Subjective Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Schizotypy and General Mental Health in Germany and the United Kingdom, for Independent Samples in May and in October 2020

  1. Sarah Daimer
  2. Lorenz Mihatsch
  3. Lisa Ronan
  4. Graham K. Murray
  5. Franziska Knolle

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Studies reported a strong impact on mental health during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March–June, 2020. In this study, we assessed the impact of the pandemic on mental health in general and on schizotypal traits in two independent general population samples of the United Kingdom (May sample N: 239, October sample N: 126; participation at both timepoints: 21) and in two independent general population samples of Germany (May sample N: 543, October sample N: 401; participation at both timepoints: 100) using online surveys. Whereas general psychological symptoms (global symptom index, GSI) and percentage of responders above clinical cut-off for further psychological investigation were higher in the May sample compared to the October sample, schizotypy scores (Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire) were higher in the October sample. We investigated potential associations, using general linear regression models (GLM). For schizotypy scores, we found that loneliness, use of drugs, and financial burden were more strongly corrected with schizotypy in the October compared to the May sample. We identified similar associations for GSI, as for schizotypy scores, in the May and October samples. We furthermore found that living in the United Kingdom was related to higher schizotypal scores or GSI. However, individual estimates of the GLM are highly comparable between the two countries. In conclusion, this study shows that while the general psychological impact is lower in the October than the May sample, potentially showing a normative response to an exceptional situation; schizotypy scores are higher at the second timepoint, which may be due to a stronger impact of estimates of loneliness, drug use, and financial burden. The ongoing, exceptional circumstances within this pandemic might increase the risk for developing psychosis in some individuals. The development of general psychological symptoms and schizotypy scores over time requires further attention and investigation.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667848
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251726v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251726: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission Board of the Technical University Munich (250/20 S).
    Consent: All participants provided informed consent. 2.2. Outcome: As described in Knolle et al, 2020 in detail, the survey consisted of three parts.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    This study has potential limitations. First, we used an online data collection methods, therefore, people without or with limited access to computers, 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 for both timepoint with partially overlapping responders, 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 minimised this confound. Fourth, we used a self-reporting survey without clinical in-person verifications. Social distancing measures complicate such verification. However, by using a completely voluntary and anonymous format, as well as standardised questionnaires we are minimising potential effects. And fifth, we are presenting simple regression models without testing for interactions. This approach may not present conclusive results, however, it does allow for comparison with ...

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251726v1 on medRxiv