The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a comparison between Germany and the UK
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to dramatic social and economic changes in daily life. First studies report an impact on mental health of the general population showing increased levels of anxiety, stress and depression. In this study, we compared the impact of the pandemic on two culturally and economically similar European countries: the UK and Germany.
Methods
Participants (UK = 241, German = 541) completed an online-survey assessing COVID-19 exposure, impact on financial situation and work, substance and media consumption, mental health using the Symptom-Check-List-27 (SCL-27) and the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire.
Results
We found distinct differences between the two countries. UK responders reported a stronger direct impact on health, financial situation and families. UK responders had higher clinical scores on the SCL-27, and higher prevalence. Interestingly, German responders were less hopeful for an end of the pandemic and more concerned about their life-stability.
Conclusion
As 25% of both German and UK responders reported a subjective worsening of the general psychological symptoms and 20–50% of German and UK responders reached the clinical cut-off for depressive and dysthymic symptoms as well as anxieties, it specifically shows the need for tailored intervention systems to support large proportions of the general public.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.27.20182980: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission Board of the Technical University Munich (250/20 S).
Consent: All respondents included in the analyses provided informed consent.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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The convenience sample nature of the participants …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.27.20182980: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission Board of the Technical University Munich (250/20 S).
Consent: All respondents included in the analyses provided informed consent.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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The convenience sample nature of the participants is a limitation as it could also contribute to the observed results. Although our study does include participants with pre-existing mental illness (overall: 14.22%; UK:20.29%; Germany: 11.59%), it was not designed to specifically address mental health impact of the pandemic on those with severe and enduring mental illness, as this would require a more targeted study design. Limitations: This study has potential limitations which need to be considered when interpreting the results. First, we used a purely online data collection methods, therefore, people without or with limited access to computers or mobile phone, or less well-versed using these methods would be excluded from the sample. However, in order maximally ease the accessibility of the questionnaire we provided an online version with smart-phone compatible formatting. Second, we used a snowball sampling method, therefore, the sample is not fully representable of the general population. The results of the study should therefore be interpreted considering the sample’s demographics. Third, comparing two countries is problematic as the countries vary on a large number of factors that are not and cannot be accounted for in detail. Therefore, any differences between the countries presented in this study might be linked to baseline differences. However, by specifically asking for a subjective change considering a pre verses during pandemic time point, we are trying to minimis...
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.
-