Experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analysis of risk perceptions and mental health in a student cohort
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objective
This study examined the COVID-19 risk perceptions and mental health of university students on returning to campus in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods
An online survey was completed during the first four weeks of the academic year (October 2020) by 897 university students. The survey included demographics and measures of experiences of COVID-19 testing, self-isolation, shielding, perceived risk, mental health and indices capturing related psychological responses to the pandemic.
Results
We observed higher levels of depression and anxiety, but not stress, in students compared with pre- pandemic normative data, but lower than levels reported earlier in the pandemic in other similar cohorts. Depression, anxiety and stress were independently associated with greater loneliness and reduced positive mood. Greater worry about COVID-19 was also independently associated with anxiety and stress. Female students and those with pre-existing mental health disorders were at greatest risk of poor mental health outcomes.
Conclusion
Although students perceived themselves at only moderate risk of COVID-19, the prevalence of depression and anxiety among university students should remain a concern. Universities should provide adequate support for students’ mental health during term-time. Interventions to reduced loneliness and worry, and improve mood, may benefit students’ overall mental well-being.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.21.20248467: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Recruitment: Ethical approval was received from the University of Nottingham Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FMHS 96-0920).
Consent: Procedures: Participants provided informed consent online before completing the online survey (JISC Online Surveys).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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: An explicit section about the …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.21.20248467: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Recruitment: Ethical approval was received from the University of Nottingham Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FMHS 96-0920).
Consent: Procedures: Participants provided informed consent online before completing the online survey (JISC Online Surveys).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 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: 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.
-
