10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Long-term psychological distress trajectories and the COVID-19 pandemic in three British birth cohorts: A multi-cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Growing evidence suggests that population mental health outcomes have worsened since the pandemic started. The extent that these changes have altered common age-related trends in psychological distress, where distress typically rises until midlife and then falls after midlife in both sexes, is unknown. We aimed to analyse whether long-term pre-pandemic psychological distress trajectories were disrupted during the pandemic, and whether these changes have been different across cohorts and by sex.

          Methods and findings

          We used data from three nationally representative birth cohorts comprising all people born in Great Britain in a single week of 1946 (National Survey of Health and Development, NSHD), 1958 (National Child Development Study, NCDS), or 1970 (British Cohort Study, BCS70). The follow-up data used spanned 39 years in NSHD (1982 to 2021), 40 years in NCDS (1981 to 2001), and 25 years in BCS70 (1996 to 2021). We used psychological distress factor scores, as measured by validated self-reported questionnaires (NSHD: Present State Examination, Psychiatric Symptoms Frequency, and 28- and 12-item versions of General Health Questionnaire; NCDS and BCS70: Malaise Inventory; all: 2-item versions of Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and Patient Health Questionnaire). We used a multilevel growth curve modelling approach to model the trajectories of distress across cohorts and sexes and obtained estimates of the differences between the distress levels observed during the pandemic and those observed at the most recent pre-pandemic assessment and at the peak in the cohort-specific pre-pandemic distress trajectory, located at midlife. We further analysed whether pre-existing cohort and sex inequalities had changed with the pandemic onset using a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach. The analytic sample included 16,389 participants. By September/October 2020, distress levels had reached or exceeded the levels of the peak in the pre-pandemic life-course trajectories, with larger increases in younger cohorts (standardised mean differences [SMD] and 95% confidence intervals of SMD NSHD,pre-peak = −0.02 [−0.07, 0.04], SMD NCDS,pre-peak = 0.05 [0.02, 0.07], and SMD BCS70,pre-peak = 0.09 [0.07, 0.12] for the 1946, 1958, and 1970 birth cohorts, respectively). Increases in distress were larger among women than men, widening pre-existing sex inequalities (DiD and 95% confidence intervals of DiD NSHD,sex,pre-peak = 0.17 [0.06, 0.28], DiD NCDS,sex,pre-peak = 0.11 [0.07, 0.16], and DiD BCS70,sex,pre-peak = 0.11 [0.05, 0.16] when comparing sex inequalities in the pre-pandemic peak in midlife to those observed by September/October 2020). As expected in cohort designs, our study suffered from high proportions of attrition with respect to the original samples. Although we used non-response weights to restore sample representativeness to the target populations (those born in the United Kingdom in 1946, 1958, and 1970, alive and residing in the UK), results may not be generalisable to other sections within the UK population (e.g., migrants and ethnic minority groups) and countries different than the UK.

          Conclusions

          Pre-existing long-term psychological distress trajectories of adults born between 1946 and 1970 were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among women, who reached the highest levels ever recorded in up to 40 years of follow-up data. This may impact future trends of morbidity, disability, and mortality due to common mental health problems.

          Author summary

          Why was this study done?
          • The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the mental health of the population, with disproportionate effects among specific subgroups such as women and younger people.

          • Previous research suggests that, in the UK population, long-term trends of psychological distress are expected to reach their highest point during midlife (around age 30 to 45) and decrease towards older age.

          • Little is known about where the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic stands in relation to those long-term trends of psychological distress, and whether this impact has been different across cohorts and sexes.

          What did the researchers do and find?
          • We used data on 16,389 participants from three British birth cohorts representing people born in Britain in 1946, 1958, and 1970, with data on psychological distress collected between 1982 and 2021 (age 36 to 75), 1981 and 2021 (age 23 to 63), and 1996 and 2021 (age 26 to 51), respectively.

          • We measured the long-term psychological distress trajectories of different cohorts (people born in 1946, 1958, and 1970) and sexes (women and men).

          • We found that psychological distress levels increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching or exceeding the highest levels ever recorded in up to 40 years of data, and that this increase was larger among women.

          What do these findings mean?
          • This study suggests that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a new peak in the long-term trajectories of psychological distress in the UK population, one that was largely unexpected considering pre-existing trends, in addition to the peak already observed in midlife.

          • This new peak in the psychological distress trajectories has been substantially larger in women than in men, widening the sex inequalities already existing prior to the pandemic onset.

          • This new peak in distress may increase the trends of morbidity, disability, and mortality due to common mental health problems, with women likely being disproportionately affected. Public policies aimed at the provision of support and monitoring of population mental health, particularly among those most disproportionately affected by the pandemic, are needed to tackle existing and prevent future inequalities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

          Summary Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. Methods We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting. Findings Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1–4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0–8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421–723) to 853 million (642–1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6–9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4–7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782–3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279–1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082–3583] vs 2336 [2154–2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943–3630] vs 5643 [5057–6302]). Interpretation Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health in the General Population: A Systematic Review

            Highlights • The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in unprecedented hazards to mental health globally. • Relatively high rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and stress were reported in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries. • Common risk factors associated with mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic include female gender, younger age group (≤40 years), presence of chronic/psychiatric illnesses, unemployment, student status, and frequent exposure to social media/news concerning COVID-19. • Mitigation of COVID-19 induced psychological distress requires government intervention and individual efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The weirdest people in the world?

              Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS Med
                plos
                PLOS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                4 April 2023
                April 2023
                : 20
                : 4
                : e1004145
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ] ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King’s College London, Melbourne House, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ] King’s College London, Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ] King’s College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom
                [5 ] Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
                [6 ] MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [7 ] South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
                University of Ibadan, NIGERIA
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                ‡ These authors are joint senior authors on this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0459-657X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4174-2126
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-6859
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-5790
                Article
                PMEDICINE-D-22-01955
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1004145
                10072377
                37014820
                69405ed7-3db0-4235-8890-8170457e7866
                © 2023 Moreno-Agostino et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 9 June 2022
                : 21 November 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 19
                Funding
                Funded by: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London
                Award ID: ES/S012567/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MC_UU_00019/3
                Award Recipient :
                This paper represents independent research part supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London [ES/S012567/1]. DM, HLF, SLH, CM, JD, and GBP are part supported by the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London [ES/S012567/1]. SLH, CM, and JD are also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London and JD is also supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. MR is supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) [MC_UU_00019/3]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Clinical Psychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Clinical Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Clinical Psychology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Cohort Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pediatrics
                Child Development
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychometrics
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychometrics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Custom metadata
                Deidentified data and documentation on NCDS and BCS70 are available from the UK Data Service: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/. Deidentified data and documentation on NSHD are available from https://www.nshd.mrc.ac.uk/data.
                COVID-19

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article