Study: Predicting Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Results. (preprint)

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the psychological wellbeing of some people, there is evidence that many have been much less affected. The Ecological Model of Resilience (EMR) may explain why some individuals are not resilient whilst others are. In this study we test the EMR in a comparison of UK survey data collected from the Covid-19 Psychological Research Consortium longitudinal study of a representative sample of the UK adult population and data from an Italian arm of the study. We first compare data from the third wave (W3) of the UK arm of the study, collected in July/August 2020, with data from an equivalent sample (N = 1034) and stage of the pandemic in Italy in July 2020. Next, using UK longitudinal data collected from C19PRC Waves 1, 3 and 5, collected between March 2020 and April 2021 we identify the proportion of people who were resilient. Finally, we examine which factors, drawn from the ecological model, predict resilient and non-resilient outcomes.We find that the 72% of the UK sample was resilient, in line with the Italian study. In the cross-sectional logistic regression model, age and self-esteem were significantly associated with resilience whilst death anxiety thoughts, neuroticism, loneliness, and PTSD symptoms related to COVID-19 were significantly associated with Non-Resilient outcomes.In the longitudinal UK analysis, at Wave 5, 80% of the sample was Resilient. Service use, belonging to wider neighbourhood, self-rated health, self-esteem, openness, and externally generated death anxiety were associated with Resilient outcomes. In contrast, PTSD symptoms and loneliness were associated with Non-Resilient outcomes.The EMR effectively explained the results. There were some variables which are amenable to intervention which could increase resilience in the face of similar future challenges.

An 18-month follow-up of the Covid-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study panel: survey design and fieldwork procedures for Wave 6 (preprint)

AbstractObjectives: The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study was established in March 2020 to monitor the psychological and socio-economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 6 (August-September 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID-19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adults who participated in any previous wave (N=3170) were re-invited to participate, and sample replenishment procedures were conducted to help manage attrition. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure on-going original panel (commencing at baseline) was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: 1643 adults who participated in any previous wave were re-interviewed at Wave 6 (51.8% retention rate). Non-participation at Wave 6 was higher amongst women, younger adults, those in employment, those born outside UK, adults living in cities, and those not living alone. Of the adults recruited into the C19PRC study at baseline, 54.3% (N=1100) participated in Wave 6. An additional 415 new respondents entered the panel at this wave, resulting in cross-sectional sample for Wave 6 of 2058 adults. The raking procedure re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.3% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID-19-related interdisciplinary research.

Sharing data to better understand one of the world’s most significant shared experiences: An overview of the openly accessible longitudinal COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study data (preprint)

This paper serves to alert IJPDS readers to the availability of a major new longitudinal survey data resource, the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study, which is being released for secondary use via the Open Science Framework. The C19PRC Study is a rich and detailed dataset that provides a convenient and valuable foundation from which to study the social, political, and health status of European adults during an unprecedent time of change as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. Here, we provide an overview of the C19PRC Study design, with the purpose of stimulating interest about the study among social scientists and maximising use of this resource.

Measurement invariance of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) across four European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Objective: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) are self-report measures of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The primary aim of this study was to test for differential item functioning (DIF) on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 items based on age, sex (males and females), and country.Method (or Design): Data from nationally representative surveys in UK, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (combined N = 6, 040) were used to fit confirmatory factor analytic and multiple-indictor multiple-causes models. Results: Spain and Italy had higher latent variable means than the UK and Ireland for both anxiety and depression, but there was no evidence for differential items functioning. Conclusions: The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were found to be unidimensional, reliable, and largely free of DIF in data from four large nationally representative samples of the general population in the UK, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: One year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study (preprint)

Shevlin et al. (2021) recently demonstrated heterogeneity in mental health and psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic over time from a nationally representative sample of UK adults (March–July 2020). Five subpopulations representing either stability, deterioration or improvement in both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD were identified. The majority of the sample were characterised by low levels of anxiety-depression (56.6%) and COVID-19 traumatic stress (68.3%) during this early phase of the pandemic but some showed deterioration and some showed mental health benefits. Here we extend these findings using two additional survey waves from the C19PRC Study, thereby modelling mental health trajectories for the UK population within the entire first year of the pandemic.

