Gender-specific psychological and social impact of COVID-19 in Pakistan

  1. Fauziah Rabbani
  2. Hyder Ali Khan
  3. Suneel Piryani
  4. Areeba Raza Khan
  5. Fahad Abid

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 has rapidly spread across the world. Women may be especially vulnerable to depression and anxiety as a result of the pandemic.

Aims

This study attempted to assess how gender affects risk perceptions, anxiety levels and behavioural responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, to recommend gender-responsive health policies.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Participants were asked to complete a sociodemographic data form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and questions on their risk perceptions, preventive behaviour and information exposure. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effects of factors such as age, gender and household income on anxiety levels.

Results

Of the 1391 respondents, 478 were women and 913 were men. Women considered their chances of survival to be relatively lower than men (59% v . 73%). They were also more anxious (62% v . 50%) and more likely to adopt precautionary behaviour, such as avoiding going to the hospital (78% v . 71%), not going to work (72% v . 57%) and using disinfectants (93% v . 86%). Men were more likely to trust friends, family and social media as reliable sources of COVID-19 information, whereas women were more likely to trust doctors.

Conclusions

Women experience a disproportionate burden of the psychological and social impact of the pandemic compared with men. Involving doctors in healthcare communication targeting women might prove effective. Social media and radio programmes may be effective in disseminating COVID-19-related information to men.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1192/bjo.2021.1062
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.28.20221069: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of the Aga Khan University, Pakistan.
    Consent: Prior to filling the online questionnaire, each respondent was asked to provide consent for participation in the survey.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data Analysis: Data collected from respondents was stored in Google Spreadsheets then imported to Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp).
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    Data was cleaned, coded, and analysed using SPSS Version 21.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.28.20221069v1 on medRxiv