ArticleBMC public health2026
Interpersonal pandemic impact: evaluating the disparate effects of COVID-19 exposure on psychological distress.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study explores the association between both individuals' and their partners' COVID-19 exposure and individuals' psychological distress among U.S. adults.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used data from the 2021 cohort of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. adults. Psychological distress was measured using the validated Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-6), with scores ≥ 13 indicating clinically significant distress. COVID-19 exposure was defined as either a positive test result or a diagnosis (definite or probable) from a healthcare provider. Multivariate logistic regression examined associations between COVID-19 exposure patterns (self, spousal, both, or neither) and psychological distress, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related confounders.
resultsAmong 13,809 respondents, 3.87% (n = 534) reported clinically significant psychological distress. Individuals whose spouses had COVID-19 exposure (but they themselves did not) had 1.68 times higher odds of psychological distress compared to those with no self or spousal exposure (95% CI: 1.26–2.23, p < 0.001). Those with both self and spousal exposure had 1.59 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.27–1.99, p < 0.001). However, self-exposure alone without spousal exposure showed no significant association with distress (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86–1.45, p = 0.39).
conclusionsSpousal COVID-19 exposure is more strongly associated with psychological distress than one's own exposure alone, highlighting the interpersonal nature of pandemic-related mental health burdens. This pattern may reflect the unique psychological challenges of caregiving, including uncertainty about outcomes, a limited sense of control, anticipatory grief, and social isolation. These findings underscore the importance of family-centered approaches to mental health assessment and intervention during global health crises, with mental health services proactively offered to family members of affected individuals.
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.