Rates and predictors of uptake of mental health support during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of 26,720 adults in the UK in lockdown

  1. Feifei Bu
  2. Hei Wan Mak
  3. Daisy Fancourt

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a great strain on people’s mental health. A growing number of studies have shown worsening mental health measures globally during the pandemic. However, there is a lack of empirical study on how people support their mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to examine a number of formal and informal mental health support. Further, it explored factors that might be associated with the use of different types mental health support.

Methods

Data from 26,720 adults in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study were analysed between 13th April 2020 and 3rd July 2020. Data were analysed using logistic and Poisson regression models.

Results

About 45% of people reported talking to friends or family members to support their mental health, 43% engaging in self-care activities, 20% taking medication, 9% speaking to mental health professionals, 8% talking to a GP or other health professional, and another 8% using helpline or online services. Gender, education, living status, loneliness, pre-existing mental health conditions, general depression and anxiety, coping and personality were found to be associated with the use of mental health support.

Conclusion

While the negative impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are inevitable, people can play an active role in managing their mental health. Understanding the patterns and predictors of various kinds of mental health support during the pandemic is crucial for future service planning and delivery through recognising potential barriers to mental health care faced by certain groups.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s00127-021-02105-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249509: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Consent: The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableThese included demographic and socio-economic factors such as age (18-29, 30-45, 46-59, 60+), gender (women vs. men), ethnicity (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) vs. white), education (GCSE or below, A levels or equivalent, degree or above), employment status (employed vs. not employed), annual household income (<£30,000 vs. >£30,000) and area of living (rural vs. urban).

    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:
    However, there are some limitations to the study. Firstly, the data on use of mental health support strategies relied on participants’ self-reports, so could be affected by recall bias or an unwillingness to disclose this information. However, as questions were asked weekly (limiting the length of time people had to remember their actions for) and responses were anonymous, these sources of bias are anticipated to be small. Secondly, our study asked participants about six different types of formal and informal mental health support strategies, but it is possible that participants might have also been using alternative approaches to manage their mental health not captured in our questions, including risky behaviours such as substance use. In addition, data on participants’ previous use of mental health services prior to the pandemic are not available, so it is not known whether participants started using specific strategies during the pandemic or whether these were simply a continuation of previous habits. Further, in line with previous studies (36), we found that people from ethnic minority backgrounds were less likely to access structured mental health services. However, due to limitations in statistical power, we were only able to explore ethnicity as a binary in these analyses, but recognise that such simple categorisation likely misses nuances of experience in specific ethnic groups. Further, it remains unclear what the barriers to accessing services were amongst people fr...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249509v1 on medRxiv