Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Psychological distress among people with probable COVID-19 infection: analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, UK.
      Authors
    • Niedzwiedz CL 1
    (1 author)
  • 2. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, UK.
      Authors
    • Benzeval M 2
    (1 author)
  • 3. MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, UK.
      Authors
    • Hainey K 3
    • Leyland AH 3
    • Katikireddi SV 3
    (3 authors)

ORCIDs linked to this article

Bjpsych Open, 18 May 2021, 7(3):e104
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.63 PMID: 34001295 PMCID: PMC8134894

This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC

This article is based on a previously available preprint.

Abstract 

Studies exploring the longer-term effects of experiencing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on mental health are lacking. We explored the relationship between reporting probable COVID-19 symptoms in April 2020 and psychological distress (measured using the General Health Questionnaire) 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 months later. Data were taken from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a nationally representative household panel survey of UK adults. Elevated levels of psychological distress were found up to 7 months after probable COVID-19, compared with participants with no likely infection. Associations were stronger among younger age groups and men. Further research into the psychological sequalae of COVID-19 is urgently needed.

Free full text 

Logo of phecambridgeupLink to Publisher's site
BJPsych Open. 2021 May; 7(3): e104.
Published online 2021 May 18. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.63
PMCID: PMC8134894
PMID: 34001295

Psychological distress among people with probable COVID-19 infection: analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study

Claire L. Niedzwiedz, Michaela Benzeval, Kirsten Hainey, Alastair H. Leyland, and Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement

Summary

Studies exploring the longer-term effects of experiencing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on mental health are lacking. We explored the relationship between reporting probable COVID-19 symptoms in April 2020 and psychological distress (measured using the General Health Questionnaire) 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 months later. Data were taken from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a nationally representative household panel survey of UK adults. Elevated levels of psychological distress were found up to 7 months after probable COVID-19, compared with participants with no likely infection. Associations were stronger among younger age groups and men. Further research into the psychological sequalae of COVID-19 is urgently needed.

Keywords: Epidemiology, COVID-19, depressive disorders, infectious disease, mental health

Background

Considerable concerns exist about the longer-term effects of experiencing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).1 However, population-based data remain rare, with the majority of COVID-19 research focused on severe adverse physical consequences of acute disease. There is growing evidence that a substantial number of people experience persisting symptoms such as fatigue and chest pain months after infection.2 Although the mental health consequences of societal changes during the pandemic (including lockdown) have been extensively studied,3,4 research on the impact of COVID-19 infection on mental health is limited.

Research from previous coronavirus outbreaks demonstrates potential for psychiatric consequences of infection.5 An initial study using administrative data from the USA demonstrated that COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased incidence of psychiatric diagnoses (particularly anxiety and insomnia) in the following 14–90 days.6 Studies have also demonstrated that COVID-19 survivors who received emergency department evaluation in Milan had high levels of depression and anxiety 1 month following discharge7 and COVID-19 patients in Chongqing, China had more symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression compared with healthy and psychiatric patient controls.8 However, most existing studies have been limited by small, non-representative samples and those based on electronic health records may not capture individuals with more minor acute COVID-19 symptoms or those with less severe psychological problems that do not present to health services. Changes in healthcare-seeking and treatment may lead to substantial potential bias in the context of a pandemic, where disruptions to health systems have been widespread. Data from surveys may therefore be better placed to capture the impact on mental health and need for intervention.

Aims

To explore the relationship between COVID-19 infection and mental health in the UK context, we assessed associations between experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and changes in psychological distress in a representative longitudinal survey of adults.

Method

The UK Household Longitudinal Study (also referred to as Understanding Society) is a nationally representative longitudinal household panel survey, based on a clustered stratified probability sample of UK households, described in detail previously.9 All adults (aged ≥16 years) in chosen households are invited to participate. Data collection for each wave usually takes place over 24 months, with participants re-interviewed every year by online, face-to-face or telephone survey.

We used pre-pandemic data from wave 9 (2017–19), which achieved a household response rate of over 80%.10 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional waves of data were collected in 2020 via online survey during April (24 to 30 April), May (27 May to 2 June), June (25 June to 1 July), July (24 to 31 July), September (24 September to 1 October) and November (24 November to 1 December).11 The response rate for the first COVID wave was 48.6% of those who took part at wave 9.12

Psychological distress was measured at each wave (pre-pandemic in 2017–19 and during the pandemic at each wave as above) via the General Health Questionnaire 12-item instrument (GHQ-12).13 GHQ-12 assesses psychological distress and respondents reporting a score of 4 or more are likely experiencing symptoms to a clinically significant level.3 Self-reported symptoms of cough, fever and anosmia allowed identification of individuals with probable COVID-19 infection in April 2020 (see Supplementary Material available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.63).

