Determinants of self-reported health status during COVID-19 lockdown among surveyed Ecuadorian population: a cross sectional study

Introduction

Globally, lockdown’s impact on physical and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic has been well-documented [1–6]. In several countries worldwide, lockdowns cause a high incidence of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and other types of stress in the general population [7–9]. These conditions seem to affect women, children, adolescents, the elderly, and populations experiencing socioeconomic deprivation [7–10]. However, few studies have examined the specific impact of lockdown measures in the context of rampant social and economic inequalities and weak states with low emergency response capacities.

Specifically, in the Latin American and Caribbean regions, accentuated impacts from lockdown and the COVID-19 pandemic have generated several undesired effects such as the formation of COVID-19 hotspots exacerbated by weak social protection structures, fragmented health systems, and deep inequalities [11]. Although the region’s development process was facing serious structural limitations before the pandemic, it is expected that COVID-19 will cause a worse recession in the region, with subsequent contraction of regional gross domestic product (GDP) [12].

Similar to other Latin American countries, Ecuador was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [13]. In 2020, the country reached the second highest rate of confirmed cases in South America [10] and the ninth place worldwide in the number of deaths per million people [14]. In April 2020, Ecuador’s case called global attention to disturbing images of corpses piling up in the streets of Guayaquil [15]. In the same year, 24.2% of the urban population and 49.2% of the rural population lived under the poverty line [16]. Moreover, only approximately 30% of the economically active population had an adequate job, that is, employed persons who, during a reference week, received labor income equal to or greater than the minimum wage and worked equal to or greater than 40 hours a week, regardless of the desire and availability to work additional hours [17]. Fewer than 60% of rural households had access to the Internet, and fewer than 20% owned a computer [18].

Despite the precarious economic situation of most of the population, the measures taken by the Ecuadorian government to prevent COVID-19’s spread were mainly restrictive interventions, such as social distancing policies and mandatory lockdowns enforced by the police and military forces [13]. The Ecuadorian government’s response to the global emergency was also characterized by poor epidemiological surveillance, lack of access to the public health system, corruption scandals, null community participation, and insufficient social support [19,20]. In June 2021, the Ecuadorian government implemented a plan for massive vaccinations.

Thus, for more than a year, people living in Ecuador had to cope with the fear of contracting COVID-19, compounded by movement and rights restrictions, an education system that was only allowed to operate online, a collapsed health system unable to provide care for both COVID-19 and other health conditions, and an economic recession [21]. Moreover, despite some social protection measures, such as food kits adopted by local governments, NGOs, churches, and civil society organizations, many basic needs went unfulfilled owing to lockdown restrictions, such as access to medicines for chronic patients [22]. Several fields of public health and social care were neglected by Ecuadorian authorities, leading to a profound worsening of health across all social classes, and the management of social risks, exacerbated by the pandemic, fell to families, particularly women. In this sense, the impact has been especially significant for women, children, teenagers, and people with disabilities [23].

These limited economic and social aid policies have resulted in significant reductions in the coverage of health supplies and medications for chronic patients, maternal health, and sexual and reproductive health as well as unequal vaccine access [24]. In this context, a few studies conducted in Ecuador reported an increased prevalence of psychological distress symptoms [25]. Some studies and anecdotal data point to an increase in many factors that are determinants of poor mental health during a health emergency, such as the burden of unpaid domestic labor for women, gender-based violence [13,19], child abuse [26], lack of access to medicine for prior chronic diseases, poor housing conditions, and overcrowding [27].

Self-reported health status is an indicator of people’s health, the use of health services, and mortality [28]. Moreover, scientific evidence supports the idea that self-reported health differs according to social class and job insecurity [29], with important differences by sex and gender [30]. It is therefore relevant to analyze confinement’s effects on self-perceived health, particularly because of its potential to explain and interpret inequities as explanatory factors of health in the lockdown context, as has been shown by other studies in the region [1].

Therefore, our aim was to examine the association between self-reported health status and its associated factors during Ecuador’s COVID-19 lockdown. As a secondary objective, we aimed to assess the differences in these associations between women and men.

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Our main findings were that the determinants of regular or poor self-reported health status among Ecuadorian-surveyed adult persons were: (i) being female, (ii) perceiving housing conditions as inadequate for coping with the lockdown, (iii) living with people who require care, (v) perceiving extreme difficulties in coping with both work exigencies or managing household chores, (vi) a history of COVID-19 infection, (vii) presence of chronic diseases, and (viii) depressive symptoms. Similar to other studies, the complex Ecuadorian context during lockdown [10,13–16,18] helps explain the accentuated impact of such factors on the self-reported health status of the Ecuadorian population.