Tracking the psychological and socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a methodological report from Wave 5 of the Covid-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study (preprint)

Objectives: This paper describes fieldwork procedures for the fifth wave of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study, conducted during March-April 2021. The C19PRC Study was established in March 2020 to monitor the psychological and socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and other countries. Methods: The survey wave assessed: COVID-19 related experiences; the occurrence of common mental health disorders; psychological factors; and social and political attitudes – to facilitate statistical analyses to determine how these constructs on influenced the public’s response to the pandemic. Adults who participated in any previous survey wave (N=4949) were re-contacted and invited to participate. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the longitudinal panel was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: Overall, 2520 adults participated in this wave. A total of 2377 adults who participated in the previous survey wave (i.e., Wave 4 of the C19PRC Study, conducted November-December 2020) were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 5 (61.5% retention rate). Attrition between these two waves was predicted by factors such as younger age, lower household income, having children living in the household, and current or past experiences of treatment for mental health difficulties. Of the adults recruited into the C19PRC study at baseline, 57.4% (N=1162) participated in the fifth wave. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.5% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research aimed at addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Testing both affordability-availability and psychological-coping mechanisms underlying changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Background: Two theoretical perspectives have been proffered to explain changes in alcohol use during the pandemic: the ‘affordability-availability’ mechanism (i.e., drinking decreases due to changes in physical availability and/or reduced disposable income) and the ‘psychological-coping’ mechanism (i.e., drinking increases as adults attempt to cope with pandemic-related distress). Methods: We tested these alternative perspectives via longitudinal analyses of the COVID-19 Psychological Consortium (C19PRC) Study data (spanning three timepoint during March to July 2020). Respondents provided data on psychological measures (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, paranoia, extraversion, neuroticism, death anxiety, COVID-19 anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, resilience), changes in socio-economic circumstances (e.g., income loss, reduced working hours), drinking motives, solitary drinking, and ‘at-risk’ drinking (assessed using a modified version of the AUDIT-C). Structural equation modelling was used to determine (i) whether ‘at-risk’ drinking during the pandemic differed from that recalled before the pandemic, (ii) dimensions of drinking motives and the psychosocial correlates of these dimensions, (iii) if increased alcohol consumption was predicted by drinking motives, solitary drinking, and socio-economic changes. Results: The proportion of adults who recalled engaging in ‘at-risk’ drinking decreased significantly from 35.9% pre-pandemic to 32.0% during the pandemic. Drinking to cope was uniquely predicted by experiences of anxiety and/or depression and low resilience levels. Income loss or reduced working hours were not associated with coping, social enhancement, or conformity drinking motives, nor changes in drinking during lockdown. Conclusions: In the earliest stage of the pandemic, psychological-coping mechanisms may have been a stronger driver to changes in adults’ alcohol use than ‘affordability-availability’ alone.

Modelling the complexity of pandemic-related lifestyle quality change and mental health: An analysis of a nationally representative UK general population sample (preprint)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the way many individuals go about their daily lives. This study attempted to model the complexity of change in lifestyle quality as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its context within the UK adult population. Methods: Data from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study (Wave 3, July 2020; N=1166) were utilised. A measure of COVID-19-related lifestyle change captured how individuals’ lifestyle quality had been altered as a consequence of the pandemic. Exploratory factor analysis and latent profile analysis were used to identify distinct lifestyle quality change subgroups, while multinomial logistic regression analysis was employed to describe class membership. Results: Five lifestyle dimensions, reflecting partner relationships, health, family and friend relations, personal and social activities, and work life were identified by the EFA, while seven classes characterised by distinct patterns of change across these dimensions emerged from the LPA: (1) Better overall (3.3%), (2) Worse except partner relations (6.0%), (3) Worse overall (2.5%), (4) Better relationships (9.5%), (5) Better except partner relations (4.3%), (6) No different (67.9%), and (7) Worse partner relations only (6.5%). Predictor variables differentiated membership of classes. Notably, classes 3 and 7 were associated with poorer mental health (COVID-19 related PTSD and suicidal ideation). Conclusions: Four months into the pandemic, most individuals’ lifestyle quality remained largely unaffected by the crisis. Concerningly however, a substantial minority (15%) experienced worsened lifestyles compared to before the pandemic. In particular, a pronounced deterioration in partner relations seemed to constitute the more severe pandemic-related lifestyle change.

Design, content, and fieldwork procedures of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study – Wave 4 (preprint)

Objectives: This paper outlines fieldwork procedures for Wave 4 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study in the UK during November-December 2020. Methods: Respondents provided data on socio-political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, and mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress). In Phase 1, adults (N=2878) were reinvited to participate. At Phase 2, new recruitment: (i) replenished the longitudinal strand to account for attrition; and (ii) oversampled from the devolved UK nations to facilitate robust between-country analyses for core study outcomes. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was representative of the baseline sample characteristics. Results: In Phase 1, 1796 adults were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 4 (62.4% retention rate). In Phase 2, 292 new respondents were recruited to replenish the panel, as well as 1779 adults from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, who were representative of the socio-political composition of the adult populations in these nations. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: The C19PRC Study offers a unique opportunity to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Refuting the myth of a ‘tsunami’ of mental ill-health in populations affected by COVID-19: Evidence that response to the pandemic is heterogenous, not homogeneous (preprint)

