ArticlePloS one2022
Thriving in a pandemic: Determinants of excellent wellbeing among New Zealanders during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown; a cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sports and exercise and changes in college students' phubbing behavior: based on latent growth and cross-lagged models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparing the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 in seven low- and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Recognising the heterogeneity of Indigenous Peoples during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review across Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- The COVID Psychosocial Impacts Scale: A Reliable and Valid Tool to Examine the Psychosocial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Examining the psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: an international cross-sectional study protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions are associated with adverse psychological impacts but an assessment of positive wellbeing is required to understand the overall impacts of the pandemic.
methodsThe NZ Lockdown Psychological Distress Survey is an on-line cross-sectional survey of 3487 New Zealanders undertaken during a strict lockdown for COVID-19. The lockdown extended from 25 March 2020 to 28 April 2020 and the survey was undertaken between 15 April 2020 and 27 April 2020. The survey measured excellent wellbeing categorised by a WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) score ≥22. The survey also contained demographic and pre-lockdown questions, subjective and objective lockdown experiences, and questions on alcohol use. The proportion of participants with excellent wellbeing is reported with multivariate analysis examining the relative importance of individual factors associated with excellent wellbeing.
resultsApproximately 9% of the overall sample (303 participants) reported excellent wellbeing during the New Zealand lockdown. In the multivariable analysis, excellent wellbeing status was positively associated with increasing age (p<0.001), male gender (p = 0.044), Māori and Asian ethnicity (p = 0.008), and lower levels of education (certificate/diploma level qualification or less) (p<0.001). Excellent wellbeing was negatively associated with smoking (p = 0.001), poor physical (p<0.001) and mental health (p = 0.002), and previous trauma (p = 0.033).
conclusionNine percent of New Zealanders reported excellent wellbeing during severe COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Demographic and broader health factors predicted excellent wellbeing status. An understanding of these factors may help to enhance wellbeing during any future lockdowns.
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.