Using a Multi-Site RCT to Predict Impacts for a Single Site: Do Better Data and Methods Yield More Accurate Predictions?

Multi-site randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide unbiased estimates of the average impact in the study sample. However, their ability to accurately predict the impact for individual sites outside the study sample, to inform local policy decisions, is largely unknown. To extend prior research on this question, we analyzed six multi-site RCTs and tested modern prediction methods-lasso regression and Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART)-using a wide range of moderator variables. The main study findings are that: (1) all of the methods yielded accurate impact predictions when the variation in impacts across sites was close to zero (as expected); (2) none of the methods yielded accurate impact predictions when the variation in impacts across sites was substantial; and (3) BART typically produced "less inaccurate" predictions than lasso regression or than the Sample Average Treatment Effect. These results raise concerns that when the impact of an intervention varies considerably across sites, statistical modelling using the data commonly collected by multi-site RCTs will be insufficient to explain the variation in impacts across sites and accurately predict impacts for individual sites.

Evolution of Depression and Anxiety During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Across Demographic Groups in a Large Sample of U.S. Adults.

Introduction: This study aimed to document the trends of feelings of depression and anxiety over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic within and across age, gender, education, and employment groups. Methods: Using a large, national, serial cross-sectional sample of adults in the U.S. collected through the COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey conducted in partnership with Facebook, we examined trends in feelings of depression and anxiety from April 2020 through June 2022 (N=21,359,165). Results: Over time, differences in feelings of anxiety and depression widened for educational attainment, stayed consistent between employment groups, and narrowed for female versus male and age groups. The odds of frequent feelings of anxiety or depression were significantly lower in the studied final quarter (April-June 2022) than in the studied first quarter (October-December 2020) for the overall population (p<0.001). In April-June 2022, younger persons reported 6-7 times the odds (AOR for depression=6.07; 95% CI=5.72, 6.43 and AOR for anxiety=6.69; 95% CI=6.33, 7.07), nonbinary persons reported 5 times the odds (AOR for depression=5.35, 95% CI=4.89, 5.86 and AOR for anxiety=5.35, 95% CI=4.9, 5.85), persons with a high school degree reported 2 times the odds (AOR for depression=2.07, 95% CI=1.92, 2.22 and AOR for anxiety=1.68, 95% CI=1.57, 1.8), and persons who were not employed reported 1.3-1.5 times the odds (AOR for depression=1.46, 95% CI=1.42, 1.51 and AOR for anxiety=1.34, 95% CI=1.3, 1.38) of frequent feelings depression and anxiety, respectively, than counterparts who were older, were male, had graduate degrees, or were employed. Conclusions: The risk factors most highly associated with poor mental health 2 years into the pandemic were young age, nonbinary gender, and low educational attainment.

Prevalence of depressive symptoms in U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worsening of mental health among U.S. adults. However, no review to date has synthesized the overall prevalence of population depressive symptoms in the U.S. over the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document the population prevalence of depressive symptoms and psychological distress across time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, both to identify patterns that emerged in the literature and to assess the data sources, methods, sampling, and measurement used to examine population mental health during the pandemic. In a systematic review of the peer review literature, we identified 49 articles reporting 88 prevalence points of depressive symptoms and related constructs in nationally representative samples of U.S. adults from March 2020 to June 2021. First, we found that the average prevalence of poor mental health across studies was 12.9% for severe depression, 26.0% for at least moderate depression, and 36.0% for at least mild depression. Second, we found that women reported significantly higher prevalence of probable depression than men in 63% of studies that reported depression levels by gender and that results on statistically significant differences between racial and ethnic groups were mixed. Third, we found that the 49 articles published were based on 12 studies; the most common sources were the Household Pulse Survey (n = 15, 31%), the AmeriSpeak panel (n = 8, 16%), the Qualtrics panel (n = 8, 16%), and the Understanding America Study (n = 5, 10%). Prevalence estimates varied based on mental health screening instruments and cutoffs used. The most commonly used instruments were the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) (n = 36, 73%) and the Kessler (n = 8, 16%) series. While the prevalence of population depression varied over time depending on the survey instruments, severity, and constructs reported, the overall prevalence of depression remained high from March 2020 through June 2021 across instruments and severity. Understanding the scope of population mental health can help policymakers and providers address and prepare to meet the ongoing and future mental health needs of U.S. adults in the post-COVID-19 context and beyond.

In-person schooling and associated COVID-19 risk in the United States over spring semester 2021.

Because of the importance of schools to childhood development, the relationship between in-person schooling and COVID-19 risk has been one of the most important questions of this pandemic. Previous work in the United States during winter 2020-2021 showed that in-person schooling carried some risk for household members and that mitigation measures reduced this risk. Schooling and the COVID-19 landscape changed radically over spring semester 2021. Here, we use data from a massive online survey to characterize changes in in-person schooling behavior and associated risks over that period. We find increases in in-person schooling and reductions in mitigations over time. In-person schooling is associated with increased reporting of COVID-19 outcomes even among vaccinated individuals (although the absolute risk among the vaccinated is greatly reduced). Vaccinated teachers working outside the home were less likely to report COVID-19-related outcomes than unvaccinated teachers working exclusively from home. Adequate mitigation measures appear to eliminate the excess risk associated with in-person schooling.

