Associations between ongoing COVID ‐19 lockdown and the financial and mental health experiences of Australian families
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In 2020, Australia's successful COVID‐19 public health restrictions comprised a national “initial lockdown” (March–May) and “ongoing lockdown” (July–November) for metropolitan Victorian residents only. We evaluated associations between ongoing lockdown and family finances and mental health. In the June and September 2020 Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Polls, caregivers of children in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) reported the following: job/income loss; material deprivation (inability to pay for essential items); income poverty; mental health (Kessler‐6); perceived impact on caregiver/child mental health; and caregiver/child coping. Data from caregivers ( N = 1207/902) in June/September were analysed using difference‐in‐difference modelling (NSW provided the comparator). During Victoria's ongoing lockdown, job/income loss increased by 11% (95%CI: 3%–18%); Kessler‐6 poor mental health by 6% (95%CI: −0.3%–12%) and perceived negative mental health impacts by 14% for caregivers (95%CI: 6%–23%) and 12% for children (95%CI: 4%–20%). Female (vs. male) caregivers, metropolitan (vs. regional/rural) families, and families with elementary school‐aged children (vs. pre‐/high‐school) were the most affected. The ongoing lockdown was associated with negative experiences of mental health, employment and income, but not deprivation or poverty, likely because of government income supplements introduced early in the pandemic. Future lockdowns require planned responses to outbreaks and evidence‐informed financial and mental health supports.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.15.21262087: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee approved the research (HREC 35254).
Field Sample Permit: Sampling frame and data collection methods: The surveys were conducted using web-based survey technology provided by the private vendor, Online Research Unit (ORU), under contract to the RCH.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.15.21262087: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee approved the research (HREC 35254).
Field Sample Permit: Sampling frame and data collection methods: The surveys were conducted using web-based survey technology provided by the private vendor, Online Research Unit (ORU), under contract to the RCH.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:There were also limitations. The Poll only samples adults who are 18 years and older, so younger caregivers are missing. As a subgroup who experience more adversity, this means results may be conservative. Measures were caregiver-reported, by only one caregiver in the household. Ideally, information would be collected from all caregivers and children directly. A significant proportion of caregivers did not report family income, and the sample sizes for preschool-aged children and regional/rural subgroup analyses were small, limiting power for detecting differences. There were also limitations to the analyses. The common trends’ assumption of Difference-in-Difference estimation supposes that the untreated units (NSW in September) provide the appropriate counterfactual of the trend that the treated units would have followed if they had not been treated. However, our results are defensible because the time between the first and second surveys was short (4 months); thus, minimizing potential differential trends across NSW and VIC. We also controlled for all available and potentially confounding socioeconomic and demographic variables in the analyses. This work extends the existing evidence base by trying to understand the specific impacts of ongoing lockdown in the context of minimal disease burden. Based on our findings, we offer three considerations for pandemic response and recovery planning. First, while job and income loss increased with ongoing lockdown, this did not transl...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-