Abstract
Background There is currently major concern about the impact of the global COVID-19 outbreak on mental health. A number of studies suggest that mental health deteriorated in many countries prior to and during enforced isolation (“lockdown”), but it remains unknown how mental health has changed week by week over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored trajectories of anxiety and depression over the 20 weeks after lockdown was announced using data from England, and compared the growth trajectories by individual characteristics.
Methods Data from 36,520 adults in the UCL COVID -19 Social Study (a panel study weighted to population proportions collecting data weekly during the COVID-19 pandemic) were analysed from 23/03/2020-09/08/2020. Latent growth models were fitted accounting for socio-demographic and health covariates.
Findings The average depression score was 6.6 ± 6.0 in week 1 (range 0-27), while the average anxiety score was 5.7 ± 5.6 (range 0-21). Anxiety and depression levels both declined across the first 20 weeks following the introduction of lockdown in the England (b=-1.92, SE=0.26, p<.0001 & b=-2.52, SE=0.28, p<.0001). The fastest decreases were seen across the strict lockdown period, with symptoms plateauing as further lockdown easing measures were introduced. Being female 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 As countries face potential future lockdowns, these data suggest that the highest levels of depression and anxiety are in the early stages of lockdown but decline fairly rapidly as individuals adapt to circumstances. They also suggest the importance of supporting individuals in the lead-up to lockdown measures being brought in to try and reduce distress and highlight that emotionally vulnerable groups have remained at risk throughout lockdown and its aftermath.
Funding This Covid-19 Social Study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. The study was also supported by the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and by the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z]. DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust [205407/Z/16/Z].
Evidence before this study We searched PubMed for articles published in English from 1 January 2020 to 14 September 2020 for studies published in English using the following keywords: (“COVID*” OR “coronavirus”) and (“anxiety” OR “depression” OR “mental health” OR “mental illness” OR “distress”). Studies using data from representative cohort studies revealed the substantial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on levels of depression, anxiety and mental distress, showing increases in average scores of symptoms of psychological distress from before to during the pandemic as well as a rise in the proportion of people experiencing clinically significant levels of mental illness. But there was a gap in the evidence in understanding how mental health changed week by week over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Added value of this study This study extends previous findings that had shown that changes in mental health did occur by showing when these changes took place across first 20 weeks of restrictions in the UK and how the timing of changes corresponded to measures to ease lockdown. Further, this study highlights the inequalities in mental health across demographic and socio-economic groups and demonstrates how these inequalities changed over time.
Implications of all the available evidence Overall, it is clear that mental health was adversely affected during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, especially in the early weeks of March 2020. However, once strict lockdown measures were brought in to control the virus, many people began to experience improvements in mental health. As countries face potential future lockdowns, these data suggest the importance of supporting individuals in the lead-up to lockdown measures being brought in to try and reduce distress but also suggest that individuals may be able to adapt relatively fast to the new psychological demands of life in lockdown. Many known risk factors for poorer mental health were apparent at the start of lockdown, but some groups experienced faster improvements in symptoms, thereby reducing the differences over time. Nevertheless, many inequalities in mental health experiences did remain and emotionally vulnerable groups have remained at risk throughout lockdown and its aftermath. These groups could benefit from more targeted mental health support as the pandemic continues.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This Covid-19 Social Study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. The study was also supported by the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1]. DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust [205407/Z/16/Z].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
University College London Research Ethics Committee
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵± Full professor
Data Availability
Data will be made available following the end of the pandemic
