Factors influencing wellbeing in young people during COVID-19: A survey with 6291 young people in Wales

  1. Michaela James
  2. Hope Jones
  3. Amana Baig
  4. Emily Marchant
  5. Tegan Waites
  6. Charlotte Todd
  7. Karen Hughes
  8. Sinead Brophy

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 infection and the resultant restrictions has impacted all aspects of life across the world. This study explores factors that promote or support wellbeing for young people during the pandemic, how they differ by age, using a self-reported online survey with those aged 8–25 in Wales between September 2020 and February 2021. Open-ended responses were analysed via thematic analysis to provide further context. A total of 6,291 responses were obtained from 81 education settings across Wales (including primary and secondary schools as well as sixth form, colleges and universities). Wellbeing was highest in primary school children and boys and lowest in those who were at secondary school children, who were girls and, those who preferred not to give a gender. Among primary school children, higher wellbeing was seen for those who played with lots of others (rather than alone), were of Asian ethnicity (OR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.26 to 4.3), had a safe play area (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.67 to 2.56) and had more sleep. To support their wellbeing young people reported they would like to be able to play with their friends more. Among secondary school children those who were of mixed ethnicity reported lower wellbeing (OR: 5.14, 95% CI: 1.68 to 15.79). To support their wellbeing they reported they would like more support with mental health (due to anxiety and pressure to achieve when learning online). This study found self-reported wellbeing differed by gender, ethnicity and deprivation and found younger children report the need for play and to see friends to support wellbeing but older children/young people wanted more support with anxiety and educational pressures.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0260640
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.13.21261959: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Raw data was coded using STATA (version 16) to produce a dataset for the purpose of analyses.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Limitations: Although the studies surveys were made available to all children (aged 8-11) and young people (aged 12 – 18+) in full-time/part-time education across Wales, the findings of this paper only present those who participated in the survey. Participation rates decreased throughout education settings as well as deprivation and participation from ethnic minority groups. Therefore, more research is needed to identify factors associated with wellbeing in children who have left school and left education. Furthermore, due to the cross-sectional design of the study, direct comparisons to pre-pandemic wellbeing and emotional difficulties or anxiety were not made, and causal conclusions cannot be drawn. However, the study does provide some indication of which students may be most vulnerable to poorer wellbeing outcomes because of the pandemic or have been exacerbated because of the pandemic.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.13.21261959v1 on medRxiv