The German COVID-19 Survey on Mental Health: Primary Results

  1. Stefanie Jung
  2. Jonas Kneer
  3. Tillmann H.C. Kruger

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

First cases of COVID-19 were reported in Wuhan, China in early December 2019. Preliminary data from China indicated that the pandemic and its associated lockdown measures may have a substantial impact on mental health and well-being, with evidence of increased levels of psychological distress, anxiety, depressive symptoms and insomnia. 1,2 In March 2020, the German government agreed upon a substantial catalogue of measures including contact bans that came into effect on 22 March. Such measures are unprecedented for the majority of people and may affect their lives tremendously. Thus, the current survey was immediately developed to systematically assess mental health in response to these measures.

The survey was approved by the local ethics committee at Hannover Medical School, Germany and included web-based self-report measures as outlined below. First wave data were taken during the height of lockdown measures in Germany from 1 April to 15 April 2020.

Results

Demographics

A total of 3,545 volunteers took part in this cross-sectional survey. Mean age was 40.36 years (SD = 11.70; 83.1% female, 15.2% male), mean educational years 15.87 (SD = 4.19), 9.9% were unemployed and 23.9% reported living alone. Acute or chronic disease was reported by 36.7% (physical) and 24.7% (mental) of subjects.

Distress, Anxiety and Depression

Psychosocial distress as measured with the PHQ stress module (items 12a-12j of PHQ-D) was at M = 6.36 (SD = 0.89), implying mild psychosocial distress (range 5-9). Depression and anxiety as assessed by PHQ-4 was at M = 3.80 (SD = 3.03) and significantly higher than in a reference sample (t(6008) = 32.78, p = 0.00). 3 The mean well-being score (WHO-5) was 50.7 (SD = 23.8) (range 0-100), with normal individuals having a mean score of 75 and subjects with major depression 37.5. 4 The majority of subjects (60%) indicated very good or fair, 26.9% poor or very poor subjective coping with the pandemic and corresponding measures. Calculation of gender differences revealed higher scores for depression and anxiety (t(3459) = 4.93, p = 0.00) and poorer coping in women (U = 678156, p = 0.00).

Sleep, irritability & violence

Using comparative questions on a 5-point Likert scale 45.3% of participants reported worsened sleep compared to pre-pandemic times. Of all participants 50.9% reported being more easily irritated (compared to 12.2% feeling less easily irritated) and 29% reported experiencing more anger and aggression (compared to 12.8% experiencing less). Of these 65.5% directed their anger and aggression at others, while 32.6% directed it at themselves. Most importantly, 5% of all participants reported experiencing interpersonal violence (IPV) on a verbal (98.4%), physical (41.9%) or sexual (30.2%) level. In case of verbal violence, 77.3% reported experiencing more verbal violence lately (compared to 3.4% experiencing less). Regarding physical violence, 19.5% reported experiencing increased levels (compared to 2.8% experiencing less) and in case of sexual violence more people reported experiencing increased sexual violence lately (11.1%) compared to 1.7% that experienced less.

Discussion

This is one of the first and largest surveys on mental health during COVID pandemic in a European society. Although the cohort reflects a relatively well educated and financially secure sample, there is evidence of substantial mental burden with increased levels of stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance and irritability. Most importantly and also most concerning is the finding of a one-month prevalence of 5% IPV, which is already close to one-year prevalence rates 5 and for which there were indices that this has currently increased. We think it is of vital importance to continuously monitor the mental health of the general public during this pandemic and its aftermath and to carefully screen for IPV and its risk factors such as stress, sleep problems and anger. 6

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.06.20090340: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The survey was approved by the local ethics committee at Hannover Medical School, Germany and included web-based self-report measures as outlined below.
    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.06.20090340v1 on medRxiv