Abstract
Background There are concerns that COVID-19 mitigation measures, including “lockdown” may have unintended health consequences. We examined trends in mental health and health behaviours in the UK before and during the COVID-19 lockdown and differences across population subgroups.
Methods Repeat cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Survey, including representative samples of adults (aged 18+) interviewed in four surveys between 2015 and 2020 (n=48,426). 9,748 adults had complete data for longitudinal analyses. Psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ). Binary outcomes were created for loneliness, current smoking and use of e-cigarettes. Alcohol consumption was assessed using three binary measures assessing frequent, binge and heavy drinking. Cross-sectional weighted prevalence estimates were calculated and multilevel Poisson regression assessed associations between time period and the outcomes of interest, as well as differential effects by age, gender, education level and ethnicity.
Results Psychological distress substantially increased one month into the COVID-19 lockdown, with the prevalence rising from 19.4% (95% CI 18.7%-20.0%) in 2017-19 to 30.3% (95% CI 29.1%-31.6%) in April 2020. Women’s mental health was particularly affected, as was that of the most educated and young adults. Loneliness remained stable overall. Smoking and e-cigarette use declined and the proportion of people drinking on four or more days per week increased, as did binge drinking.
Conclusions Psychological distress increased one month into lockdown, particularly among women and young adults. Smoking declined, but the frequency of alcohol consumption increased. Effective treatment and prevention are required to mitigate adverse impacts on health.
What is already known on this topic
Countries around the world have implemented radical COVID-19 lockdown measures, with concerns that these may have unintended consequences for a broad range of health outcomes.
Evidence on the impacts of lockdown measures on mental health and health-related behaviours remains limited.
What this study adds
In the UK, psychological distress markedly increased during the lockdown, with women particularly adversely affected.
Smoking and e-cigarette use fell, but the frequency of alcohol consumption and binge drinking increased.
Introduction
The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led not only to direct health risks from the infection, but also large-scale societal changes in many countries. Governments around the world have introduced substantial restrictions to people’s movement, including limiting potential to attend work and school or see friends and family.1,2 Such ‘lockdown’ measures could have large impacts on health, potentially affecting some population groups disproportionately.3,4 While some impacts could arise from reduced access to healthcare during lockdown 5, the lockdown measures themselves could have direct consequences on mental health and health-related behaviours.
Research available prior to the pandemic has suggested that quarantine is linked to a range of negative psychological outcomes.6 During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been repeatedly raised about potential harms to mental health, which could be long-lasting.7 Similarly, health-related behaviours such as alcohol consumption and smoking could be subject to rapid change in either direction. The increased stress that mitigation measures place on people could increase consumption.8,9 Alternatively, greater awareness of health risks more generally and reduced availability and socialising could lead to reduced consumption.
The UK Government introduced strict physical distancing measures on the 23rd March 2020.10 This restricted the general population to staying at home, unless required to leave for the purposes of carrying out an essential job (referred to as a ‘keyworker’, such as a health and social care worker), to buy necessary food or similar goods (once a week) or to take exercise once a day for a maximum of one hour.
Understanding the impacts of these large-scale changes is important as further periods of physical distancing are likely to be necessary in many countries for some time, especially as the possibility of further waves of infection remain. These impacts may also disproportionately affect specific population subgroups, with concerns that young people, women and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups may be at greater risk. We therefore investigated the impact of the UK’s COVID-19 lockdown on mental health and consumption of alcohol, tobacco and e-cigarettes, as well as assessing whether any observed impacts differed by age, gender, ethnicity and education level.
Methods
Data source
The UK Household Longitudinal Study (also referred to as ‘Understanding Society’) is a nationally representative longitudinal household panel study, based on a clustered stratified probability sample of UK households, described in detail previously.11 All adults (aged 16+ years) in chosen households are invited to participate. Data collection for each ‘wave’ usually spans 24 months, with participants re-interviewed on an annual basis. We used pre-pandemic data from waves 7 to wave 9 (data collection 2015-2019).11,12 Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional wave of data was collected between 24th and 30th April 2020 (referred to as the COVID-19 wave A – henceforth the ‘CA wave’)13. The response rate was 48.6% of those who took part at wave 9 (see Appendix 1 for details of inverse probability weight adjustment).14,15 We analysed data from all adults aged 18+ years who participated in each wave for repeated cross-sectional analysis. When analysing educational inequalities we restricted analyses to adults aged 25+ years as educational attainment tends to be stable from that age onwards.16 For longitudinal analysis, we included participants with complete data from all four waves and aged 18+ years during wave 9.
Understanding Society was approved by the University of Essex Ethics Committee. No additional ethical approval was necessary for this secondary data analysis.
Outcomes
Mental health was assessed at all four waves using the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12), which is a screening tool for psychological distress that has been validated for use in epidemiological studies.17 Respondents scoring 4 or more (out of a possible total of 12) are likely to be experiencing anxiety and/or depression.18,19 To better understand the driving symptoms of any change in psychological distress we also considered each individual GHQ item in secondary analyses, investigating trends in the proportion of respondents who selected the two most adverse response categories for each question. We also conducted sensitivity analyses with the item on enjoyment of day-to-day activities removed (since this could be affected by lockdown restrictions without necessarily indicating poor mental health), and with the cut-off point reduced to 3 or more symptoms, as a way of examining increases in less severe psychological distress and to enable comparison with other studies using this definition. Loneliness was assessed at wave 9 and the CA wave by asking participants: “in the last 4 weeks, how often did you feel lonely?” and respondents were able to answer hardly ever or never, some of the time, or often. In the statistical models this was converted to a binary variable distinguishing those who often felt lonely versus all other responses. Smoking was self-reported at all waves and defined as current smoker versus non-smoker and among current smokers, the number of cigarettes per day was calculated (<10, 10-19, 20+ cigarettes per day) for secondary analyses. Current e-cigarette use was defined on the basis of having used e-cigarettes at least once a week (waves 8, 9 and CA wave). Information about alcohol consumption was collected (waves 7, 9 and CA wave) using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption (AUDIT-C) instrument.20 However, the most recent CA wave had some modifications including asking about drinking behaviour over the last four weeks, rather than the last year. We therefore looked at three key outcomes: binge drinking (6 or more drinks in a single sitting on weekly basis), frequency of alcohol consumption (four or more times per week) and heavy drinking (7 or more drinks on a typical day when drinking).
Covariates
We included age group at wave 9 as a covariate (18-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65+ years). Gender (male/female) was based on self-report. We investigated highest education level as a marker of socioeconomic position and coded into four categories: degree-level or equivalent qualifications, A-level/AS-level or equivalent, General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) or equivalent, and no qualifications. Ethnicity was categorised into five groups: white, Asian, black, mixed, and other, but recoded to white and non-white for the statistical models due to small numbers within specific ethnic minority groups. We also included interview year as a continuous variable to account for trends in outcomes across years.
Statistical analysis
Prevalence estimates (with 95% confidence intervals) over time were calculated using all complete sets of responses from waves 7 to 9 (excluding those who had a proxy interview) and the CA wave individually. Cross-sectional inverse probability weights provided with the data were used to adjust for attrition and to create estimates that were representative of the general population over time (though the weights supplied for the CA wave weight respondents to be similar to the representative sample at wave 9). This was supplemented with additional weighting for differences in outcome non-response by age, gender, ethnicity and education. We repeated analyses stratified by gender, age group, ethnicity and education level.
We then restricted our sample to individuals with repeated measures for all relevant waves (n=9,748). We conducted multi-level Poisson regression with robust standard errors, to assess associations between time period an observation was taken in (CA wave or prior), adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, and interview year. Poisson regression was used to calculate relative risks.21
Robust standard errors were used to improve the accuracy of estimated 95% confidence intervals and p values given the data are clustered. We carried out a complete case analysis, using longitudinal inverse probability weights constructed for these models to adjust for attrition and missing data (see Appendix 1 for further details). We tested for differential effects by fitting interaction terms for broad age group, gender, highest educational level and ethnicity. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata/MP 15.1 and R version 3.6.0 for the figures.
Results
We included a total of 48,426 individuals in the repeated cross-sectional analysis from 2015 to 2020 (Table 1), after excluding participants with missing data (see Figure S1 for STROBE diagram). The sample at the COVID-19 (CA) wave was 53.4% female, 40.5% were degree level educated, 8.3% were from ethnic minority groups and the mean age of participants was 49.6 (95% CI: 49.0-50.1). The longitudinal sample included 9,748 individuals present in all 4 waves (Table S1 for details). Representative prevalence estimates for the key outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (CA) are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1 (Appendix 2 contains prevalences for each wave and outcome by subgroup).
Psychological distress
Psychological distress has steadily increased over time from 17.6% (95% CI: 17.0-18.2) in 2015-17 (wave 7) to 19.4% (95% CI: 18.7-20.1) in 2017-19 (wave 9), but substantially increased to 30.3% (95% CI: 29.1-31.6) during the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1 and Table 2). All symptoms of psychological distress worsened over this period (Figure 2). The symptom which had the largest deterioration was enjoyment of normal day-to-day activities. Substantially worsening symptoms were also observed for concentration, sleep, feelings of unhappiness and loss of purpose. In contrast, there was less of an apparent increase in specific depressive symptoms, such as feelings of worthlessness, an inability to overcome difficulties and lacking confidence. In sensitivity analyses using 3+ symptoms as the cut-off point, prevalence of psychological distress increased from 23.7% (95% CI: 23.0-24.5) in wave 9 to 37.8% (95% CI: 36.5-39.2) in the CA wave. We also investigated whether the decline in enjoyment of day-to-day activities was driving the increase in psychological distress. Removing this item reduced the magnitude of the increase, but it remained substantial (Table 2).
The increase in psychological distress was most pronounced among people aged under 45 years, as well as among the most educated groups (Figure S2 and Appendix 2). Women were also more adversely affected than men; among women the prevalence of psychological distress increased from 23.0% (95% CI: 22.0-23.9) in 2017-19 to 36.7% (95% CI: 35.1-38.4) during the pandemic period. Asian minority ethnic groups also experienced a large increase in psychological distress; from 18.7% (95% CI: 16.4-21.2) to 36.1% (95% CI: 30.7-41.9) (Appendix 2).
Longitudinal regression models (Table 3) adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity and interview year demonstrated that the risk of psychological distress was elevated during the pandemic compared with the pre-pandemic period (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.15,1.42), taking into account prior trends. In sensitivity analyses using the lower cut-off threshold for GHQ the RR was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.25,1.51). There was evidence of differential effects by age group, gender and education level when examining statistical interactions with time period (Table S2).
Loneliness
Overall, loneliness remained relatively stable before and during the lockdown period (Figure 1). However, in repeated cross-sectional analysis, there were differences by age group (Figure S3), with younger people experiencing higher overall levels of loneliness, as well as a large increase in loneliness (from 13.3% (95% CI: 11.6-15.3) to 21.0% (95% CI: 17.2-25.5)) during lockdown. Loneliness also slightly increased among women, but fell among men. In longitudinal analyses, differences by age were less apparent (although this analysis had less statistical power), but there was evidence for an interaction between gender and time period, with women experiencing a greater increase in loneliness than men (Table S3).
Alcohol consumption
Binge drinking increased from 10.8% (95% CI: 10.3-11.3) in wave 9 to 16.5% (95 % CI: 15.6-17.6) during the pandemic lockdown period (Figure 1), as did the proportion of people reporting drinking on four or more days during the week (13.7% (95% CI: 13.1-14.3) to 22.9% (95% CI: 21.7-24.1)). Differences by age group and gender were apparent. Binge drinking remained stable in the youngest age group but increased in those aged 25 and over and also increased more among women than men (Figure S4). Binge drinking and frequent drinking also increased more among the degree educated group (Figures S4 and S5).
