National Longitudinal Mediators of Psychological Distress During Stringent COVID-19 Lockdown

  1. Joseph A. Bulbulia
  2. Sofia D. Piven
  3. Fiona Kate Barlow
  4. Don E. Davis
  5. Lara M. Greaves
  6. Benjamin Highland
  7. Carla A. Houkamau
  8. Taciano L. Milfont
  9. Danny Osborne
  10. Nickola Christine Overall
  11. John H. Shaver
  12. Geoffrey Troughton
  13. Marc Wilson
  14. Kumar Yogeeswaran
  15. Chris G. Sibley

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We leverage powerful time-series data from a national longitudinal sample measured before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the world’s eighth most stringent COVID-19 lockdown (New Zealand, March-April 2020, N = 940) and apply Bayesian multilevel mediation models to rigorously test five theories of pandemic distress. Findings: (1) during lockdown, rest diminished distress; without rest psychological distress would have been ~ 1.74 times greater; (2) an elevated sense of community reduced distress, a little, but elevated government satisfaction was inert. Thus, the psychological benefits of lockdown extended to political discontents; (3) most lockdown distress arose from dissatisfaction from personal relationships. Social captivity, more than isolation, proved challenging; (4-5) Health and business satisfaction were stable; were they challenged substantially more distress would have ensued. Thus, lockdown benefited psychological health by affording safety, yet only because income remained secure. These national longitudinal findings clarify the mental health effects of stringent infectious disease containment.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.15.20194829: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Though rates of overall missingness were low, to avoid biasing estimates, we multiply imputed missing values using the Amelia package in R(Honaker et al., 2011).
    Amelia
    suggested: (AMELIA, RRID:SCR_009119)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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 10.1101/2020.09.15.20194829v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.15.20194829v1 on medRxiv