Of 42 people reporting hospital admission for COVID-19 in April 2020, 34 were classified as probable COVID-19 according to our definition. We assessed associations between probable COVID-19 infection and psychological distress at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 months later using logistic regression, with models adjusted to account for pre-pandemic psychological distress (GHQ score) and other covariates (gender, age, ethnicity and long-standing illness or disability). We also conducted subgroup analyses by age group (under 45, 45–64, ≥65 years) and gender (men, women) to investigate potential effect modification by demographic characteristics associated with COVID-19.

Analyses used inverse probability weights to adjust for non-response and standard errors were adjusted for the complex survey design. Missing data were excluded from analyses, but if participants were missing pre-pandemic wave 9 data responses from wave 10 were used if available. Statistical analyses were performed in Stata/MP 15.1.

The University of Essex Ethics Committee approved all data collection for the Understanding Society main survey and COVID waves, which were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All survey participants provided fully informed consent. No additional ethical approval was necessary for this secondary data analysis.

Results

In total, 8.9% (n = 1112) of 12 492 participants experienced probable COVID-19 symptoms in April 2020. Psychological distress was more prevalent in May (27.4%, 95% CI 25.9–28.9), reduced to 20.8% (95% CI 19.4–22.3) in July, before increasing again to 26.5% (95% CI 24.8–28.2) in November, corresponding with the UK winter lockdown. The characteristics of participants are described in Supplementary Table 1.

In comparison with participants without probable COVID-19 infection, psychological distress was more common at 1 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10–1.76), 2 (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.05–1.81), 3 (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.99–1.72), 5 (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.05–1.92) and 7 (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.04–2.07) months after reporting COVID-19 symptoms in adjusted analyses (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2–6).

Table 1

Associations between probable coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in April 2020 and psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) ‘case’) up to 7 months later stratified by age group and gendera

1 month later
(May 2020)		2 months later
(June 2020)		3 months later
(July 2020)		5 months later
(September 2020)		7 months later
(November 2020)
Overall
No likely infection (reference)11111
Probable infection,b OR (95% CI)1.39** (1.10–1.76)1.38* (1.05–1.81)1.31 (0.99–1.72)1.42* (1.05–1.92)1.47* (1.04–2.07)
n12 49211 94911 56311 00910 379
By gender
Men, OR (95% CI)1.52* (1.05–2.20)1.57* (1.04–2.37)1.43 (0.91–2.24)1.36 (0.88–2.12)1.77** (1.20–2.61)
n51384908475945564283
Women, OR (95% CI)1.30 (0.98–1.75)1.31 (0.94–1.81)1.25 (0.86–1.82)1.46 (0.98–2.19)1.30 (0.82–2.07)
n72796969673063796022
By age group
Under 45 years, OR (95% CI)1.51* (1.07–2.13)1.43 (0.91–2.26)1.20 (0.80–1.78)1.39 (0.89–2.18)1.74* (1.02–2.95)
n34263169299627352481
45–64 years, OR (95% CI)1.24 (0.81–1.90)1.39 (0.87–2.22)1.38 (0.85–2.25)1.53 (0.94–2.49)1.27 (0.67–2.38)
n52795045492447244485
≥65 years, OR (95% CI)1.16 (0.52–2.58)1.14 (0.63–2.04)1.33 (0.68–2.60)1.23 (0.52–2.92)1.14 (0.59–2.20)
n35473511343233293203
a.Results for each time point include people who participated in wave 9, April 2020 and the respective follow-up wave from May to November 2020.
b.Adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, limiting long-standing illness, GHQ-12 at wave 9 (2017–19).

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Subgroup analyses demonstrated stronger associations in men (OR = 1.52 in May, 95% CI 1.05–2.20) and younger adults (OR = 1.51 in May, 95% CI 1.07–2.13), with some differences in the strength of associations at different time points.

Discussion

Main findings

Our study suggests that COVID-19 infection could lead to an increase in clinically significant psychological distress that persists months after infection and is additional to the mental health impact of societal changes during the pandemic. Younger people and men with probable COVID-19 infection were more likely to report clinical levels of psychological distress compared with older age groups and women. There were some differences in the strength of associations over time that require further investigation to understand whether factors, such as lockdown restrictions, modify the association between COVID-19 symptoms and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Our findings add to the growing evidence that COVID-19 infection may have a direct impact on mental health8,14 that persists months after initial symptoms.6,7 Study strengths include the longitudinal data over multiple points of follow-up during the pandemic, the representative UK sample and accounting for pre-pandemic mental health to limit reverse causation. Important limitations include the ascertainment of COVID-19 infection, based on self-report only (not confirmed by a laboratory test) and the classification of probable COVID-19 infection at only one time point. However, misclassification may be more likely to result in underestimation of any underlying association. Further research based on confirmed infection is required, as is research that takes into account the fluctuating nature of symptoms (i.e. ‘long-COVID’) and research that compares the impact of COVID with that of other illnesses, such as pneumonia.

The self-reported nature of the exposure and outcome measures also means we cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causation in which poor mental health influences the reporting of COVID-19 symptoms. Triangulation of survey and administrative data (such as primary care and psychotropic prescribing records) would be helpful to disentangle the discrepancy between likely clinical need and service use and help to overcome the limitations of self-reported data.

