Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-s82fj Total loading time: 0.636 Render date: 2022-10-01T06:11:36.986Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: 1 year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2021

Mark Shevlin*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK
Sarah Butter
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Orla McBride
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK
Jamie Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK
Jilly Gibson-Miller
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Todd K. Hartman
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Liat Levita
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Liam Mason
Affiliation:
University College London, London, UK
Anton P. Martinez
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Ryan McKay
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK
Thomas V. A. Stocks
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Kate M. Bennett
Affiliation:
Liverpool University, Liverpool, UK
Philip Hyland
Affiliation:
Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
Frédérique Vallieres
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Richard P. Bentall
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Liverpool University, Liverpool, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mark Shevlin, E-mail: m.shevlin@ulster.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Correspondence
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Shevlin et al. (Reference Shevlin, Butter, McBride, Murphy, Gibson-Miller, Hartman and Bentall2021) recently demonstrated heterogeneity in mental health responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic over time from a nationally representative sample of UK adults (March–July 2020). Five subpopulations representing either stability, deterioration or improvement in both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were identified. The majority of the sample were characterised by low levels of anxiety-depression (56.6%) and COVID-19 traumatic stress (68.3%) during this early phase of the pandemic but some showed deterioration and some showed mental health benefits. Here, we extend these findings using two additional survey waves from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study, thereby modelling mental health trajectories for the UK population within the entire first year of the pandemic.

The C19PRC study is a longitudinal, internet-based UK survey with five completed waves to date. Methodological accounts of the study are available elsewhere (McBride et al., Reference McBride, Murphy, Shevlin, Gibson-Miller, Hartman, Hyland and Bentall2020, Reference McBride, Butter, Murphy, Hartman, Hartman, Shevlin and Bentall2021a, Reference McBride, Butter, Murphy, Shevlin, Hartman, Bennett and Bentall2021b, Reference McBride, Butter, Murphy, Shevlin, Hartman, Hyland and Bentall2021c). Ethical approval was granted by the University of Sheffield (Ref. 033759). Anxiety-depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety-Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS), a 16-item scale used as a composite measure of depression and anxiety (Kroenke et al., Reference Kroenke, Wu, Yu, Bair, Kean, Stump and Monahan2016), with scores ranging from 0 to 48. The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ; Cloitre et al., Reference Cloitre, Shevlin, Brewin, Bisson, Roberts, Maercker and Hyland2018) was used to measure traumatic stress. Participants were asked to complete the ITQ ‘in relation to [their] experience of the COVID-19 pandemic…[and] how much [they] have been bothered by that problem in the past month’. Possible PTSD scores range from 0 to 24. The same baseline predictor variables were used as in Shevlin et al. (Reference Shevlin, Butter, McBride, Murphy, Gibson-Miller, Hartman and Bentall2021).

Data analysis was undertaken in three linked phases. First, mean scores on the PHQ-ADS and ITQ were estimated for each survey time point, and tests for mean differences were conducted. Second, we used latent variable mixture modelling to identify different trajectories in anxiety-depression and COVID-19 traumatic stress separately using unstructured growth mixture models (GMMs). Non-linear trajectories were estimated based on the approach of Meredith and Tisak (Reference Meredith and Tisak1990) with the first and last loadings on the ‘slope’ factor fixed at 0 and 1, respectively (and the other loadings estimated). In the third phase of the analysis, the classes from the GMMs were regressed on the predictor variables. These models were specified and estimated using Mplus Version 8.1.

The mean scores on the PHQ-ADS were similar from waves 1 to 5 (W1: M = 10.53, W2: M = 10.36, W3: M = 10.81, W4: M = 10.83, W5: M = 10.58), and the equality test indicated that there were no significant differences (χ2(4) = 2.97, p = 0.562); thus, the level of anxiety-depression appeared to remain stable across this entire time period. Similarly, the mean scores on the ITQ were also consistent across waves (W1: M = 4.57, W2: M = 4.54, W3: M = 4.20, W4: M = 4.48, W5: M = 4.13), and the equality test indicated that there were no significant differences (χ2(4) = 8.91, p = 0.063).

The table of fit statistics for the GMMs can be found at https://osf.io/bwfmh/. The five-class solutions (see Fig. 1) were considered to be the optimal solutions for both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 traumatic stress models as the difference in the Bayesian information criterion for the five- and six-class models were relatively small, entropies were high, and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood-ratio tests were significant for the five-class solutions but not for the six-class solutions. Importantly, the five-class solutions reproduced the trajectory patterns identified in the analysis of the first three waves (Shevlin et al., Reference Shevlin, Butter, McBride, Murphy, Gibson-Miller, Hartman and Bentall2021). For anxiety-depression, there were three classes that were stable over time; a ‘Resilient’ class (68.6%) characterised by stable low scores, a ‘Chronic’ class (5.7%) characterised by stable high scores and a ‘Moderate-Stable’ class (14.5%) characterised by stable moderate scores. A ‘Deteriorating’ class (4.7%) had low scores at wave 1 that increased at waves 2, 3 and 4, while an ‘Adaptive’ class (6.5%) started high but decreased from waves 2–4. For traumatic stress the number, size and shape of the trajectories were very similar to those identified for anxiety-depression and were therefore given the same labels.

