The impact of the first wave of the Covid‐19 pandemic on parents of children with externalising difficulties in ireland: A longitudinal cohort study

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

This longitudinal cohort study aimed to examine the impact of the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Ireland on parents of children with externalising difficulties, in comparison to parents of children without such difficulties.

Method

Parents of 159 children completed online self‐report measures at three time points during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic; (a) Delay and Mitigation Phase (March 2020 to May 2020), (b) Reopening of Society Phase (June 2020 to July 2020) and (c) Wave 2 Case Acceleration Phase (September 2020 to October 2020). Participants were allocated to the clinical group if they met the clinical cut off point on the Conduct or Hyperactivity/Inattention subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire at Time 1.

Results

Parents of children with externalising difficulties experienced significantly higher levels of stress, lower levels of wellbeing and engaged in higher levels of avoidant‐focused coping strategies longitudinally. There was a significant difference between outcomes at the different phases of the COVID‐19 pandemic, for stress related to parenting, personal/family stress related to the impact of the COVID‐19 and type of coping strategies employed. Children with externalising difficulties, in comparison to children without externalising difficulties, showed significantly greater adjustment over time for behavioural and emotional difficulties, as reported by their parents.

Conclusions

Results provide important information regarding the trajectory of psychological outcomes in parents of children with externalising difficulties over the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic, highlighting the need for increased parental supports during, and after, the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Related collections

Most cited references 83

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner … (2009)

G*Power is a free power analysis program for a variety of statistical tests. We present extensions and improvements of the version introduced by Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner (2007) in the domain of correlation and regression analyses. In the new version, we have added procedures to analyze the power of tests based on (1) single-sample tetrachoric correlations, (2) comparisons of dependent correlations, (3) bivariate linear regression, (4) multiple linear regression based on the random predictor model, (5) logistic regression, and (6) Poisson regression. We describe these new features and provide a brief introduction to their scope and handling.

0 comments Cited 6240 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nader Salari, Amin Hosseinian-Far, Rostam Jalali … (2020)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on public mental health. Therefore, monitoring and oversight of the population mental health during crises such as a panedmic is an immediate priority. The aim of this study is to analyze the existing research works and findings in relation to the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, articles that have focused on stress and anxiety prevalence among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were searched in the Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases, without a lower time limit and until May 2020. In order to perform a meta-analysis of the collected studies, the random effects model was used, and the heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I2 index. Moreover. data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. Results The prevalence of stress in 5 studies with a total sample size of 9074 is obtained as 29.6% (95% confidence limit: 24.3–35.4), the prevalence of anxiety in 17 studies with a sample size of 63,439 as 31.9% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–36.7), and the prevalence of depression in 14 studies with a sample size of 44,531 people as 33.7% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–40.6). Conclusion COVID-19 not only causes physical health concerns but also results in a number of psychological disorders. The spread of the new coronavirus can impact the mental health of people in different communities. Thus, it is essential to preserve the mental health of individuals and to develop psychological interventions that can improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

0 comments Cited 1525 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

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

Matthias Pierce, Holly F Hope, Tamsin Ford … (2021)

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.

0 comments Cited 1371 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Anna Berry: anna.ni-bheara@ucdconnect.ie

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Clin Pract

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Clin Pract

Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1742-1241

Journal ID (publisher-id): IJCP

Title: International Journal of Clinical Practice

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )

ISSN (Print): 1368-5031

ISSN (Electronic): 1742-1241

Publication date (Electronic): 19 October 2021

Publication date PMC-release: 19 October 2021

Electronic Location Identifier: e14941

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] School of Psychology University College Dublin (UCD) Dublin Ireland

[ ² ] Health Service Executive (HSE) Laois/Offaly Ireland

[ ³ ] School of Psychology National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) Galway Ireland

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence

Anna Berry, School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Email: anna.ni-bheara@ 123456ucdconnect.ie

Article

Publisher ID: IJCP14941

DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14941

PMC ID: 8646641

PubMed ID: 34610195

SO-VID: 784ec939-e903-4c36-a053-cefa7f425fdf

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

History

Date received : 03 May 2021

Date accepted : 01 October 2021

Page count

Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 16, Words: 26553

Funding

Funded by: HSE CHO 8 (Laois/Offaly)

Funded by: Open access funding provided by IReL.

Funded by: WOA Institution: University College Dublin

Funded by: Blended DEAL: IReL

Custom metadata

source-schema-version-number 2.0

edited-state corrected-proof

details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.9 mode:remove_FC converted:06.12.2021

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

The impact of the first wave of the Covid‐19 pandemic on parents of children with externalising difficulties in ireland: A longitudinal cohort study

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 83

Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 233

Cited by 5

Most referenced authors 1,620