Structure of anxiety associated with СOVID-19 pandemic: the online survey results

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed not only serious threats to the physical health of the population, but also provoked a wide range of psychological problems. The study was aimed to define the structure of anxiety in the population during the epidemic period, as well as to identify the most vulnerable social groups (including individuals with affective disorders) which were most in need of psychological and/or psychiatric help. The online survey of 1957 Russian-speaking respondents aged over 18 was carried out from March 30 to April 5, 2020. The anxiety distress level was verified using the Psychological Stress Measure (PSM-25), the stigmatization of individuals experiencing respiratory symptoms was assessed using the modified Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Questionnaire (PDD; Cronbach's α = 0.707). In 99.8% of respondents, the combination of various concerns associated with COVID-19 was observed, the mean psychological stress score was increased to moderate level (score 104.9 ± 34.4), and the stigmatization score exceeded the whole sample median value (19.5±3.4; Me = 17). About 35% of respondents had concerns associated with anxiety distress (Cohen’s d = 0.16–0.39): these were the "risk of social isolation" and the "possible lack of medication for daily use". The following groups of respondents were the most susceptible to the stress: people with affective disorders, young people (aged ≤20), unemployed persons, single persons, people with no formal education, and women. Thus, the broad sectors of the population need correction of anxiety distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the measures’ implementation should be targeted, and in terms of coverage and content oriented to the identified vulnerable social groups.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.28.20074302: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: All participants gave their consent to the processing of personal data before enrollment.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    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.