ABSTRACT
Background Unpaid carers who look after another member of their household (home-carers) have poorer mental health than the general population. The first COVID-19 national lockdown led to an increasing reliance on home-carers and we investigate the short and longer-term impact of lockdown on their mental health.
Methods Data from 9,737 adult participants (aged 16+) from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (Understanding Society) were used to explore changes in 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) score between (a) pre-pandemic (2019) and early lockdown (April 2020) and (b) early and later (July 2020) lockdown.
Results GHQ-12 scores among home-carers were higher pre-lockdown and increased more than for non-carers from 2019 to April 2020 with further increases for home-carers compared with non-carers between April and July. Compared with respondents caring for a spouse/partner, those caring for a child under 18 had a particularly marked increase in GHQ-12 score between 2019 and April, as did those caring for someone with learning difficulties. Home-carers of children under 18 improved from April to July while those caring for adult children saw a marked worsening of their mental health. Home-carers with greater care burden saw larger increases in GHQ-12 score from 2019 to April and from April to July, and increases through both periods were greater for home-carers who had formal help prior to lockdown but then lost it.
Conclusions The mental health of home-carers deteriorated more during lockdown than non-carers. Policies that reinstate support for them and their care-recipients will benefit the health of both vulnerable groups.
What is already known on this topic
Carers have poorer mental health than the general population.
Among carers who live with the care recipient (home-carers), some subgroups have poorer mental health than others: female versus male; those who provide more hours of care and have been caring for longer; spousal carers compared with those caring for children (including adult), parents, or other relationships; those caring for individuals whose impairment results in behavioural disturbances, than those who care for individuals with physical or long-term health conditions.
What this study adds
In a large representative UK survey, the decline in mental health during lockdown was greater among home-carers than for the general population, and stayed poorer through to July, even as the general population’s mental health recovered slightly.
Compared with respondents who were caring for a spouse/partner, those caring for a child under 18 had a particularly marked increase in GHQ-12 score between 2019 and April while those caring for an adult child experienced a substantial decline in their mental health between the beginning and end of the first lockdown (April to July).
The increase in GHQ-12 in April from 2019 was highest among those caring for someone with a learning disability and lowest for those caring for someone with a problem related to old age.
Home-carers who had a greater care burden, in terms of hours of care provided, or lost formal support during lockdown, had poorer mental health.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Understanding Society COVID-19 web survey is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K005146/1). MB and KSR are funded by ESRC (ES/N00812X/1). EW is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2) and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). Fieldwork for the COVID-19 web surveys is carried out by Ipsos MORI and for the mainstage surveys by Kantar Public and NatCen. 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. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
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:
The University of Essex Ethics Committee approved all data collection for the Understanding Society main survey and COVID waves, which were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All survey participants provided fully informed consent. No additional ethical approval was necessary for this secondary data analysis.
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
Data Availability
The research data are distributed by the UK Data Service.
