COVID-19 & Mental Health: Impact on Working people and Students

  1. Kshipra V. Moghe
  2. Disha Kotecha
  3. Manjusha Patil

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

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

  1. ScreenIT

    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

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261663v1 on medRxiv