Association of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to Reduce the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 With Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms: A Multi-National Study of 43 Countries.

Objectives: To examine the association of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) with anxiety and depressive symptoms among adults and determine if these associations varied by gender and age. Methods: We combined survey data from 16,177,184 adults from 43 countries who participated in the daily COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey via Facebook with time-varying NPI data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker between 24 April 2020 and 20 December 2020. Using logistic regression models, we examined the association of [1] overall NPI stringency and [2] seven individual NPIs (school closures, workplace closures, cancellation of public events, restrictions on the size of gatherings, stay-at-home requirements, restrictions on internal movement, and international travel controls) with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Results: More stringent implementation of NPIs was associated with a higher odds of anxiety and depressive symptoms, albeit with very small effect sizes. Individual NPIs had heterogeneous associations with anxiety and depressive symptoms by gender and age. Conclusion: Governments worldwide should be prepared to address the possible mental health consequences of stringent NPI implementation with both universal and targeted interventions for vulnerable groups.

Assumptions Not Often Assessed or Satisfied in Published Mediation Analyses in Psychology and Psychiatry.

Mediation analysis aims to investigate the mechanisms of action behind the effects of interventions or treatments. Given the history and common use of mediation in mental health research, we conducted this review to understand how mediation analysis is implemented in psychology and psychiatry and whether analyses adhere to, address, or justify the key underlying assumptions of their approaches. All articles (n = 206) were from top academic psychiatry or psychology journals in the PsycInfo database and were published in English from 2013 to 2018. Information extracted from each article related to study design, covariates adjusted for in the analysis, temporal ordering of variables, and the specific method used to perform the mediation analysis. In most studies, underlying assumptions were not adhered to. Only approximately 20% of articles had full temporal ordering of exposure, mediator, and outcome. Confounding of the exposure-mediator and/or mediator-outcome relationships was controlled for in fewer than half of the studies. In almost none of the articles were the underlying assumptions of their approaches discussed or causal mediation methods used. These results provide insights to how methodologists should aim to communicate methods, and motivation for more outreach to the research community on best practices for mediation analysis.

Teachers' Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

With an emergence of research investigating the educational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, empirical studies assessing teachers' mental health throughout the pandemic have been scarce. Using a large national data set, the current study compares mental health outcomes during the pandemic between pre-K-12 teachers and professionals in other occupations. Further, we compare the prevalence of mental health outcomes between in-person and remote teachers (N = 134,693). Findings indicate that teachers reported a greater prevalence of anxiety symptoms than did those in other professions and that remote teachers reported significantly higher levels of distress than did those teaching in person. We summarize the policy implications of these results.

Global trends and predictors of face mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and recommendations from public health authorities related to face masks have been essential in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of mask usage during the pandemic. METHODS: We examined a total of 13,723,810 responses to a daily cross-sectional online survey in 38 countries of people who completed from April 23, 2020 to October 31, 2020 and reported having been in public at least once during the last 7 days. The outcome was individual face mask usage in public settings, and the predictors were country fixed effects, country-level mask policy stringency, calendar time, individual sociodemographic factors, and health prevention behaviors. Associations were modeled using survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Mask-wearing varied over time and across the 38 countries. While some countries consistently showed high prevalence throughout, in other countries mask usage increased gradually, and a few other countries remained at low prevalence. Controlling for time and country fixed effects, sociodemographic factors (older age, female gender, education, urbanicity) and stricter mask-related policies were significantly associated with higher mask usage in public settings. Crucially, social behaviors considered risky in the context of the pandemic (going out to large events, restaurants, shopping centers, and socializing outside of the household) were associated with lower mask use. CONCLUSION: The decision to wear a face mask in public settings is significantly associated with sociodemographic factors, risky social behaviors, and mask policies. This has important implications for health prevention policies and messaging, including the potential need for more targeted policy and messaging design.

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.

Household COVID-19 risk and in-person schooling.

In-person schooling has proved contentious and difficult to study throughout the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Data from a massive online survey in the United States indicate an increased risk of COVID-19-related outcomes among respondents living with a child attending school in person. School-based mitigation measures are associated with significant reductions in risk, particularly daily symptoms screens, teacher masking, and closure of extracurricular activities. A positive association between in-person schooling and COVID-19 outcomes persists at low levels of mitigation, but when seven or more mitigation measures are reported, a significant relationship is no longer observed. Among teachers, working outside the home was associated with an increase in COVID-19-related outcomes, but this association is similar to that observed in other occupations (e.g., health care or office work). Although in-person schooling is associated with household COVID-19 risk, this risk can likely be controlled with properly implemented school-based mitigation measures.

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.