Search

Strict lockdowns have been employed by many of the world's nations as a public health response to COVID-19. However, concerns have been expressed as to how such public health responses disturb the human ecosystem. In this paper, we report on findings from a longitudinal study of Australian parents in which we investigated how state differences in government-mandated lockdowns affect the relationship well-being (i.e., relationship satisfaction and loneliness) of parents. We situated the study of the relational effects of strict lockdowns within the Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model (VSAM, Karney & Bradbury, 1995) that considers the role of parents' pre-existing vulnerabilities (i.e., psychological distress and attachment insecurity), life stressors (pre-pandemic and COVID-19 stressors), and adaptive relationship processes (constructive communication and perceived partner support). A total of 1942 parents completed 14 waves of assessments of relationship satisfaction and loneliness over a 13.5-month period as well as baseline assessments of personal vulnerabilities, life stressors, and adaptive relationship processes. Parents with high relationship adaptations and low vulnerabilities evidenced the highest relationship well-being (i.e., high satisfaction and low loneliness) during changes in lockdown restrictions, while parents with moderate relationship adaptations and vulnerabilities experienced the poorest well-being. Differences in state lockdown restrictions (i.e., Victoria [long and strict lockdown policy] vs all other states) were associated with differences in relationship well-being for parents with high relationship adaptations. Specifically, Victorian parents experienced significant declines in relationship well-being compared to non-Victorian parents. Our findings provide novel insights into how government-mandated social restrictions can disrupt the relational ecology of parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the well-being of mental healthcare providers working in a specialist clinic for personality disorder during the first wave of COVID-19 social restrictions. Clinical (n = 31) and nonclinical (n = 11) staff in a public outpatient specialist personality disorder clinic were invited to participate. Data were collected via an online survey which incorporated the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) together with a range of open-ended questions exploring mental health, physical health, sleep quality, management of relationships, alcohol consumption, eating patterns, and use of media. Inductive content analysis was used to review the responses to the open-ended questions. Data from CAS was reported descriptively. In total, 39 surveys were completed (92.8% response rate). According to the CAS, two participants (5.1%) experienced coronaphobia during the initial pandemic restrictions. Participants reported a diversity of experiences affecting their health status during this time. While loss of social interactions with family and friends was reported as the most challenging aspect of lockdown, participants reported that conducting their work using telehealth and the absence of the work commute provided opportunities for more time with family and for self-reflection. The self-reported physical and mental health of participants demonstrated resilience. This suggests that the capacity to conduct therapeutic work via telehealth, and having the option of working from home helped to mitigate many of the adverse aspects of social restrictions due to the global pandemic. This study was conducted during the first wave of social restrictions; subsequent studies will reveal longer-term effects of this policy. Key Points What is already known about this topic: Australian adults reported a slight increase in psychological distress in the general community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) is a validated and reliable mental health questionnaire assessing COVID-19 related fear and anxiety (coronaphobia). CAS measures sleep disturbance, appetite loss, dizziness, tonic immobility, and abdominal distress. Living under lockdown conditions is an unnatural experience. Experience of mental health workers who provide care for people with personality disorder is not yet studied during this condition. What this paper adds: Only two participants (5.1%) experienced coronaphobia during the initial pandemic restrictions. While challenges were endorsed, the self-reported physical and mental health of participants demonstrated resilience. A range of well-being challenges were reported in this study that informs health policy makers for future interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The primary aim of this study was to describe if there was a change in physical functioning of rural clients with chronic diseases who were unable to attend their structured exercise groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary aim was to describe their physical activity during lockdown and their wellbeing upon return to their structured exercise groups. Method: Physical functioning measures collected in January to March 2020 (prior to suspension of structured exercise groups due to the lockdown) were repeated in July 2020 (when face-to-face activity resumed) and compared. A survey collected information about the client's level of physical activity during lockdown and wellbeing measures at the end of the lockdown. Results: Forty-seven clients consented to provide physical functioning tests and 52 completed the survey. Only the modified 2-min step-up test displayed a statistically (but not clinically) significant change (n = 29, 51.7 vs 54.1 rep, P = 0.01). Physical activity undertaken during lockdown was less in 48% (n = 24), the same in 44% (n = 22) and increased in 8% (n = 4) of clients. Despite the lockdown, clients had high global satisfaction, high subjective wellbeing and normal resilience. Conclusions: Clinically significant changes in physical functioning when clients were unable to attend structured exercise groups for three months during the COVID-19 pandemic were not observed in this exploratory study. Further research is required to confirm the impact of isolation on physical functioning in those participating in group exercise to improve their chronic disease management. Little is known about the health impacts of ceasing group exercise programs during the COVID-19 pandemic on rural individuals with chronic disease. This study found no clinically significant impact on physical functioning in clients with chronic diseases who were unable to attend their structured exercise groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, but many did reduce their amount of physical activity. This signals the need for further research to better understand how physical and mental health is affected in this population by such isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Population surveys across the world have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. However, few have simultaneously examined independent cross-sectional data with longitudinal data, each of which have different strengths and weaknesses and facilitate the investigation of distinct research questions. This study aimed to investigate psychological distress and life satisfaction during the first and second lockdowns in the state of Victoria, Australia, and the social factors that may be affected by lockdowns and could affect mental health. Methods: The VicHealth Victorian Coronavirus Wellbeing Impact Study included two 20-min opt-in online panel surveys conducted in May and September 2020 in Victoria, each with a sample of 2000 adults aged 18 +. A two-part study design was used: a repeated cross-sectional study of respondents who participated in Survey One and Survey Two, followed by a longitudinal nested cohort study. The primary exposures were social solidarity, social connectedness and staying connected with family and friends. Using logistic regression modelling, we explored the associations between our exposures and primary outcomes of psychological distress and life satisfaction with and without adjustment for covariates, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The results from the multivariable models were summarised using adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR), 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Results: Cross-sectional results indicated that the percentage of participants with low life satisfaction was significantly higher in the second survey sample (53%) compared to the first (47%). The percentage of participants with high psychological distress was higher but not significantly different between the two survey samples (14% first survey vs 16% second survey). Longitudinal study results indicated that lower social connectedness was significantly associated with higher psychological distress (aOR:3.3; 95% CI: 1.3–8.4) and lower life satisfaction (aOR:0.2; 95% CI: 0.1–0.4). Younger adults had higher psychological distress compared to older adults (aOR:6.8; 95% CI:1.5–31.1). Unemployment at the time of the first survey was significantly associated with lower life satisfaction at the second survey (aOR:0.5; 95% CI: 0.3–0.9). Conclusion: This study supports the findings of other international studies. It also highlights the need to promote increased social connection and maintain it at times of isolation and separation, particularly amongst younger adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]