RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Population-level changes in the mental health of UK workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study using Understanding Society
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.25.21266866
DO 10.1101/2021.11.25.21266866
A1 Kromydas, Theocharis
A1 Green, Michael
A1 Craig, Peter
A1 Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
A1 Leyland, Alastair H
A1 Niedzwiedz, Claire L
A1 Pearce, Anna
A1 Thomson, Rachel M
A1 Demou, Evangelia
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/26/2021.11.25.21266866.abstract
AB Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers’ mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers’ mental health by industry, social class, and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age.Methods We used representative Understanding Society data from 6,474 adults (41,207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017-2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12; score>=4). Exposures were industry, social class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed–effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (Non-England/England), gender (Male/female), and age (Younger/Older) using 3-way interaction effects.Results Psychological distress increased in relative terms most for ‘professional, scientific and technical’ (OR:3.15, 95% CI 2.17–4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in ‘hospitality’ (+11.4%). For social class, ‘small employers/self-employed’ were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR:3.24, 95% CI 2.28–4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations ‘Sales and customer service’ (OR:3.01, 95% CI 1.61–5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with 3-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed.Conclusions Psychological distress increases during the COVID-19 pandemic were concentrated among ‘professional and technical’ and ‘hospitality’ industries, ‘small employers/self-employed’ and ‘sales and customers service’ workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.What is already known about this subject?What is already known about this subject?Employment has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. national and regional ‘lockdowns’) introduced to control the pandemic. The pandemic has impacted on different occupational groups in different ways and has been linked to substantial deteriorations in mental health.What are the new findings?What are the new findings?The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has been particularly pronounced for those working in professional and technical industries, hospitality, customer service occupations, small employers and the self-employed as well as female workers.How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?Policies should prioritise support to certain industries, occupations, the self-employed/small business owners, and particular demographic groups (e.g., women in sales and customer service occupations, younger ‘construction’ or non-England workers in ‘Public Administration and Defence’) with high risk.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementWe acknowledge funding from the Medical Research Council and Chief Scientist Office (MC_UU_00022/2, SPHSU17) for TK, MG, PC, SVK, AHL, AP, RMT, and ED. SVK also acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02). RT acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant number 218105/Z/19/Z). CLN acknowledges funding from the Medical Research Council (MR/R024774/1). AP was also supported by funds from the Wellcome Trust (205412/Z/16/Z).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study uses the UK Household Longitudinal Study (also referred to as Understanding Society). Understanding Society has ethical approval granted by the University of Essex Ethics Committee and further approvals were not necessary for this secondary data analysis.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data are available online from Understanding Society (https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/)