The factors associated with self-reported health differed by sex. Specifically, women had a greater negative impact on their self-reported health when they received only public health services, had inadequate housing for lockdown, an increasing number of cohabitants who required care in the family, extreme perceived difficulties coping with work or managing household chores, having COVID-19, the presence of chronic disease, and increasing depressive symptoms. In men, the determinants were inadequate housing type, presence of chronic disease, and increasing depressive symptoms. Interestingly, in women, COVID-19’s effect and the presence of chronic diseases were more accentuated than in men; while in men, the housing inadequacy and increasing depressive symptoms were more accentuated than in women, as was found in other contexts such as Spain [27]. We could not demonstrate a significant interaction between these determinants and sex.

Furthermore, the percentage of poor or regular health self-perception was 16%, which was greater among women (17%) than among men (12%). The prevalence of poor self-reported health status (16%) is greater than that found in other contexts during lockdown [33]. A comparison between our data and the results of an occupational health survey conducted among workers in Quito and Guayaquil before the pandemic, where the authors found a prevalence of 11% for self-perceived poor health status [36], suggests that the lockdown has significantly worsened the levels of self-perceived health in Ecuador. This is possibly because of the lack of social support policies during this pandemic phase. Given that safe and adequate housing is essential to protect people from environmental conditions, create social ties, and establish life projects, housing deprivation and the lack of an adequate urban environment have significant health consequences for both sexes [39].

These findings highlight the impact of gender inequality on the burden of care and domestic work, and its negative effect on women’s health. As other researchers have shown [7,8], being a woman was a risk factor for increased mental distress during lockdown. Furthermore, our findings add data on unpaid care and domestic work as one of the mechanisms through which lockdowns affect women’s health in particular ways [40]. Men did not feel this impact, which is probably related to the assignment of traditional gender roles, in which men are usually not responsible for care and domestic work.

The fact that we found a worse self-perceived health in women compared to men adds to the findings of previous studies. Although mortality from COVID-19 has been consistently higher in men [36], scientific literature shows that women tend to have worse living conditions and use health services more frequently; they also have a greater number of disease diagnoses. A possible explanation is that women have historically suffered the greatest burden of social inequalities and have assumed more home responsibilities, which, compounded by the added responsibilities during confinement [37], has entailed a greater stress load. In addition, our findings corroborate that women have a greater burden of caring for dependent people, a fact explained by the assignment of traditional gender roles that persist in patriarchal systems, such as the Ecuadorian society.

Importantly, women suffer more from the lack of proper access to tele-education for their children, given the cultural tendency to assign women as those responsible for educating children, despite their having to cope with everyday duties such as productive work. The regional difficulties in educating children could explain the even more important health effect of caring for household children. Specifically, in Latin America and the Caribbean, schools have been closed for an average of 37 weeks since March 2020. In Ecuador, it has been 40 weeks. In addition, only 39% of primary school students can read a simple text [41], and only 37% of households have Internet access, which means that six out of ten children cannot study through digital platforms. The situation is more serious for children in rural areas, where only 16% of households have this service [42].

By contrast, as in other studies’ findings, there is poorer self-reported health in men when inadequate housing conditions are perceived [43,44]. These findings could be explained by the fact that men are more prone to discomfort because of housing conditions, which is in turn related to gender roles and its impact on self-reported health. In traditional patriarchal systems, men are seen as the primary family breadwinners, and not being able to meet a desired standard could affect men’s health more than women’s [1, 27,43].

As a result of overcrowding, couples experience financial and family stressors, with an increase in the number of conflicts during sustained social isolation and physical proximity, particularly among young and newly-formed intimate relationships [45]. Moreover, with housing insecurity and housing conditions [46] inadequate to tackle the lockdown, a poor self-rated health status is expected. In that sense, we corroborated that living in poor housing conditions and having low income and/or poor labor conditions – the social determinants of health – affect more vulnerable populations [27,47].

In addition, 45.9% of women and 35.1% of men reported moderate and severe anxiety, and moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression levels were reported in 42.4% of women and 31.8% of men. We corroborated that there were gender differences in depression and anxiety, as well as differences in the quantity of (subclinical) depressive symptoms [19]. Specifically, the frequency of anxiety and depression levels was greater in females than in males in the study population. Prior studies found that the levels of such mental health problems were significantly lower than our findings. Specifically, in one study in Spain [27], 31.2% of women and 17.7% of men reported moderate and severe anxiety, and moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression levels were reported in 28.5% of women and 16.5% of men. It is possible that specific contexts determine reactions to the lockdown. We believe that the Ecuadorian population felt a profound health impact owing to the poor and uncoordinated pandemic response from national and local authorities.

The association between depression symptoms and regular-to-poor health self-perception was stronger in men than in women. This finding corroborates previous findings that depressive symptomatology has a greater impact on men’s health when compared to women in terms of suicide attempts [48]. While suicide attempt rates are similar between men and women, males have an almost threefold higher risk of dying by suicide than females [49]. This higher mortality among men could be explained by various factors, including the use of more lethal means (firearms and hanging methods), whereas drug intoxication is more frequent in women. Young men may be less predisposed to help-seeking behaviors as an attempt to exhibit masculine behaviors, and their tendency to adopt avoidance strategies may make it more difficult for them to cope with emotional and behavioral problems.[49] In that regard, specific pandemic and lockdown policies should use a gender approach to identify those at risk and intervene [27].

Serious questioning of the Ecuadorian Public Health System and its manner of operating was a serious pandemic effect. Some participants reported being part of or knowing someone who was close to the health system. The lack of response to emergencies (which involved life or death in many cases), lack of basic information regarding COVID- 19, serious difficulties in communicating basic information to the population, and lack of psychological support spaces for front-line professionals were the most common problems. Through proposals from civil society and academia the population gained access to spaces for psychological support and crisis intervention [50]. The evidence on the lockdown’s gendered impact on self-perceived health found here is a strong indicator of how deep-rooted patriarchal gender beliefs affect the health of the Ecuadorian population. Even though we have found only one study in Ecuador on teleworking’s impact on people’s lives, especially women, there are clear impacts from increases in teleworker numbers in the sectors where it was implemented, in the codification of work schedules and conciliation with family life, as well as significant specific effects on unions and teleworking health and safety [20].

The pandemic’s impact is also unknown in areas related to the additional burdens and impacts resulting from teleworking on women, who often bear the bulk of household care work; protection of labor rights and workers in legislative frameworks; and judgments or constitutional revisions relating to teleworking laws. Specifically, in a study it was found that 76% of the women surveyed indicate an increase in workload, and 56% dedicate themselves to their children’s schoolwork [20]. Furthermore, women who spent long hours on housework and childcare were more likely to report increased levels of psychological distress, and women were more likely than men to reduce working hours and adapt employment schedules because of increased unpaid care time [51]. In that regard, our results can be used to better justify formulating regulations that guarantee a maximum of eight daily working hours [20]. Continued gender inequality in divisions of unpaid care work during lockdown may put women at a greater risk of psychological distress, which is a consequence of gender biases in divisions of labor and their impact on psychological health [51]. Teleworking also raised questions about the use of the physical household spaces, which in many cases implied no temporal limits between hours of outside and inside home labor. In these cases, women mostly assume these new daily dynamics, resulting in extreme fatigue, anxiety, and sadness.

The COVID-19 prevalence was around 11%, which is similar to published (and non-published) reports of the pandemic’s evolution in Ecuador during the surveyed months [52]. It is important to enhance this finding because it helps understanding of this population’s context during the specific survey period.

This study has several limitations. The survey was only available online and was mainly completed by highly educated respondents, and it may have excluded people without digital access. Thus, we speculate that the associations and inequalities would be even greater if it included more vulnerable people. Non-representative responses are a handicap of online surveys, since they do not capture the responses of those who lack access and/or Internet skills (e.g., the elderly, those with lower education, or those in remote locations). In addition, we had more responses from women than from men. This requires strategies to ensure greater male participation. However, as the analyses were stratified by sex, the main results were compared with those of the reference group. We plan to conduct another survey and a qualitative study several months after this first survey. This will be carried out using the same method, as it is being applied in other Latin American countries and Spain, to compare the results in different populations.

Conclusions

Being female, having only access to the public healthcare system, having a perception of inadequate housing, living with cohabitants who require care, perceiving very high difficulties in coping with work or managing household chores, having or having had COVID-19, the presence of chronic diseases, and depressive symptoms are associated with a poorer self-reported health status in Ecuadorian population. Conversely, self-employment and having private health insurance were significantly and independently associated with better self-reported health status.

Funding statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Iván Dueñas-Espín, Constanza Jacques-Aviñó, Andrés Peralta.

Data curation: Iván Dueñas-Espín, Andrés Peralta.

Formal analysis: Iván Dueñas-Espín.

Investigation: Iván Dueñas-Espín, Constanza Jacques-Aviñó, Verónica Egas-Reyes, Sara Larrea, Ana Lucía Torres-Castillo, Patricio Trujillo, Andrés Peralta.

Methodology:Iván Dueñas-Espín, Andrés Peralta.

Validation: Iván Dueñas-Espín, Sara Larrea, Andrés Peralta.

Writing – original draft : Iván Dueñas-Espín, Sara Larrea, Andrés Peralta.

Writing – review & editing: Iván Dueñas-Espín, Iván Dueñas-Espín, Constanza Jacques-Aviñó, Verónica Egas-Reyes, Sara Larrea, Ana Lucía Torres-Castillo, Patricio Trujillo, Andrés Peralta.