Child and caregiver mental health during 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: findings from national repeated cross-sectional surveys

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

There are calls for research into the mental health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Australia’s initial, effective suppression of COVID-19 offers insights into these indirect impacts in the relative absence of the disease. We aimed to describe the mental health experiences of Australian caregivers and children over 12 months, reporting differences related to demographic, socioeconomic and lockdown characteristics.

Methods

Data were from Australia’s only nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional survey of caregivers with children (0–17 years). N=2020 caregivers participated in June 2020, N=1434 in September 2020 and N=2508 in July 2021. Caregivers reported their mental health (poor vs not, Kessler-6), and perceived impacts of the pandemic on theirs and their children’s mental health (negative vs none/positive). Data were weighted to approximate population distributions of caregiver age, gender, sole caregiving, number and ages of children, state/territory and neighbourhood-level disadvantage.

Results

Perceived impacts on mental health were more frequently negative for female (vs male) caregivers and older (vs younger) children. Poor caregiver mental health (Kessler-6) was more common for families experiencing socioeconomic adversity (especially financial), while perceived impacts were more frequently negative for more socially advantaged groups. Caregivers who experienced the least total lockdown reported similar mental health over time. Otherwise, poor mental health and perceived negative impacts increased over time with increasing total length of lockdown.

Conclusion

Despite Australia’s low infection rates, the negative mental health experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic are real and concerning. Addressing poor mental health must be central to ongoing pandemic recovery efforts for families and children.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.26.21262708: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Data collection is contracted to the Online Research Unit who draw a nationally representative sample of caregivers from their panel, comprising adults aged 18 years or older, who live in Australia and have internet access.
    IRB: The RCH Human Research Ethics Committee approved this research (February 2020, #35254).
    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.