How the mental health of working parents in Australia changed during COVID-19: A pre- to during pandemic longitudinal comparison.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies indicate that mental health has deteriorated in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, including for parents. However, robust longitudinal studies interrogating change from before to during the pandemic remain rare. The current study analysed data from Australian parents surveyed in 2016 and August 2020. We investigate whether distress was higher in the COVID-19 period compared to pre-pandemic levels, and whether any increases in distress were greatest for parents living in Victoria (who had entered their second prolonged lockdown). METHODS: A community cohort of Australian working parents (n = 5197) was recruited online in 2016. In August 2020, 25.9 % (n = 1348) completed a follow-up survey. Analyses were restricted to those employed at both time-points (n = 1311). Random effects longitudinal models examined the association between time (i.e. pre vs. during-pandemic) and distress (K6 scale). Fixed effects models specifically tested change between time periods in association with change in distress. LIMITATIONS: The initial sample were recruited online with highly educate parents over-represented. Attrition between survey time-points may also limit generalisability. RESULTS: All models consistently showed that the pandemic period was associated with greater distress. Overall, serious mental illness (i.e. K6 score ≥ 18) increased by 5.3 percentage points (from 8.0 to 13.3). This increase was greater (by 4.7 percentage points) for those parents in Victoria. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of few to longitudinally assess mental health pre- to during the pandemic. Psychological distress and serious mental illness increased for Australian working parents, and this effect was greatest for those experiencing a prolonged lockdown in Victoria.

Trajectories of psychological distress over multiple COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia.

The impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, including the indirect effect of policy responses, on psychological distress has been the subject of much research. However, there has been little consideration of how the prevalence of psychological distress changed with the duration and repetition of lockdowns, or the rate of resolution of psychological distress once lockdowns ended. This study describes the trajectories of psychological distress over multiple lockdowns during the first two years of the pandemic across five Australian states for the period May 2020 to December 2021 and examines whether psychological distress trajectories varied as a function of time spent in lockdown, or time since lockdown ended. A total of N = 574,306 Australian adults completed Facebook surveys over 611 days (on average 940 participants per day). Trajectories of psychological distress (depression and anxiety) were regressed on lockdown duration and time since lockdown ended. Random effects reflecting the duration of each lockdown were included to account for varying effects on psychological distress associated with lockdown length. The prevalence of psychological distress was higher during periods of lockdown, more so for longer lockdowns relative to shorter lockdowns. Psychological distress increased rapidly over the first ten weeks of lockdowns spanning at least twelve weeks, though less rapidly for short lockdowns of three weeks or less. Psychological distress levels tended to stabilise, or even decrease, after ten consecutive weeks of lockdown. After lockdown restrictions were lifted, psychological distress rapidly subsided but did not return to pre-lockdown levels within four weeks, although continued to decline afterwards. In Australia short lockdowns of pre-announced durations were associated with slower rises in psychological distress. Lockdowns may have left some temporary residual population effect, but we cannot discern whether this reflects longer term trends in increasing psychological distress. However, the findings do re-emphasise the resilience of individuals to major life stressors.

Unemployment, Employability and COVID19: How the Global Socioeconomic Shock Challenged Negative Perceptions Toward the Less Fortunate in the Australian Context.

Unemployed benefit recipients are stigmatized and generally perceived negatively in terms of their personality characteristics and employability. The COVID19 economic shock led to rapid public policy responses across the globe to lessen the impact of mass unemployment, potentially shifting community perceptions of individuals who are out of work and rely on government income support. We used a repeated cross-sections design to study change in stigma tied to unemployment and benefit receipt in a pre-existing pre-COVID19 sample (n = 260) and a sample collected during COVID19 pandemic (n = 670) by using a vignette-based experiment. Participants rated attributes of characters who were described as being employed, working poor, unemployed or receiving unemployment benefits. The results show that compared to employed characters, unemployed characters were rated substantially less favorably at both time points on their employability and personality traits. The difference in perceptions of the employed and unemployed was, however, attenuated during COVID19 with benefit recipients perceived as more employable and more Conscientious than pre-pandemic. These results add to knowledge about the determinants of welfare stigma highlighting the impact of the global economic and health crisis on perception of others.

Protecting mental health during periods of financial stress: Evidence from the Australian Coronavirus Supplement income support payment.

