Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35461593›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2022

Effect of lockdown on mental health in Australia: evidence from a natural experiment analysing a longitudinal probability sample survey.

Peter Butterworth, Stefanie Schurer, Trong-Anh Trinh, Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Mark Wooden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Social cohesion, social capital and mental health: current evidence and future research directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Trends in physical and mental health needs across generations in Australia.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding the Effect of Financial Behaviour on Mental Health: Evidence From Australia.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A descriptive study of young people with Autism Spectrum Disorder referred to a Fixated Threat Assessment Centre.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter ButterworthResearch School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Stefanie SchurerSchool of Economics, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Trong-Anh TrinhMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Esperanza Vera-ToscanoMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mark WoodenMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: m.wooden@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

The economic and social impact of pandemic mitigation policies: A cross-country analysis of macro eventsR01AG071649 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LILLARD, DEAN R · 2021 to 2025
$4.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG071649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies have examined population mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic but have been unable to isolate the direct effect of lockdowns. The aim of this study was to examine changes in the mental health of Australians aged 15 years and older during the COVID-19 pandemic using a quasi-experimental design to disentangle the lockdown effect.

methodsWe analysed data from ten annual waves (2011-20) of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to identify changes in the mental health of respondents from the pre-COVID-19 period (2011-19) to the COVID-19 period (2020). Difference-in-differences models were used to compare these changes between respondents in the state of Victoria who were exposed to lockdown at the time of the 2020 interviews (treatment group) and respondents living elsewhere in Australia (who were living relatively free of restrictions; control group). The models included state, year (survey wave), and person-specific fixed effects. Mental health was assessed using the five-item Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5), which was included in the self-complete questionnaire administered during the survey.

findingsThe analysis sample comprised 151 583 observations obtained from 20 839 individuals from 2011 to 2020. The treatment group included 3568 individuals with a total of 37 578 observations (34 010 in the pre-COVID-19 and 3568 in the COVID-19 period), and the control group included 17 271 individuals with 114 005 observations (102 867 in the pre-COVID-19 and 11 138 in the COVID-19 period). Mean MHI-5 scores did not differ between the treatment group (72·9 points [95% CI 72·8-73·2]) and control group (73·2 points [73·1-73·3]) in the pre-COVID-19 period. In the COVID-19 period, decreased mean scores were seen in both the treatment group (69·6 points [69·0-70·2]) and control group (70·8 points [70·5-71·2]). Difference-in-differences estimation showed a small but statistically significant effect of lockdown on MHI-5 scores, with greater decline for residents of Victoria in 2020 than for those in the rest of Australia (difference -1·4 points [95% CI -1·7 to -1·2]). Stratified analyses showed that this lockdown effect was larger for females (-2·2 points [-2·6 to -1·7]) than for males (-0·6 [-0·8 to -0·5]), and even larger for women in couples with children younger than 15 years (-4·4 points [-5·0 to -3·8]), and for females who lived in flats or apartments (-4·1 points [-5·4 to -2·8]) or semi-detached houses, terraced houses, or townhouses (-4·8 points [-6·4 to -3·2]).

interpretationThe imposition of lockdowns was associated with a modest negative change in overall population mental health. The results suggest that the mental health effects of lockdowns differ by population subgroups and for some might have exaggerated existing inequalities in mental health. Although lockdowns have been an important public health tool in suppressing community transmission of COVID-19, more research is needed into the potential psychosocial impacts of such interventions to inform their future use.

fundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Indexed as

COVID-19ChildCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthPandemicsSampling StudiesUnited StatesVictoria

Identifiers

PMID35461593
PMCPMC9023006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.