Psychological distress during the COVID-19 epidemic in Chile: The role of economic uncertainty

  1. Fabián Duarte
  2. Álvaro Jiménez-Molina

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the COVID-19 outbreak, social distancing, and lockdown can affect people’s psychological well-being. The aims of this study were (1) to estimate the extent to which perceptions and expectations regarding the social, economic, and domestic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak are associated with psychological distress and (2) to identify some demographic, psychosocial, and economic factors associated with increased vulnerability to psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak in Chile. 1078 people participated in a telephone survey between May 30 and June 10, 2020. The sample is representative of the Chilean adult population. Psychological distress was assessed through a questionnaire of anxious and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). We analyzed the data set using ordinary least-squares regression models, first estimating models for the entire sample, and then stratifying the sample into different groups to explore differences by gender and age. 19.2% of participants displayed significant psychological distress (PHQ-4 ≥ 6), with moderate to severe anxiety-depression symptoms being more prevalent in women than in men (23.9% vs 14.1%, χ 2 16.78, p<0.001). The results of this study suggest that being a woman, feeling lonely and isolated, living in the areas hit hardest by the pandemic and lockdown, expecting a lack of income due to having to stop working as a consequence of the pandemic, and having a history of diagnosed mental disorders are significantly associated with psychological distress (p<0.05). The results of this study highlight the need to implement psychosocial programs to guard people’s psychological well-being and social policies to address economic uncertainty during the current COVID-19 outbreak in Chile.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0251683
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.27.20202648: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: One of the main strengths of this study is that it was based on a nationwide representative sample. Unlike most of the available research on mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic [29], this study has a wide heterogeneity and good stratification in multiple socio-demographic groups. In addition, the analyses were weighted considering basic demographic estimates of the population. However, an important limitation of this study concerns the data collection strategy used, since it is a self-report instrument that could be affected by the intrinsic limitations of telephone surveys. Nevertheless, this seems to be a better strategy than an online survey, in which participants without Internet access in their homes are not represented. In addition, while we have used a well-established and sensitive scale to measure anxious and depressive symptoms (PHQ-4) [31,35], the results of this study should be considered with caution since it is an ultra-brief self-report scale. Another important limitation is related to the cross-sectional nature of the study, which prevents the observation of changes in participants’ perceptions and responses to the impact of COVID-19 over time. The lack of a pre-pandemic baseline prevents a direct association between current levels of psychological distress and the specific pandemic context. However, we hope to mitigate some of these problems through the collection of longitudinal data, which will make it possible to explore the ...

    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 10.1101/2020.09.27.20202648v1 on medRxiv