This paper investigates whether the Australian government's Coronavirus Supplement, a temporary income support payment for unemployed jobseekers during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, protected mental health (frequency of feeling anxious or depressed during the past week) by lowering financial stress (how comfortable people are in paying for essential services). We use unique nationally representative repeated cross-sectional data on 3843 unemployed Australian adults over the period April 6, 2020 to May 10, 2021. We find that the Coronavirus Supplement payment significantly reduced reported financial stress, and lower financial stress was associated with lower mental distress. Though the Coronavirus Supplement was designed to reduce financial stress, we find the Supplement was also successful in protecting community mental health indirectly via its ability to reduce financial stress. The findings provide support for income support packages to protect mental health during economic shocks. However, transitory support measures also tend have short-lived positive effects on mental health, suggesting that more permanent income support reform may have longer-term mental health benefits.

Effect of lockdown on mental health in Australia: evidence from a natural experiment analysing a longitudinal probability sample survey.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined population mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic but have been unable to isolate the direct effect of lockdowns. The aim of this study was to examine changes in the mental health of Australians aged 15 years and older during the COVID-19 pandemic using a quasi-experimental design to disentangle the lockdown effect. METHODS: We analysed data from ten annual waves (2011-20) of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to identify changes in the mental health of respondents from the pre-COVID-19 period (2011-19) to the COVID-19 period (2020). Difference-in-differences models were used to compare these changes between respondents in the state of Victoria who were exposed to lockdown at the time of the 2020 interviews (treatment group) and respondents living elsewhere in Australia (who were living relatively free of restrictions; control group). The models included state, year (survey wave), and person-specific fixed effects. Mental health was assessed using the five-item Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5), which was included in the self-complete questionnaire administered during the survey. FINDINGS: The analysis sample comprised 151 583 observations obtained from 20 839 individuals from 2011 to 2020. The treatment group included 3568 individuals with a total of 37 578 observations (34 010 in the pre-COVID-19 and 3568 in the COVID-19 period), and the control group included 17 271 individuals with 114 005 observations (102 867 in the pre-COVID-19 and 11 138 in the COVID-19 period). Mean MHI-5 scores did not differ between the treatment group (72·9 points [95% CI 72·8-73·2]) and control group (73·2 points [73·1-73·3]) in the pre-COVID-19 period. In the COVID-19 period, decreased mean scores were seen in both the treatment group (69·6 points [69·0-70·2]) and control group (70·8 points [70·5-71·2]). Difference-in-differences estimation showed a small but statistically significant effect of lockdown on MHI-5 scores, with greater decline for residents of Victoria in 2020 than for those in the rest of Australia (difference -1·4 points [95% CI -1·7 to -1·2]). Stratified analyses showed that this lockdown effect was larger for females (-2·2 points [-2·6 to -1·7]) than for males (-0·6 [-0·8 to -0·5]), and even larger for women in couples with children younger than 15 years (-4·4 points [-5·0 to -3·8]), and for females who lived in flats or apartments (-4·1 points [-5·4 to -2·8]) or semi-detached houses, terraced houses, or townhouses (-4·8 points [-6·4 to -3·2]). INTERPRETATION: The imposition of lockdowns was associated with a modest negative change in overall population mental health. The results suggest that the mental health effects of lockdowns differ by population subgroups and for some might have exaggerated existing inequalities in mental health. Although lockdowns have been an important public health tool in suppressing community transmission of COVID-19, more research is needed into the potential psychosocial impacts of such interventions to inform their future use. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Evaluating How Mental Health Changed in Australia through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 'Taking the Pulse of the Nation' (TTPN) Survey.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on mental health at the level of the population. The current study adds to the evidence base by examining how the prevalence of psychological distress changed in Australia during the pandemic. The study also assesses the psychometric properties of a new single-item measure of mental distress included in a survey program conducted regularly throughout the pandemic. Data are from 1158 respondents in wave 13 (early July 2020) of the nationally representative Taking the Pulse of the Nation (TTPN) Survey. The questionnaire included the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and a new single-item measure of distress. Results show a significant increase in the prevalence of psychological distress in Australia, from 6.3% pre-pandemic to 17.7% in early July 2020 (unadjusted odds ratio = 3.19; 95% CI (confidence interval) = 2.51 to 4.05). The new single-item measure of distress is highly correlated with the K6. This study provides a snapshot at one point in time about how mental health worsened in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, by demonstrating the accuracy of the new single-item measure of distress, this analysis also provides a basis for further research examining the trajectories and correlates of distress in Australia across the pandemic.