ArticleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2022
Psychological responses to U.S. statewide restrictions and COVID-19 exposures: A longitudinal study.
Article in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adaptations to Continuous Community Violence in Culiacán, Sinaloa, México.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Psychological distress across 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic differs by age and by race/ethnicity.Journal of traumatic stress · 2025Article
- Associations between mindfulness and mental health after collective trauma: results from a longitudinal, representative, probability-based survey.Anxiety, stress, and coping · 2024Article
- Adaptation to changes in COVID-19 pandemic severity: Across older adulthood and time scales.Psychology and aging · 2023Article
- Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on caregivers and adolescents and young adult survivors of childhood cancer.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- Psychology Meets Biology in COVID-19: What We Know and Why It Matters for Public Health.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has generated debate as to whether community-level behavioral restrictions are worth the emotional costs of such restrictions. Using a longitudinal design, we juxtaposed the relative impacts of state-level restrictions and case counts with person-level direct and media-based exposures on distress, loneliness, and traumatic stress symptoms (TSS) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
methodFrom March 18, 2020 to April 18, 2020 and September 9, 2020 to October 16, 2020, a representative probability sample of U.S. adults (N = 5,594) completed surveys of their psychological responses and personal direct and media-based exposures to the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey data were merged with publicly available data on the stringency of state-level mitigation policies (e.g., school/business closures) during this period and longitudinal case/death counts for each state.
resultsThree multilevel models (outcomes: distress, loneliness, TSS) were constructed. Measurements of dependent variables (Level 1) were nested within respondents (Level 2) who were nested within states (Level 3). State-level mitigation, cases, or deaths were not associated with any dependent variables (all p's > .05). However, person-level exposures, including having contracted COVID-19 oneself (distress b = .22, p < .001; loneliness b = .13, p = .03; TSS b = .18, p = .001), knowing others who were sick (distress b = .04, p < .001; loneliness b = .02, p < .001; TSS b = .05, p < .001) or died (distress b = .10, p = .001; loneliness b = .10, p = .003; TSS b = .16, p < .001), and exposure to pandemic-related media (distress b = .12, p < .001; loneliness b = .09, p < .001; TSS b = .16, p < .001), were positively associated with outcomes.
conclusionsPersonal exposures to COVID-19 are more strongly associated with psychological outcomes than statewide mitigations levied to stop disease spread. Results may inform public health response planning for future disease outbreaks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.