Background: The current study argues that population prevalence estimates for mental health disorders, or changes in mean scores over time, may not adequately reflect the heterogeneity in mental health response to the COVID-19 pandemic within the population. Methods: The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study is a longitudinal, nationally representative, online survey of UK adults. The current study analysed data from its first three waves of data collection: Wave 1 (March 2020, N=2025), Wave 2 (April 2020, N=1406) and Wave 3 (July 2020, N=1166). Anxiety-depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (a composite measure of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and COVID-19 related PTSD with the International Trauma Questionnaire. Changes in mental health outcomes were modelled across the three waves. Latent class growth analysis was used to identify subgroups of individuals with different trajectories of change in anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD. Latent class membership was regressed on baseline characteristics. Results: Overall prevalence of anxiety-depression remained stable, while COVID-19 PTSD reduced between Waves 2 and 3. Heterogeneity in mental health response was found, and hypothesised classes reflecting (i) stability, (ii) improvement, and (iii) deterioration in mental health were identified. Psychological factors were most likely to differentiate the improving, deteriorating and high-stable classes from the low-stable mental health trajectories. Conclusions: A low-stable profile characterised by little-to-no psychological distress (‘resilient’ class) was the most common trajectory for both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD. Monitoring these trajectories is necessary moving forward, in particular for the ~30% of individuals with increasing anxiety-depression levels.

How Does The COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Population Mental Health? A Network Analysis of COVID Influences On Depression, Anxiety and Traumatic Stress in the UK Population (preprint)

Background. The COVID-19 emergency has led to numerous attempts to assess the impact of the pandemic on population mental health. Findings indicate an increase in depression and anxiety but have been limited by the lack of specificity about which aspects of the pandemic (e.g. viral exposure or economic threats) have led to adverse mental health outcomes. Methods. Network analyses were conducted on data from wave 1 (N = 2025 recruited March 23rd – March 28th 2020) and wave 2 (N = 1406 recontacts, 22 April – 1 May 2020) of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study, an online longitudinal survey of a representative sample of the UK adult population. Our models included depression (PHQ-9), generalised anxiety (GAD-7) and trauma symptoms (ITQ) and also measures of Covid-specific anxiety, exposure to the virus in self and close others as well as economic loss due to the pandemic. Results. A mixed graphical model at wave 1 indicated that economic adversity impacted on anxiety symptoms via specific anxiety about the pandemic. There was no association between viral exposure and symptoms. Ising network models using clinical cut-offs for symptom scores at each wave yielded similar findings with the exception of a modest effect of viral exposure on trauma symptoms at wave 1 only. Anxiety and depression symptoms formed separate clusters at wave 1 but not wave 2. Conclusions. The psychological impact of the pandemic evolved in the early phase of lockdown. Adverse psychiatric outcomes were particularly associated with exposure to the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Different conspiracy theories have different psychological and social determinants: Comparison of three theories about the origins of the COVID-19 virus in a representative sample of the UK population (preprint)

Conspiracy theories about COVID-19 have proliferated during the global pandemic, and their rapid spread among certain groups inthe population has important implications for policy attitudes (e.g., motivation to engage in social distancing and willingness to vaccinate). Using survey data from two waves of a nationally representative, longitudinal study of life in lockdown in the UK (N = 1,406), we analyze the factors associated with belief in three theories related to COVID-19, namely that it 1) originated in a meat market in Wuhan, China, 2) was developed in a lab in Wuhan, China, and 3) is caused by 5G mobile networks. Using a dual-factor model, we test how cognitive ability and motivations affect susceptibility to misinformation. Our findings suggest that motivational and political dispositions, as well as the sources from which people derive COVID-19 related information, are strongly associated with belief in conspiracy theories about the virus, though these predictors vary among conspiracies. Belief in the Chinese lab conspiracy is associated with right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO) and a preference for tabloid newspapers, while belief in the 5G network origin story is associated with social dominance orientation and a tendency to derive information on COVID-19 from social media. Moreover, we find that motivational factors like RWA and SDO have larger effect sizes than COVID-19 related anxiety, a desire for certainty, cognitive reasoning ability, or even general conspiracy ideation (in the case of 5G belief). These findings suggest that efforts to mitigate the potential damage caused by conspiracy theories, for example, by increasing education and awareness, may be inadequate because they miss a larger story, namely the role that politically motivated reasoning plays in making individuals susceptible to misinformation, and the propagation of conspiracies through networks and channels that reinforce these inaccurate worldviews.

Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study – Wave 3 (preprint)

Objectives: The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the execution of the third wave of the UK survey (the ‘parent’ strand of the Consortium) during July-August 2020. Methods: Adults (N=2025) who previously participated in the baseline and/or the first follow-up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders; as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public’s response to the pandemic. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross-sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, household income, household composition, and urbanicity. Results: 1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 3. As expected, the raking procedure successfully re-balanced the cross-sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across the selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delay discounting and under-valuing of recent information predict lower adherence to social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented changes in the day-to-day behaviours of populations globally, especially in areas where social distancing rules have been mandated. Understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying (un)successful behaviour change around social distancing is crucial to inform public health policy for both the current and future crises.In this study, we utilise tasks probing delay discounting (the preference for immediate versus delayed rewards) and patch foraging (evaluating the trade-off between exploiting a known resource and exploring an unknown one) to investigate cognitive predictors of social distancing and mental health symptoms. Participants (N=442) were recruited from a large UK cohort (N=2025) nationally representative in age, gender and income.Greater sensitivity to reward magnitude during delay discounting predicted lower adherence to social distancing measures and higher levels of mood and anxiety symptoms. In addition, under-valuing recently sampled information during foraging separately predicted greater violation of social distancing. Analyses examining cognitive factors underpinning social distancing behaviour across two time points (early and late phases of the pandemic) additionally revealed that greater sensitivity to magnitude of rewards on offer during delay discounting predicted a greater decline in psychological inclination to maintain social distancing. Moreover, under-valuing recent information during foraging separately predicted less motivation to engage in social distancing during the established phase of the pandemic. The findings suggest that those who typically regulate their mood through behaviours that bring about immediate reward are also those who struggle to maintain social distancing. Further, those who adapt more quickly to new information showed better ability to change their behaviour in response to public health measures. These findings highlight the need for public health initiatives that bolster sustained confidence in planning around social distancing by emphasising the immediate rewards to self as well as longer term benefits.

Pandemic buying: Testing a psychological model of over-purchasing and panic buying using data from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Over-purchasing and hoarding of necessities is a common response to crises, especially in developed economies where there is normally an expectation of plentiful supply. This behaviour was observed internationally early on in the COVID-19 pandemic. In the absence of actual scarcity, this behaviour can be described as ‘panic buying’ and can lead to temporary shortages. However, there have been few psychological studies of this phenomenon. We propose a psychological model of over-purchasing informed by animal foraging theory and make predictions about variables that predict over-purchasing by either exacerbating or mitigating the anticipation of future scarcity. These variables include additional scarcity cues (e.g. loss of income), distress (e.g. depression), psychological factors that draw attention to these cues (e.g. neuroticism) or to reassuring messages (eg. analytical reasoning) or which facilitate over-purchasing (e.g. income).We tested our model in parallel nationally representative internet surveys of the adult general population conducted in the United Kingdom (UK: N = 2025) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI: N = 1041) 52 and 31 days after the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were detected in the UK and RoI, respectively.About three quarters of participants reported no or very little over-purchasing. More over-purchasing in RoI may have reflected different government messaging or historical factors. When over-purchasing occurred, it was observed across a wide range of product categories and was accounted for by a single latent factor. It was positively predicted by household income, the presence of children at home, psychological distress (depression, death anxiety), threat sensitivity (right wing authoritarianism) and mistrust of others (paranoia). Analytic reasoning ability had an inhibitory effect. Predictor variables accounted for 36% and 34% of the variance in over-purchasing in the UK and RoI respectively. With some caveats, the data supported our model and point to strategies to mitigate over-purchasing in future crises.

Report1: Impact of Covid-19 on young people aged 13-24 in the UK- preliminary findings (preprint)

COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented disruption of normal social relationships and activities, which are so important during the teen years and young adulthood, and to education and economic activity worldwide. The impact of this on young people’s mental health and future prospects may affect their need for support and services, and the speed of the nation’s social recovery afterwards. This study focused on the unique challenges facing young people at different points during adolescent development, which spans from the onset of puberty until the mid-twenties. Although this is an immensely challenging time and there is a potential risk for long term trauma, adolescence can be a period of opportunity, where the teenagers’ brain enjoys greater capacity for change. Hence, the focus on young people is key for designing age-specific interventions and public policies, which can offer new strategies for instilling resilience, emotional regulation, and self-control. In fact, adolescents might be assisted to not only cope, but excel, in spite of the challenges imposed by this pandemic. Our work will feed into the larger societal response that utilizes the discoveries about adolescence in the way we raise, teach, and treat young people during this time of crisis. Wave 1 data has already been collected from 2,002 young people aged 13-24, measuring their mental health (anxiety, depression, trauma), family functioning, social networks, and resilience, and social risk-taking at the time of the pandemic. Here we present a preliminary report of our findings, (Report 1). Data collected 21/4/20- 29/4/20 - a month after the lockdown started).

