Abstract
Background There are concerns that key workers may be at a greater risk for psychological distress than non-key workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little research has included key workers outside of the healthcare sector or has disaggregated key workers into different subgroups.
Aims To examine longitudinal changes in mental health over 12 months during the COVID-19 pandemic comparing four different groups of key workers with non-key workers.
Method Longitudinal data were from 21,874 adults living in England (21 March 2020 to 22 February 2021). Latent growth modelling (LGM) was utilised to compare growth trajectories of depressive and anxiety symptoms in non-key workers and four types of key workers: i) health and social care workers, ii) teachers and childcare workers, iii) public service workers, and iv) essential services key workers (e.g., food chain or utility workers).
Results When accounting for both time-invariant and time-varying covariates, key workers in the essential services category had consistently higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms than non-key workers across the whole of the study period. There was little difference in mental health trajectories between health/social care, teachers/childcare and public service worker categories and non-key workers.
Conclusions Our findings suggest risk for poorer mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic varies within the broad category of key workers generally, and that those working in utility, food chain, and transport roles are especially at risk. Future research should focus on identifying which aspects of working conditions may be contributing to occupational stress in these groups.
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], and by the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z]. DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust [205407/Z/16/Z]. The researchers are grateful for the support of a number of organisations with their recruitment efforts including: the UKRI Mental Health Networks, Find Out Now, UCL BioResource, SEO Works, FieldworkHub, and Optimal Workshop. The study was also supported by HealthWise Wales, the Health and Car Research Wales initiative, which is led by Cardiff University in collaboration with SAIL, Swansea University. The funders had no final role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. All researchers listed as authors are independent from the funders and all final decisions about the research were taken by the investigators and were unrestricted.
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:
Ethical approval for the COVID-19 Social Study was granted by the UCL 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
Data Availability
Anonymous data will be made available in early 2022.
