RESUMO
Background and aimDespite the significant mental health challenges the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated government measures have presented, research have shown that the majority of people have adapted and coped well. The aim of this study was i) to determine the proportion of people with mental stability and volatility during the pandemic in a North West urban environment sample and ii) to establish group differences in psychosocial variables. Mental stability and volatility refer to the extent to which individuals reported change in levels of common mental health symptoms over the course of 12 weeks. Methoda two-wave-online survey (N = 163) was used to explore the psychological and social impact of the pandemic on relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods within the Liverpool City Region over 12 weeks. Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc tests were used to determine how people with mental stability and volatility differed on factors categorised within an ecological framework of resilience (individual, community, societal, and COVID-19 specific). ResultsIndividuals categorised as stable in terms of mental health symptoms (63.6%) had better mental and physical health; were more tolerant of uncertainty; reported higher levels of resilience and wellbeing compared to very volatile people (19.8%). These individuals also reported feeling less socially isolated, experienced a greater sense of belonging to their community which was more likely to fulfil their needs, and were more likely to have access to green space nearby for their recommended daily exercise. Stable individuals did not report worrying any more during the pandemic than usual and tolerated uncertainty better compared to those in the volatile group. ImplicationsThe majority of participants in this sample were mentally stable and coping well with the challenges presented by the pandemic. The resilience of these individuals was related to key place-based factors such as a strong sense of community and useable local assets. The data showcase the role of place-based social determinants in supporting resilience and thereby highlight key preventative measures for public mental health during times of international crisis.
RESUMO
Background: Caring for sick or disabled relatives is a key model for understanding the effects of chronic stress on immunity/inflammation; biomarkers which are part of an index of allostatic load. Here, we examine whether caring and allostatic load are predictive of future illness/disability and if the association between caring and illness/disability is mediated by allostatic load. Method: Using data from the Understanding Society Wave 2 (2011) and Wave 9 (2017-2019) datasets in the UK, a sample of 471 of caregivers and 2,151 non-caregivers (all initially healthy) were compared on allostatic load and future illness/disability. Results: Caregivers had higher allostatic risk scores, for total as well as immune and non-immune biomarkers, and were more likely (23.3% vs 17.4%) to have an illness/disability in the future compared to non-caregivers. Moreover, caregiving was responsible for a 33% future illness/disability risk. Further, allostatic load was also predictive of excess risk (OR â= â1.18, 95% CI â= â1.08 - 1.26; p â< â.001); higher allostatic load was associated with increased risk of illness/disability in the future. In an unadjusted mediation model, allostatic load mediated the association between caregiving and future illness/disability. However, after controlling for confounding, the mediation became non-significant. Conclusions: These results confirm that caregiving and allostatic load are damaging for future health. Results are also discussed in relation to public health aspects of caregiving.
