ArticlePloS one2023
Changes in economic activity and mental distress among young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: Differences between the first and second infection waves in the UK.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWhile infection rates, lockdown policies, and labor market conditions substantially varied across COVID-19 waves, the majority of evidence on young adults' mental health remains focused on initial responses in early 2020. The variability of the relationship between economic activity and mental health over time therefore remains poorly understood in this age group.
methodsUsing linear mixed models, we investigated the relationship between current activity and changes in activity and mental distress (GHQ-12) among 1,390 young adults aged 16-34 via the UK Household Longitudinal Study COVID-19 survey. The association was explored in the first (from April to July 2020) and second (from September 2020 to March 2021) infection waves. Current activity was defined as "not working", "working <17.5 hours/week", "17.5-35 hours/week", and "> = 35 hours/week". Changes in activity were derived from current and pre-pandemic working hours and divided into four categories: "working with no reduced hours", "working fewer hours", "no longer working", and "did not work before the pandemic".
resultsDuring the first wave, no association reached statistical significance. During the second wave: 1) compared to "currently not working", working 35 or more hours was associated with decreased distress (b = -1.54; 95%CI -2.39, -0.69) and working less than 17.5 hours was not (b = -0.62; 95%CI -1.66, 0.41); 2) compared to "working with no reduced hours compared with before the outbreak", no longer working was associated with increased distress (b = 1.58, 95%CI 0.61, 2.55) and working with reduced hours was not (b = 0.47, 95%CI -0.24, 1.17).
conclusionAbove the mental health inequalities experienced at the start of the pandemic, full-time work-even with variation in work hours-continued to be a protective factor against mental distress among young adults during the second wave in the UK. Stable, full-time work can better support this age group's mental well-being over time.
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.