COVID-19 & Mental Health: Impact on Working people and Students
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
A total of N=618 responses (16-60 years) were recorded to gauge the impact of COVID-19 socially, personally, and psychologically. Comparative results based on employment status, gender, and background were evaluated to identify the impact. While all the groups maintain having information about the pandemic and necessary safety protocols, there is an observable difference in the apprehension levels of financial and mental stability. Due to job security, employed people are less tense and better connected to their family, while unemployed people and students are more concerned with their productivity and quality of work. Students also display higher feelings of uncertainty and helplessness. A considerable number of people feel lonely and deserted during the pandemic. Such thoughts may leave a lasting effect if not tackled at the earliest. While an increase in awareness about mental health is observable, rural and unemployed people are less inclined to approach a professional. The significant difference COVID 19 has created between working people and students and based on gender and background, suggests that the preventive measures to avoid its lasting effects must be devised separately.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261663: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261663: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-