ArticlePloS one2021
Experiences of coping with the first wave of COVID-19 epidemic in Philadelphia, PA: Mixed methods analysis of a cross-sectional survey of worries and symptoms of mood disorders.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to describe how residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coped psychologically with the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. In a cross-sectional design, we aimed to estimate the rates and correlates of anxiety and depression, examine how specific worries correlated with general anxiety and depression, and synthesize themes of "the most difficult experiences" shared by the respondents. We collected data through an on-line survey in a convenience sample of 1,293 adult residents of Philadelphia, PA between April 17 and July 3, 2020, inquiring about symptoms of anxiety and depression (via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), specific worries, open-ended narratives of "the most difficult experiences" (coded into themes), demographics, perceived sources of support, and general health. Anxiety was evident among 30 to 40% of participants and depression-about 10%. Factor analysis revealed two distinct, yet inter-related clusters of specific worries related to mood disorders: concern about "hardships" and "fear of infection". Regression analyses revealed that anxiety, depression, and fear of infection, but not concern about hardships, worsened over the course of the epidemic. "The most difficult experiences" characterized by loss of income, poor health of self or others, uncertainty, death of a relative or a friend, and struggle accessing food were each associated with some of the measures of worries and mood disorders. Respondents who believed they could rely on support of close personal network fared better psychologically than those who reported relying primarily on government and social services organizations. Thematic analysis revealed complex perceptions of the pandemic by the participants, giving clues to both positive and negative experiences that may have affected how they coped. Despite concerns about external validity, our observations are concordant with emerging evidence of psychological toll of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures employed to mitigate risk of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.