36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
6 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Inequality and the COVID-19 Crisis in the United Kingdom

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We review the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on inequalities in education, the labor market, household living standards, mental health, and wealth in the United Kingdom. The pandemic has pushed up inequalities on several dimensions. School closures, in particular, disrupted the learning of poorer children, leading to lower attainment. Mental health worsened for those groups (women and younger adults) who had poorer mental health pre-pandemic. Lockdowns and social distancing particularly reduced the ability of younger, lower-earning, and less educated people to work. However, job-support programs combined with the expanded welfare system meant that, if anything, disposable income inequality fell. Rising house prices have benefited people around the middle of the wealth distribution. In the longer term, lower work experience and training for the less educated and missed schooling—particularly among children from more deprived families—could push up human capital inequalities and reduce social mobility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population

          Summary Background The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. Methods In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23–30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. Findings Waves 6–9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8–20·0) in 2018–19 to 27·3% (26·3–28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3–11·6) in 2018–19, to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07–0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18–24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89–3·48), 25–34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96–2·18), women (0·92, 0·50–1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79–2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20–1·06). Interpretation By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. Funding None.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England: a longitudinal observational study

            Background There is major concern about the impact of the global COVID-19 outbreak on mental health. Several studies suggest that mental health deteriorated in many countries before and during enforced isolation (ie, lockdown), but it remains unknown how mental health has changed week by week over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to explore the trajectories of anxiety and depression over the 20 weeks after lockdown was announced in England, and compare the growth trajectories by individual characteristics. Methods In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we analysed data from the UCL COVID-19 Social Study, a panel study weighted to population proportions, which collects information on anxiety (using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment) and depressive symptoms (using the Patient Health Questionnaire) weekly in the UK since March 21, 2020. We included data from adults living in England who had at least three repeated measures between March 23 and Aug 9, 2020. Analyses were done using latent growth models, which were fitted to account for sociodemographic and health covariates. Findings Between March 23, and Aug 9, data from over 70 000 adults were collected in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. When including participants living in England with three follow-up measures and no missing values, our analytic sample consisted of 36 520 participants. The average depression score was 6·6 (SD=6·0, range 0–27) and the average anxiety score 5·7 (SD=5·6, range 0–21) in week 1. Anxiety and depression levels both declined across the first 20 weeks following the introduction of lockdown in England (b=–1·93, SE=0·26, p<0·0001 for anxiety; b=–2·52, SE=0·28, p<0·0001 for depressive symptoms). The fastest decreases were seen across the strict lockdown period (between weeks 2 and 5), with symptoms plateauing as further lockdown easing measures were introduced (between weeks 16 and 20). Being a woman or younger, having lower educational attainment, lower income, or pre-existing mental health conditions, and living alone or with children were all risk factors for higher levels of anxiety and depression at the start of lockdown. Many of these inequalities in experiences were reduced as lockdown continued, but differences were still evident 20 weeks after the start of lockdown. Interpretation These data suggest that the highest levels of depression and anxiety occurred in the early stages of lockdown but declined fairly rapidly, possibly because individuals adapted to circumstances. Our findings emphasise the importance of supporting individuals in the lead-up to future lockdowns to try to reduce distress, and highlight that groups already at risk for poor mental health before the pandemic have remained at risk throughout lockdown and its aftermath. Funding Nuffield Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annual Review of Economics
                Annu. Rev. Econ.
                Annual Reviews
                1941-1383
                1941-1391
                August 12 2022
                August 12 2022
                : 14
                : 1
                : 607-636
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Economics, University College London, London, United Kingdom;
                [2 ]Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, United Kingdom;, , ,
                [3 ]School of Economics, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom;
                [4 ]Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                Article
                10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-030252
                64606587-8d67-4dea-9407-0deb82116bf3
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article