Abstract
Background The COVID-19 disease has been spreading for more than four months in China and been pronounced as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). As an urgent public health crisis, it has severe physical and psychological impacts on human. The related experience and mental health on individuals and society during the pandemic can be devastating and has lasting impact.
Objective To investigate the psychological stress and gender difference responding to the threat of COVID-19 and relevant factors.
Methods A cross-sectional population-based study using online questionnaires via a social media software, WeChat, from 20th to 27th Feb, 2020. Psychological stress was measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). The relevant factors included demographics, the epidemic and living status characteristics related to COVID-19, psychological status, the needs of psychological support services, and psychological resilience. Psychological responses to depression, anxiety were also measured.
Results Total 3088 questionnaires from 32 provinces in China were collected online. The average score of psychological stress was 3.4. The risk factors related to psychological stress included: female, ≤45 years old, higher education, farmer/worker/clerical and business/service, unemployed, more diseases, uncertainty local epidemic status, close contact or completed a medical observation, higher desire for knowledge about the COVID-19, the diseases, psychological, economic difficulties during the epidemic. The protect factors included: frequently contacting with colleagues, calm mood, and high psychological resilience. There were gender differences on stress, the adaption to current living/working status, the coping strategy for heating, and the psychological support service needs.
Conclusion The stress, anxiety and depression were mainly related to gender, age, education, and occupation during the epidemic of COVID-19. It suggested that we should make appropriate control measures and provide different psychological supports according to different population characteristics.
Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an unknown infectious disease with a cluster of acute respiratory symptoms was initially detected in Wuhan, China, in December 20191, and cases dramatically increasing by the end of January. No specific effective therapy, overlong incubation, asymptomatic infection, and re-positive cases after recovered made the situation uncertainty and might aggravate the public’s worries and fragile mind2–4. Meanwhile, a series of changes of life, such as lockdown of city, level-1 public health emergency response and home quarantine for the individuals due to COVID-19 epidemic severely affected on the aspects of public’s health, socialization, economic and way of life5.
COVID-19 has been an pandemic period in China, which as a psychological stressors might lead to a obvious psychological impact on the Chinese. A survey conducted during the early phase of epidemic in Hong Kong, indicated 97% of respondents were worried about COVID-19, and 99.5% of them were alert to the disease progression; borderline abnormal of anxiety level, high perceived susceptibility and high perceived severity were reported6. Medical workers reported stress, anxiety and depression symptoms7,8. According to previous studies, stress induced vulnerability to anxiety, depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders9,10. Stress-related and adjustment disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and substance use disorders, etc., were also frequently reported post-disaster studies11. Social situations involving social conflict, isolation, devaluation, rejection, and exclusion historically increased risk for physical injury and infection, anticipatory neural-immune reactivity to social threat was likely highly conserved12 Therefore, COVID-19 the psychological stress caused by sense of insecurity should be concerned.
Gender difference should be given a particular concern for studying psychological stress. A clear gender differences has established in exposure to potentially traumatic events and in subsequent PTSD13. Many studies showed females were showed vulnerable to mental or physical problems in exposure to life stress or potentially traumatic events 14–16. Up to now, the gender differences of psychological stress affected by COVID-19 were still not fully investigated, although female medical workers was noticed had more negative influences by epidemic8. Our study aimed to investigate the psychology health of the general population and its influence factors, especially gender differences.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional population-based study using an online questionnaire via a social networking software, Wechat, from 20th to 27th Feb, 2020. The questionnaire was designed by professional psychiatrists and clinical epidemiologists. The study has been proved by the institution review board of School of Public Health, Central South University(XYGW-2020–04).
Respondents were asked about their demographics (including sex, age, marital status, province, education, occupation, diseases). We also investigated the epidemic and living status characteristics related to COVID-19, including assessment of local epidemic status, current status (confirmed patients, suspected infection, anyone in close contact, person who has completed a medical observation, general people), the number of people living together during the outbreak, who contacted more than 3 times a week, a desire to acquire knowledge of COVID-19, time spent on the information about outbreak in a day, mood changes and the biggest difficulties during the epidemic. Measurements of mental health and psychological related factors were investigated including psychological stress, depression, anxiety, resilience, and the needs of psychological support services. psychological stress was measured by a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (‘not stressful’) and 10 (‘extremely stressful’)17. We used the first two items of patient health questionnaire (PHQ-2 scale) to measure depression, which had good psychometric properties for screening and diagnosing depression18,19. A cutoff of 3 or greater has been found to have the greatest sensitivity and specificity for screening of depression20. The first two items of generalized anxious disorder scale (GAD-2) was adopted to measured anxiety. It has excellent overall accuracy for identifying clinically significant anxiety symptoms at a cutoff of 321. PHQ-2 and GAD-2 items are rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), for a total score ranging from zero to six. The Chinese version of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) was used to assess the psychological resilience with a total of 100 scores, which rate items on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely true). A higher score indicates a higher level of resilience22.
Statistics analysis
All the statistical analysis were based on 3088 participants. Frequency and proportions of respondents were calculated. A regression models used to analyze the influence factors related to psychological stress, which psychological stress set as independent variable; gender, age(≤45,>45years), education, occupation, epidemic intensity of the living region (according to the cumulative number of cases at 1st March of respondents’ province), the number of diseases reported by respondents (0, 1–2, >2), local epidemic status, respondent’s status (confirmed, suspected infection, close contact, completed a medical observation, general people), the number of persons living together during the outbreak, persons contacted more than 3 times a week, desire to acquire knowledge of COVID-19, time spending on the outbreak in a day, current mood, the greatest difficulty encountered during the epidemic, and CD-RISC as dependent variables. Martial status was not including in the model, because there were co-linear with the number of people living together during the outbreak. In order to explore the differences in different subgroups, a regression model were further conducted in gender and respondent’ status (close contact or completed a medical observation persons v.s. general people), respectively. Psychological stress and CD-RISC scores were compared between male and female, general people and respondents who was close contact or completed a medical observation with t-tests. The adaption to current living/working status, PHQ-2, GAD-2, the coping strategy for heating, and the psychological support service needs between male and female, general people and respondents who was close contact or completed a medical observation were analyzed with Chi-square tests.
The significant level was 0.05. All the analysis were done with Statistical analysis software (SAS, SAS institute Inc, Cary, NC).
Results
3088 questionnaires were collected covered 32 provinces in China (Appendix Figure 1). There were 1749 female (56.6%) and the average age was 37.5(Standard Deviation (SD)=13.5). Seven percent and 11.5% of respondents were front-line medical personnel and non-front-line medical personnel, respectively. The details of participants were showed in Table 1. The descriptions of each item in the questionnaire were showed in Table 1 of Appendix.
The results showed the average score of psychological stress was 3.4(SD=2.4). 14.1% of the respondents were depressed, 13.2% were anxious, and 7.8% had both anxiety and depression. The average score of psychological resilience was 28.6(SD=8.1) (Table 4).
The regression analysis results of stress showed that the risk factors included female, ≤45 years old, higher education, farmer/worker/clerical and business/service, unemployed, more diseases, uncertainty local epidemic status, close contact or completed a medical observation, higher desire for knowledge about the COVID-19, the greatest difficulties during the epidemic (diseases problems, psychological problems, economic problems, can not go to work/study, social limitations as references). The protect factors of stress included frequently contacting with colleagues, calm mood, and high psychological resilience. Except for age, high education, and resilience, for male, more time spending on the outbreak and unable to work/study during the epidemic aggravated psychological stress. Compared with male, in female, however, there were more risk factors were associated with stress(Table 2). Time spending on the outbreak and unable to work/study during the epidemic were no longer the risk factors, higher desire for knowledge about the COVID-19 was instead. And frequently contacting with colleagues was the protect factor of stress in female. In population who was close contact or completed a medical observation, living alone and low psychological resilience were the risk factors of stress(Table 3).
The stratified analysis showed that there were no significant gender differences on PHQ-2 and GAD-2. Stress and GAD-2 of persons who were close contact or completed a medical observation was larger than that of general people(P=0.0102), but PHQ-2 and resilience were no difference between general people and person who was close contact or completed a medical observation(Table 4).
There were gender differences on the adaption to current living and working status, the coping strategy for heating, and the psychological support service needs. The proportion of unadaption in male was higher than that of female(P=0.0029). More male chose to fever clinic immediately when he was heating, but more female chose to observe at home(P<0.0001). Compared with male, more female chose self-psychological adjustment guidance and mental health assessment (P=0.048)(Table 4).
Discussion
Psychological research showed that major life events lead to psychological stress, especially the major negative events (such as a significant life change or death of family members) closely related to diseases17. COVID-19 has been a pandemic disease and now more than 2.1 millions confirmed patients were involved and has 146,088 death all the world23. Many countries adopt strict control measurements, industries and schools were closed down and people was recommended staying at home. These series of measurements changed people’s life and have negative impacts on their mental health. Our study involved all provinces in China, except Taiwan, and was conducted during the epidemic period of COVID-19. The results suggested that female, ≤45 years old, higher education, farmer/worker/clerical and business/service, unemployed, more diseases, uncertainty local epidemic status, close contact or completed a medical observation, higher desire for knowledge about the COVID-19, diseases/psychological/economic problems and can not go to work/study difficulties during the epidemic were the risk factors of stress. The protective factors included frequently contacting with colleagues, calm mood, and high psychological resilience. Many previous studies have indicated that psychological stress was related with higher education. Diseases, local epidemic status, psychological or economic problems, or unable to study/work can be induce to the external factors of psychological stress. Uncertainty brought by this unknown disease and strict measurements, such as lockdown of city, level-1 public health emergency response and home quarantine changed every Chinese life and deeply affected on their health, socialization, and economic condition2,3. It may be contributed to the long term strict control measures, which severely affected the economy and daily life, further resulted in worse economic situation. In addition, these control measures aggravated the stress of unemployed and farmer/worker/clerical and business/service respondents and results in anxiety. For these respondents without sustain income, the affects of control measures were heavier than other population. It should be considered when we made COVID-19 control and protecting measures. The desire to acquire knowledge of COVID-19, more time spent on the epidemic, and frequently contacting with colleagues can be seen as the behaviors to seek for social supports against psychological stress. Conforming to the common perceptions, people instinctively alerted to risks and threats and tended to seek for outside help. A study conducted in China preprinted on 19th Feb, 2020 also demonstrated that time spend on the COVID-19 (≥3 hours per day) was associated with mental health24. Social support could buffer the stressful cognition, so high usually are associated with lower depression, anxiety and emotional stress25. Therefore, our study suggested that we should provide appropriate social supports to relieve the stress during the epidemic, such as providing more professional knowledge of COVID-19, the protective measures, the real time epidemic report, urgent medical service, basic living security measures, alternative communication means such as online meeting software, and so on.
Age was another factor related to the psychological stress. Our study suggested that younger respondents were, larger stress was. This results were consistent with the similar study about COVID-19 conducted in China and the previous studies about psychological impacts after disaster24,26. Compare with younger, elder maybe pay more attention on positive emotion simulation and neglect negative simulation which called ‘positive effects’27. Younger might face more life stress and social responsibility, and worry about their own and families’ infection with the virus, lacking living materials, and financial resources caused by the breakout.
Psychological resilience was highlighted as a protective factor to overcome pressure in our study. Higher psychological resilience was associated with stronger ability of adaptability and controls of the external environment. Many studies found that psychological resilience protected individuals against stress-related mental problems, such as PTSD, anxiety and depression28. A investigate of Jiuzhaigou earthquake showed resilience and social support had direct and indirect effects on PTSD through anxiety and depression29. The resilience of male was higher than that of female in our study. It can partly explain why the male’s stress was lower than female.
Our study suggested that female’s stress was greater than that of male in an emergency, which were consistent with the existed evidences14,16. Gender differences of stress were estimated by affecting social environmental, psychodynamic, and cognitive processes30,31. Female tends to overestimate the pain of highly negative stimulate from a self-perspective than from an other-perspective32. Characteristics and behaviors including behavioral responses to distress, cognitive factors, and the experience and expression of emotion were influenced by assigned gender13 Recently, a perspective believed that gender differences in susceptibility to stress could be explained by physiological factors33,34. It was found ovarian hormone fluctuations modulate female’s susceptibility to stress30,35. Endogenous estradiol changes across the menstrual cycle alter mood and neural responses to psychosocial stress36. A fMRI-stress task also dedicated during stress, male recruit regions associated with emotion and stress regulation, self-referential processing and cognitive control more strongly than female37. The relationship between education and psychological stress was different in gender in our study. For male, psychological stress was increasing with education and the time spent on the outbreak. It might be explained by the more information received in higher education male than others, and further induced massive negative influence. The gender differences further induce the difference about the psychological support service needs. Our results showed that the needs for psychological supports were larger in female than in male. It may be caused that male are more likely to self-manage to coping with stress, while female are more likely to get professional help.
For the population who was close contact or completed a medical observation, the stress of the respondents who were living alone were larger than others. There were no gender difference on depression and anxious. And the depression status were no significant different between the population who was close contact or completed a medical observation and general population. However, the proportion of anxious status was more than that of general population. Those results suggested we should pay more attention to the mental health of the population who was close contact or completed a medical observation and give them appropriated psychological supports to relieve their anxious emotion. For general population, we should provide different psychological supports according to different gender and population.
Our study had several limitations. Firstly, although a national sample was obtained, our sample were mainly outside the heaviest epidemic area, Wuhan. It might be different with the condition of Wuhan. Secondly, considering the condition of COVID-19 epidemic in China at that time, we have to adopt the online survey with Wechat. Therefore, the population maybe have slight limitation. But Wechat can expand the scope of investigation, our survey almost covered all the provinces of China. Finally, confirmed and suspected infection patients were not included, and the proportion of close contact and have completed medical observation persons were few. Therefore, It should be caution to extrapolate the results.
Conclusion
The stress were mainly related to gender, age, education, and occupation during the epidemic of COVID-19. It suggested that we should make appropriate control measures and provide different psychological supports according to different population characteristics.
Data Availability
All data are available from the corresponding author.