The proportion of people reporting drinking seven or more drinks during a typical day when drinking decreased from 4.5% (95% CI: 4.1-4.9) during wave 9 to 1.7% (95% CI: 1.3-2.1) during the pandemic lockdown (Figure 1). This decrease was marked in the youngest age group, falling from 13.1% (95% CI: 11.3-15.1) in wave 9 to 2.9% (95% CI: 1.5-5.7) during lockdown (Figure S6).
Results from longitudinal models supported cross-sectional analyses, with the risk of binge drinking (RR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.27,1.74) and frequent drinking (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.26,1.51) increasing during the pandemic, while risk of heavy drinking on a typical drinking day was reduced (RR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.32,0.66). There were also statistical interactions between time period and age group, as well as time period and gender for all alcohol outcomes and with education level for binge drinking (Tables S4-6).
Smoking and e-cigarette use
Current smoking has been declining over time and displayed a further decrease during the CA wave (Figure 1 and Table 2). The decrease in current smoking was more apparent in younger age groups and among the least educated (Figure S7) and seems driven by a decline in lighter smokers (Table 2). Longitudinal models demonstrated that risk of smoking reduced during the pandemic (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82,0.97), but there were no statistically significant interactions with age group, gender, ethnicity or education level (Table S7).
A small decrease in regular e-cigarette use was also observed in cross-sectional analyses (Figure 1). This was experienced by all age and education groups, as well as among both men and women (Figure S8). In the longitudinal analyses, risk of e-cigarette use was also lower during the pandemic (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.48,0.91), but no statistically significant interactions were found with the subgroups examined (Table S8).
Discussion
Psychological distress substantially increased in the UK following the COVID-19 pandemic. Women’s mental health was particularly affected, as were younger people and the most educated groups. The increase in psychological distress, measured after the first month of lockdown, appeared to be driven by a reduction in enjoyment of normal day-to-day activities, as well as increases in difficulties with concentration and sleep, and feelings of unhappiness. Overall, loneliness remained relatively stable. Smoking declined, and this reduction appears to reflect cessation among lighter smokers. Regular use of e-cigarettes also fell, but only slightly. The frequency of drinking on four or more days per week and binge drinking also increased.
Our study has a number of strengths. We used a large nationally representative longitudinal dataset with validated measures that have been asked relatively consistently over time. We checked the variation in our outcomes before the pandemic and found that secular trends tended to be small compared to changes observed following the pandemic. Some limitations should be noted. First, survey non-participation may have introduced bias in our estimates. However, weights were used to reduce concerns about non-response and attrition. Second, there were changes in the modality by which the COVID survey was administered (moving from face-to-face interviews to online surveys), which may have led to modest reporting changes, but empirical investigation suggested this is unlikely to have biased responses.22 Relatedly, there were minor changes to questions about alcohol consumption, so that questions related to the pandemic period rather than the entire previous year. This meant that a modified version of the AUDIT-C scale was used, which is not strictly comparable with previous years. Reporting of alcohol consumption is also known to be susceptible to recall bias.23,24 The pandemic context may have also influenced participant reporting more broadly. For example, the increase in being less able to enjoy usual activities may not reflect anhedonia, but rather the reality of experiencing lockdown. Relatedly, what people perceive as a ‘typical’ drinking day is likely to have changed, especially among younger people.
While a body of literature is developing to articulate the expected indirect impacts of the pandemic37,25, empirical research on how mental health and health-related behaviours have changed remains limited and largely based on non-representative samples.26 A repeated cross-sectional analysis comparing results of two different representative surveys conducted before and after the pandemic in the USA found a marked increase in psychological distress amongst adults, from 3.9% to 13.6%.27 The study also showed that younger people experienced the greatest relative increase in poor mental health, echoing our findings. While longitudinal evidence on changes in consumption of tobacco and alcohol are limited, some cross-sectional surveys have been conducted which ask about self-perceived changes in behaviour. A representative survey conducted on behalf of the charity Alcohol Change UK found that 21% of adults who normally drink alcohol self-reported increased consumption, but 35% reduced how often they drink or have stopped drinking altogether.28 Similarly, an online non-representative survey with data collection following the pandemic only, also found self-reported change in tobacco and e-cigarette use, with both reducing by about one-quarter.29
Our study has important implications for public health policy. The substantial increase in psychological distress highlights the tension between implementing lockdown measures to control the pandemic and the risk of health harms that such action could have. It is worth noting that the magnitude of this change is substantial. By comparison, poor mental health after the Great Recession (assessed using the same GHQ outcome used in this study) increased from 13.7% to 16.4%30 – an effect size approximately one-quarter of that observed in this study. Finding that women have been disproportionately affected illustrates broader unequal power relations within society, with women more likely to experience the additional burden of childcare and more likely to work in sectors worst affected by the lockdown.31 It is worth noting that this more recent decline in mental health among women occurs after a period of austerity, during which women’s mental health had already been showing adverse trends.32-34 The reductions in smoking and e-cigarette use, despite the adverse societal circumstances, may illustrate the importance of the availability of these products in influencing behaviour. There is an increasing evidence base which suggests that availability of unhealthy commodities drives consumption and contributes to health inequalities.35 The trends in alcohol consumption merit further exploration. The frequency of alcohol consumption and binge drinking appear to have increased, but the proportion of people drinking 7+ drinks on a typical day when drinking decreased. This may reflect change in what a typical drinking day is (e.g. going to the pub with friends compared to drinking at home) and the change in the frequency of alcohol consumption.
Further research is needed to understand mechanisms by which these impacts may be arising and whether the large increase in psychological distress remains following changes to the lockdown. We also found psychological distress increased among the most educated groups, which may reflect that this group was more likely to move to remote working during the pandemic, and for some, this was combined with the requirement for home-schooling of children. Monitoring this group to see if they are better able to recover from the initial shock of the lockdown will be important to understand the implications for mental health inequalities. While the UK Government introduced aggressive fiscal policies to minimise adverse economic risks, it is likely that at least some of these impacts reflect the start of a potentially long-lasting economic crisis.36 Understanding to what extent health is also being impacted by income and unemployment shocks will help inform decisions about ongoing support over the coming months and years.37 However, improved medical treatment, including psychological support, may also be necessary. Our research provides an early picture of the broader consequences of the pandemic – clearly, longer term monitoring will be necessary. Poor mental health is an important predictor of future mortality and several physical health conditions.38,39 Given this, further monitoring of the determinants of health, as well as health outcomes, are required.
Data Availability
Understanding Society data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 6614, SN 8644). Researchers who would like to use Understanding Society need to register with the UK Data Service before being allowed to download datasets.
Data Sharing
Understanding Society data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 6614, SN 8644). Researchers who would like to use Understanding Society need to register with the UK Data Service before being allowed to download datasets.
Funding
MG, DDC, PC, ED, AHL, AP, EW and SVK acknowledge funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). In addition, CLN acknowledges funding from a Medical Research Council Fellowship (MR/R024774/1); AP acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (205412/Z/16/Z); RT acknowledges funding from a Wellcome Trust Research Fellowship for Health Professionals (218105/Z/19/Z); and SVK acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02). MB acknowledges funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N00812X/1).
The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Transparency declaration
The first and corresponding authors had full access to the study datasets. All authors had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Authors’ contributions
SVK and CLN conceived the idea for the study. CLN, MG and SVK conducted the analysis. SVK, CLN and MG drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the study design, interpretation of the findings and critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the paper.
Competing interests
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the Medical Research Council, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, Economic and Social Research Council and a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participants of the Understanding Society study. The Understanding Society COVID-19 study is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K005146/1) and the Health Foundation (2076161). Fieldwork for the survey is carried out by Ipsos MORI and Kantar. Understanding Society is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.