ArticleBMJ open2022
Impact of COVID-19 shocks, precarity and mediating resources on the mental health of residents of share housing in Victoria, Australia: an analysis of data from a two-wave survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Housing precarity and mental health among shoebox house residents in Hong Kong: latent profile analysis of perceived social support and its associations with loneliness, depression, anxiety and stress.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Green credit policy and residents' health: quasi-natural experimental evidence from China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Job Loss Impacts on Mental Health in South Korea.Psychiatry investigation · 2023Article
- Resilience among primary care professionals in a time of pandemic: a qualitative study in the Spanish context.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Can Homes Affect Well-Being? A Scoping Review among Housing Conditions, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Mental Health Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Risk and Protective Factors of Mental Health Conditions: Impact of Employment, Deprivation and Social Relationships.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Influence of carbon emission trading policy on residents' health in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCOVID-19 lockdown measures have challenged people's mental health, especially among economically vulnerable households. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of exposure to COVID-19 shocks (defined as job loss, living cost pressures and changing housing conditions throughout the lockdown period) and double precarity (defined as precarity in housing and employment) on mental health outcomes for members of share households as well as the mediating effects of a range of resources.
designWe conducted a two-wave survey of occupants of share housing in June and October 2020 during a prolonged period of population lockdown. Research design involved fixed effects ordered logit regression models to assess the mental health consequences of baseline precarity and COVID-related shocks.
settingVictoria, Australia.
participantsWe surveyed 293 occupants of share houses (mean age 34 SD 11.5, 56% female). Members of share houses (where individuals are unrelated adults and not in a romantic relationship) are more likely to be young, casually employed, visa-holders and low-income. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured household composition, housing and employment precarity, access to government support, household crowding, social networks and COVID-19 shocks. We used a self-reported measure of mental health.
resultsThose exposed to COVID-19 shocks reported a 2.7 times higher odds of mental health deterioration (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.85). People exposed to double precarity (precarity in both housing and employment) reported 2.4 times higher odds of mental health deterioration (OR 2.4, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.69). Housing inadequacy and lack of access to sufficient government payments explained 14.7% and 7% of the total effect of double precarity on mental health, respectively.
conclusionsResults indicate that residents of group households characterised by pre-existing precarity were vulnerable to negative mental health effects during lockdown. Access to sufficient government payments and adequate housing buffered this negative effect.
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.