Fig. 1. Trajectory plots for anxiety-depression (a) and traumatic stress (b).

The full estimates of the regression analyses are available at https://osf.io/bwfmh/. Overall, the significant odds ratios indicated that individuals with a history of mental health treatment, higher levels of loneliness, intolerance of uncertainty, death anxiety and lower levels of resilience were more likely to be in the non-resilient trajectory classes for both anxiety-depression and traumatic stress. The largest effects of these predictors were generally for the ‘chronic’ trajectory, and in particular, for the mental health treatment variable.

The current study extends the findings of Shevlin et al. (Reference Shevlin, Butter, McBride, Murphy, Gibson-Miller, Hartman and Bentall2021) by identifying trajectory patterns that were consistent with those initially reported from the analysis of the first three waves of C19PRC data (March–July 2020): ‘Resilient’, ‘Chronic’, ‘Deteriorating’, ‘Adaptive’ and ‘Moderate-stable’. The size and characterisation of these trajectories were similar for both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 traumatic stress. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine change in mental health severity over the course of the first year of the pandemic in the UK. The current findings suggest that the vast majority of the sample experienced a homoeostatic mental health response over the course of the first year of the pandemic, with over two-thirds being characterised as ‘Resilient’, while about 15% were characterised as ‘Moderate-Stable’ and roughly 6% fell into the ‘Chronic’ category. Yet, for a minority of individuals (~12%), the months following the initial UK outbreak represented a period of rapid change in mental health, for better or worse. Notably, however, these trajectories plateaued from summer 2020 onwards, with only minor fluctuations in mental health scores during the period July 2020–March/April 2021. It may be that some individuals will experience a more delayed response to the pandemic, which has not fully manifested itself until much later after the traumatic event, as has been documented with the case of delayed-onset PTSD.

Financial support

The initial stages of this project were supported by start-up funds from the University of Sheffield (Department of Psychology, the Sheffield Methods Institute and the Higher Education Innovation Fund via an Impact Acceleration grant administered by the university) and by the Faculty of Life and Health Sciences at Ulster University. The research was subsequently supported by the ESRC under grant number ES/V004379/1 and awarded to RPB, TKH, LL, JG-M, MS, JM, OM, KB and LM. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript

References

Cloitre, M., Shevlin, M., Brewin, C. R., Bisson, J. I., Roberts, N. P., Maercker, , … Hyland, P. (2018). The international trauma questionnaire: Development of a self-report measure of ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 138(6), 536546. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroenke, K., Wu, J., Yu, Z., Bair, M. J., Kean, J., Stump, T., & Monahan, P. O. (2016). Patient health questionnaire anxiety and depression scale: Initial validation in three clinical trials. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(6), 716727. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBride, O., Butter, S., Murphy, J., Hartman, T. K., Hartman, T. K., Shevlin, M., … Bentall, R. P. (2021a). Tracking the psychological and socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A methodological report from wave 5 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/fyqjb/.Google Scholar
McBride, O., Butter, S., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Hartman, T. K., Bennett, K., … Bentall, R. P. (2021b). Design, content, and fieldwork procedures of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study – wave 4. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/nytxc/.Google Scholar
McBride, O., Butter, S., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Hartman, T. K., Hyland, P., … Bentall, R. P. (2021c). Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study – wave 3, International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 30(3), e1880. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1880.Google Scholar
McBride, O., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Gibson-Miller, J., Hartman, T. K., Hyland, P., … Bentall, R. P. (2020). Monitoring the psychological, social, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population: Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 30(1), e1861. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1861.Google ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevlin, M., Butter, S., McBride, O., Murphy, J., Gibson-Miller, J., Hartman, T. K., … Bentall, R. P. (2021). Refuting the myth of a ‘tsunami’ of mental ill-health in populations affected by COVID-19: Evidence that response to the pandemic is heterogeneous, not homogeneous. Psychological Medicine, 19. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721001665.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Trajectory plots for anxiety-depression (a) and traumatic stress (b).

You have Access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: 1 year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: 1 year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are heterogeneous but have stabilised over time: 1 year longitudinal follow-up of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *