Search

There has been concern about adolescent mental health during the pandemic. The current study examined adolescent mental health during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Using indicator of psychological distress, wellbeing and resilience, latent profile analysis was used to identify homogeneous mental health groups among young people aged 13–24 (N = 1971). Multinomial logistic regression was then used to examine which sociodemographic and psychosocial variables predicted latent class membership. Four classes were found. The largest class (Class 1, 37.2%) was characterised by moderate symptomology and moderate wellbeing. Class 2 (34.2%) was characterised by low symptomology and high wellbeing, while Class 3 (25.4%) was characterised by moderate symptomology and high wellbeing. Finally, Class 4 was the smallest (3.2%) and was characterised by high symptomology and low wellbeing. Compared to the low symptomology, high wellbeing class, all other classes were associated with less social engagement with friends, poorer family functioning, greater somatic symptoms, and a less positive model of self. A number of unique associations between the classes and predictor variables were identified. Although around two-thirds of adolescents reported moderate-to-high symptomology, most of these individuals also reported concurrent moderate-to-high levels of wellbeing, reflecting resilience. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate how a more comprehensive picture of mental health can be gained through adopting a dual-continua conceptualisation of mental health that incorporates both pathology and well-being. In this way, at-risk youth can be identified and interventions and resources targeted appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Established in March 2020, the C19PRC Study monitors the psychological and socio‐economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 6 (August–September 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID‐19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adult participants from any previous wave (N = 3170) were re‐invited, and sample replenishment procedures helped manage attrition. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the on‐going original panel (from baseline) was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: 1643 adults were re‐interviewed at Wave 6 (51.8% retention rate). Non‐participation was higher younger adults, those born outside UK, and adults living in cities. Of the adults recruited at baseline, 54.3% (N = 1100) participated in Wave 6. New respondent (N = 415) entered the panel at this wave, resulting in cross‐sectional sample for Wave 6 of 2058 adults. The raking procedure re‐balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.3% of population estimates for selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusions: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID‐19‐related interdisciplinary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The COVID‐19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study was established in March 2020 to monitor the psychological and socio‐economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 5 (March–April 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID‐19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adults who participated in any previous wave (N = 4949) were re‐invited to participate. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: Overall, 2520 adults participated. A total of 2377 adults who participated in the previous survey wave (November–December 2020) were re‐interviewed at Wave 5 (61.5% retention rate). Attrition between these two waves was predicted by younger age, lower household income, children living in the household, and treatment for mental health difficulties. Of the adults recruited into the C19PRC study at baseline, 57.4% (N = 1162) participated in Wave 5. The raking procedure re‐balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.5% of population estimates for selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID‐19‐related interdisciplinary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the way many individuals go about their daily lives. This study attempted to model the complexity of change in lifestyle quality as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its context within the UK adult population. Methods: Data from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study (Wave 3, July 2020; N = 1166) were utilised. A measure of COVID-19-related lifestyle change captured how individuals' lifestyle quality had been altered as a consequence of the pandemic. Exploratory factor analysis and latent profile analysis were used to identify distinct lifestyle quality change subgroups, while multinomial logistic regression analysis was employed to describe class membership. Results: Five lifestyle dimensions, reflecting partner relationships, health, family and friend relations, personal and social activities, and work life, were identified by the EFA, and seven classes characterised by distinct patterns of change across these dimensions emerged from the LPA: (1) better overall (3.3%), (2) worse except partner relations (6.0%), (3) worse overall (2.5%), (4) better relationships (9.5%), (5) better except partner relations (4.3%), (6) no different (67.9%), and (7) worse partner relations only (6.5%). Predictor variables differentiated membership of classes. Notably, classes 3 and 7 were associated with poorer mental health (COVID-19 related PTSD and suicidal ideation). Conclusions: Four months into the pandemic, most individuals' lifestyle quality remained largely unaffected by the crisis. Concerningly however, a substantial minority (15%) experienced worsened lifestyles compared to before the pandemic. In particular, a pronounced deterioration in partner relations seemed to constitute the more severe pandemic-related lifestyle change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]