Comparing population-level mental health of UK workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study using Understanding Society
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers’ mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers’ mental health by industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age.
Methods
We used representative Understanding Society data from 6474 adults (41 207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017–2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) caseness (score: ≥4). Exposures were industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (non-England/England), gender (male/female) and age (younger/older) using three-way interaction effects.
Results
GHQ-12 caseness increased in relative terms most for ‘professional, scientific and technical’ (OR: 3.15, 95% CI 2.17 to 4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in ‘hospitality’ (+11.4%). For socioeconomic class, ‘small employers/self-employed’ were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR: 3.24, 95% CI 2.28 to 4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations, ‘sales and customer service’ (OR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.61 to 5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with three-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed.
Conclusions
GHQ-12 caseness increases during the pandemic were concentrated among ‘professional and technical’ and ‘hospitality’ industries and ‘small employers/self-employed’ and ‘sales and customers service’ workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.25.21266866: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Understanding Society has ethical approval granted by the University of Essex Ethics Committee and further approvals were not necessary for this secondary data analysis. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization We then fitted three mixed–effects generalised logistic regression models with a random intercept for each individual participant, to assess the odds of GHQ-12 caseness by exposure groupings (industry, social class, and occupation). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Covariates: We adjusted for potential confounders that might differentially affect change in mental health across employment groups. …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.25.21266866: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Understanding Society has ethical approval granted by the University of Essex Ethics Committee and further approvals were not necessary for this secondary data analysis. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization We then fitted three mixed–effects generalised logistic regression models with a random intercept for each individual participant, to assess the odds of GHQ-12 caseness by exposure groupings (industry, social class, and occupation). Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Covariates: We adjusted for potential confounders that might differentially affect change in mental health across employment groups. Covariatessuggested: NoneResults 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Study strengths and limitations: Our study has several strengths. We used a large nationally representative longitudinal dataset to examine differences in psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic across industries, social class groups, and occupations, which fills an important gap in the literature. Our analysis included pre-pandemic outcome measures and six surveys of data collection after the start of the pandemic, and therefore we were able to examine trends before and after the initial lockdown. We also explored multiple dimensions of employment and explored heterogeneity across population groups. Some limitations should be noted. First, while estimates were weighted to adjust for survey non-participation there may still have been some residual bias, as response rates in the COVID surveys were lower than usual. Second, there were changes in the modality of administration of the COVID-19 surveys compared to pre-pandemic surveys (from mixed mode: face-to-face/web/phone, to online), which may have made modest contributions to the changes reported. However, empirical investigation suggests this is unlikely to have biased responses (32). The pandemic context may have also influenced participant reporting more broadly. Furthermore, we need to be cautious as observations in some industries (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing: N=342; Mining, Energy and Water Supply: N=744 and Real Estate Activities: N=485) were much lower than in others reducing the precision of estimat...
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.
-
