Pre-pandemic period=13,314, pandemic period=31,186) across 7,075 individuals. GHQ-caseness increased for workers in most industries during the pandemic;especially in ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ (OR:3.2;95%CI:1.9,5.4). Analysis by social class showed that ‘Small employers and own account’ workers were the most affected (OR:2.9;95%CI:2.1,4.0). Our stratified analysis by industry demonstrated the largest increase in GHQ-caseness between the pre and pandemic periods to be by gender in the ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ sector (OR:9.6;95%CI:3.2,29.0 for men;OR:2.0;95%CI:1.2,3.4 for women);whereas by social class the largest increase was observed when stratifying by UK country of residence for ‘Small employers and own account’ workers (non-England: OR:8.8;95%CI:4.1,18.8;England: OR:2.5;95%CI:1.6,3.9).ConclusionOur findings indicate that the pandemic has significantly affected the mental health of UK workers. Policies with a decentralised element are needed, prioritising support to certain industrial sectors and the self-employed/small business owners, as well as for particular demographic groups (e.g. men in the ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ industry) who are in an excessively high risk.

Pre-school childcare and inequalities in child development.

Centre-based childcare may benefit pre-school children and alleviate inequalities in early childhood development, but evidence on socio-emotional and physical health outcomes is limited. Data were from the UK Millennium Cohort Study (n = 14,376). Inverse-probability weighting was used to estimate confounder-adjusted population-average effects of centre and non-centre-based childcare (compared to parental care only) between ages 26-31 months on (age 3): internalising and externalising symptoms, pro-social behaviour, independence, emotional dysregulation, vocabulary, school readiness, and body mass index. To assess impacts on inequalities, controlled direct effects of low parental education and lone parenthood on all outcomes were estimated under two hypothetical scenarios: 1) universal take-up of centre-based childcare; and 2) parental care only. On average, non-centre based childcare improved vocabulary and centre-based care improved school readiness, with little evidence of other benefits. However, socio-economic inequalities were observed for all outcomes and were attenuated in scenario 1 (universal take-up). For example, inequalities in externalising symptoms (according to low parental education) were reduced from a confounder-adjusted standard deviation difference of 7.8 (95% confidence intervals: 6.7-8.8), to 1.7 (0.6-2.7). Inequalities by parental education in scenario 2 (parental care only) were wider than in scenario 1 for externalising symptoms (at 3.4; 2.4-4.4), and for emotional dysregulation and school readiness. Inequalities by lone parenthood, which were smaller, fell in scenario 1, and fell further in scenario 2. Universal access to centre-based pre-school care may alleviate inequalities, while restricted access (e.g. during lockdown for a pandemic such as Covid-19) may widen some inequalities in socioemotional and cognitive development.

Mental health and health behaviours before and during the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown: longitudinal analyses of the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that COVID-19 mitigation measures, including the 'lockdown', may have unintended health consequences. We examined trends in mental health and health behaviours in the UK before and during the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown and differences across population subgroups. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study, including representative samples of over 27,000 adults (aged 18+) interviewed in four survey waves between 2015 and 2020. A total of 9748 adults had complete data for longitudinal analyses. Outcomes included psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12), loneliness, current cigarette smoking, use of e-cigarettes and alcohol consumption. Cross-sectional prevalence estimates were calculated and multilevel Poisson regression assessed associations between time period and the outcomes of interest, as well as differential associations by age, gender, education level and ethnicity. RESULTS: Psychological distress increased 1 month into lockdown with the prevalence rising from 19.4% (95% CI 18.7% to 20.1%) in 2017-2019 to 30.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 32.3%) in April 2020 (RR=1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4). Groups most adversely affected included women, young adults, people from an Asian background and those who were degree educated. Loneliness remained stable overall (RR=0.9, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5). Smoking declined (RR=0.9, 95% CI=0.8,1.0) and the proportion of people drinking four or more times per week increased (RR=1.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.5), as did binge drinking (RR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress increased 1 month into lockdown, particularly among women and young adults. Smoking declined, but adverse alcohol use generally increased. Effective measures are required to mitigate negative impacts on health.