Implications

The potential adverse impact of COVID-19 infection on mental health reinforces the benefits of minimising COVID-19 infection among the general population, not only in those at greatest risk of mortality. When considered alongside the mental health impact generated by mitigation measures, there is potential for a high demand for mental health services resulting from the pandemic. Further research to examine the longer-term psychological sequelae of COVID-19 infection is urgently required.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants of the Understanding Society study. The Understanding Society COVID-19 study is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K005146/1) and the Health Foundation (2076161). Fieldwork for the survey is carried out by Ipsos MORI and Kantar. Understanding Society is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.

Data availability

Understanding Society deidentified survey participant data are available through the UK Data Service (http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-14; http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8644-7). Researchers who would like to use Understanding Society need to register with the UK Data Service (https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/) before being allowed to download data-sets.

Author contributions

S.V.K. and C.L.N. conceived the idea for the study. C.L.N. and S.V.K. led the study design, with input from A.H.L.. C.L.N. and S.V.K. conducted the analysis, with assistance from K.H.. S.V.K. and C.L.N. drafted the paper, with all authors critically revising the manuscript.

Funding

We received the following funding: The National Core Studies Health & Wellbeing initiative was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_20030). A.H.L. and S.V.K. acknowledge funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2) and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). C.L.N. acknowledges funding from a Medical Research Council Fellowship (MR/R024774/1) and S.V.K. acknowledges funding from a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02). M.B. acknowledges funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N00812X/1). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.63.

Declaration of interest

S.V.K. is a member of the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and COVID-19. S.V.K. is co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on ethnicity and COVID-19. M.B. is Director of the Understanding Society Study. All authors write in an independent capacity and the views expressed do not necessarily represent any government or funding organization.

References

1. Yelin D, Wirtheim E, Vetter P, Kalil AC, Bruchfeld J, Runold M, et al. Long-term consequences of COVID-19: research needs. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 1115–7. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2. Kingstone T, Taylor AK, Donnell CA, Atherton H, Blane DN, Chew-Graham CA. Finding the ‘right’ GP: a qualitative study of the experiences of people with long-COVID. BJGP Open 2020; 4: bjgpopen20X101143. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
3. Niedzwiedz CL, Green MJ, Benzeval M, Campbell D, Craig P, Demou E, et al. Mental health and health behaviours before and during the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown: longitudinal analyses of the UK Household Longitudinal Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2021; 75:224–31. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
4. O'Connor RC, Wetherall K, Cleare S, McClelland H, Melson AJ, Niedzwiedz CL, et al. Mental health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study. Br J Psychiatry [Epub ahead of print] 2020. Available from: 10.1192/bjp.2020.212. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Rogers JP, Chesney E, Oliver D, Pollak TA, McGuire P, Fusar-Poli P, et al. Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7: 611–27. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
6. Taquet M, Luciano S, Geddes JR, Harrison PJ. Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. Lancet Psychiatry 2021; 8:130–40. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
7. Mazza MG, De Lorenzo R, Conte C, Poletti S, Vai B, Bollettini I, et al. Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors: role of inflammatory and clinical predictors. Brain Behav Immun 2020; 89: 594–600. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
8. Hao F, Tam W, Hu X, Tan W, Jiang L, Jiang X, et al. A quantitative and qualitative study on the neuropsychiatric sequelae of acutely ill COVID-19 inpatients in isolation facilities. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10: 355. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
9. University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Understanding Society: Waves 1-10, 2009-2019 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009, User Guide. University of Essex, 2020.
10. University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Understanding Society: Waves 1-10, 2009-2019 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. [data collection]. 13th ed. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, 2020. Available from: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-14 [CrossRef]
11. University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Understanding Society: COVID-19 Study. [data collection]. 7th ed. UK Data Service. SN: 8644, 2021. Available from: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-8644-7 [CrossRef]
12. Benzeval M, Burton J, Crossley TF, Fisher P, Jäckle A, Low H, et al. The Idiosyncratic Impact of an Aggregate Shock: The Distributional Consequences of COVID-19. SSRN 2020. Available from: 10.2139/ssrn.3615691 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun T B, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, et al. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 1997; 27(1): 191–7. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
14. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, McIntyre RS, et al. A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav Immun 2020; 87: 40–8. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.63

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2615A21E5D45ADC156319DDC574DF6D3/S2056472421000636a.pdf/div-class-title-psychological-distress-among-people-with-probable-covid-19-infection-analysis-of-the-uk-household-longitudinal-study-div.pdfUnpaywall

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

13
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/106060437
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/106060437

Article citations

Go to all (13) article citations

Data 

Data behind the article

This data has been text mined from the article, or deposited into data resources.

BioStudies: supplemental material and supporting data

Data Citations (2)

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Funding 

Funders who supported this work.

Chief Scientist Office (3)

Economic and Social Research Council (3)

Medical Research Council (5)