Search

COVID-19 mitigation strategies have previously been argued to affect the mental health of people differently depending on sociodemographic factors. Denmark and Sweden have long used mandatory restrictions and guidelines, respectively, to curb the spread of COVID-19. This study compares generalised anxiety under Danish and Swedish mitigation strategies and the influence of suspected, vulnerable sociodemographic factors in relation to these. This contributes to an existing empirical gap of direct comparisons between Denmark and Sweden in this regard. An online cross-sectional survey covering a six-month reference period was adopted. Data was gathered using a snowball and convenience sampling of 503 respondents, 64.8% (n= 326) living in Denmark and 35.2% (n= 177) living in Sweden. Generalised anxiety scores were reported through an adjusted GAD-7 scale. Though effect sizes and mean differences tended to be small, results from Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that those who had lived under the Swedish mitigation strategy scored significantly higher levels of anxiety than those, who lived under the Danish strategy. Sociodemographic factors of age, gender, and occupational status had the biggest effect on anxiety across countries. While mitigation approaches certainly mattered in terms of generalised anxiety; younger age, female gender, and being a student mattered as well regardless of approach. It is argued that the Danish strategy, which combines its mandatory restrictions with a message of shared responsibility, may have been better at addressing general anxiety risks. Yet, younger, female, and student groups were vulnerable to general anxiety regardless of national context.

COVID-19 mitigation strategies have previously been argued to affect the mental health of people differently depending on sociodemographic factors. Denmark and Sweden have long used mandatory restrictions and guidelines, respectively, to curb the spread of COVID-19. This study compares generalised anxiety under Danish and Swedish mitigation strategies and the influence of suspected, vulnerable sociodemographic factors in relation to these. This contributes to an existing empirical gap of direct comparisons between Denmark and Sweden in this regard. An online cross-sectional survey covering a six-month reference period was adopted. Data was gathered using a snowball and convenience sampling of 503 respondents, 64.8% (n= 326) living in Denmark and 35.2% (n= 177) living in Sweden. Generalised anxiety scores were reported through an adjusted GAD-7 scale. Though effect sizes and mean differences tended to be small, results from Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that those who had lived under the Swedish mitigation strategy scored significantly higher levels of anxiety than those, who lived under the Danish strategy. Sociodemographic factors of age, gender, and occupational status had the biggest effect on anxiety across countries. While mitigation approaches certainly mattered in terms of generalised anxiety; younger age, female gender, and being a student mattered as well regardless of approach. It is argued that the Danish strategy, which combines its mandatory restrictions with a message of shared responsibility, may have been better at addressing general anxiety risks. Yet, younger, female, and student groups were vulnerable to general anxiety regardless of national context.