Report2: Impact of Covid-19 on young people aged 13-24 in the UK- preliminary findings (preprint)

A brief follow on report (for Report 1, see https://psyarxiv.com/uq4rn/). This report presents data on parents and their children's well being as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic from our adult survey study. In addition to presenting additional data showing a potentially significant increase in anxiety and depression in young people aged 13-24, as a consequence of COVID-19. Data collection for our Adult Study (Wave 2) took place between 22nd April and was ended on Friday, May 1st, here we report headline figures for the impact of Covid-19 on parents and their children. We have described our methods in a separate report (https://psyarxiv.com/wxe2n) and released two reports on our mental health outcomes from wave 1 (https://psyarxiv.com/hb6nq, https://psyarxiv.com/ydvc7).

The psychological wellbeing of frontline workers in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: First and second wave findings from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study (preprint)

Background: Extant research relating to the psychological impact of infectious respiratory disease epidemics/pandemics suggests that frontline workers are particularly vulnerable. Methods: The current study used data from the first two waves of the United Kingdom (UK) survey of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study to compare frontline workers with the rest of the UK population on prevalence estimates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD during the first week of ‘lockdown’ (Wave 1) and one month later (Wave 2). Results: Compared to the rest of the population, frontline workers generally, and individual frontline worker groups, had significantly higher prevalence estimates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD during both wave 1 and wave 2. While prevalence estimates of depression significantly increased among Local & National Government Workers from Wave 1 (15.4%) to Wave 2 (38.5%), no significant improvement or deterioration in mental health status was recorded for any other frontline worker group. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis showed that, beyond other risk factors, food workers were nearly twice as likely as others to screen positive for anxiety, while all frontline worker groups, other than transport workers, were significantly more likely to screen positive for PTSD (Odds Ratios ranged from 1.74 – 3.43). Finally, while frontline workers, generally, were significantly more likely than the general public to have received mental health advice during the pandemic (26.9% versus 20.3% respectively), this was largely reflective of health and social care workers (37.9%). Conclusions: These findings offer timely and valuable information on the psychological health status of UK’s frontline workforce during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and may aid in preparations for their future psychological and mental health support.

An overview of the context, design and conduct of the first two waves of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study (preprint)

The C19PRC Study aims to assess the psychological, social, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, Republic of Ireland, and Spain. This paper describes the the first two waves of the UK survey (the ‘parent’ strand of the Consortium) during March-April 2020. A longitudinal, internet panel survey assessed: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders (e.g. anxiety, depression); as well as the role of (3) psychological factors (e.g. personality, locus of control, resilience) and (4) social and political attitudes (e.g. authoritarianism, social dominance), in influencing the public’s response to the pandemic. Quota sampling was used to recruit a nationally representative (in terms of age, sex, and household income) sample of adults (N=2025), 1406 of whom were followed-up one month later (69.4% retention rate). The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in terms of economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Attrition was predicted by key socio-demographic characteristics, and an inverse probability weighting procedure was employed to ensure the follow-up sample was representative of the baseline sample. C19PRC Study data has strong generalisability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Preparing for a COVID-19 vaccine: Identifying and psychologically profiling those who are vaccine hesitant or resistant in two general population samples (preprint)

Successful delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine may be undermined if populations are not receptive to inoculation as a primary public health strategy for combatting the virus. We gathered nationally representative data from the general adult populations of Ireland (N=1,041) and the United Kingdom (UK; N=2,025) to determine rates of hesitancy and resistance to a future COVID-19 vaccine and to identify and psychologically profile vaccine hesitant/resistant individuals in a way that might aid future public health messaging. Vaccine hesitancy was evident for 26% and 25% of Irish and UK samples, respectively, while vaccine resistance was evident for 9% and 6%, respectively. Vaccine hesitant/resistant respondents in Ireland and the UK differed in relation to a number of sociodemographic, political, and health-related variables, but were similar across a broad array of psychological constructs. In both populations, those who were resistant to a COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to obtain information about the pandemic from traditional and authoritative sources and had similar levels of mistrust in these sources. The current findings may help public health officials to more effectively target vaccine hesitant and resistant individuals, develop effective communication strategies that take into account their specific psychological dispositions, and leverage dissemination channels that can successfully reach these individuals.