What was the impact of Covid 19 regulations across the world? A lot of research have come out highlighting the impact of the restrictions imposed due to Covid 19 pandemic. Here let us look at recent studies published in Lancet that outlines the impact of stricter Covid 19 regulations on the mental health,.
The authors in the studies claim that stricter pandemic policy measures implemented by countries that tried to control, rather than eliminate COVID-19 are associated with slightly worse mental health and lower life evaluations. The two new studies reviewed data from 15 countries between April 2020 and June 2021.
The study found that countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of COVID-19 within their borders experienced fewer deaths and equivalent or better mental health trends during the pandemic than countries that aimed to control rather than eliminate transmission. The authors also claim that lockdown mental health impact was worse for women and women living in households with dependent children when compared to men of all ages.
DIVERSE STRATEGIES
In the report, the authors note that the governments across the globe employed diverse strategies and issued a variety of guidelines to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Pointing out that containment measures were not homogenous, the studies say that some countries adopted ambitious elimination strategies with zero community transmission targets. Other countries chose to slow down transmission through a mix of intermittent lockdowns, workplace, business, and school closings, social distancing, the wearing of face masks, and the cancellation of public gatherings and public transport.
Eliminator countries like South Korea and Japan implemented early and targeted actions such as intemational travel restrictions, testing, and contact tracing, which resulted in lower levels of COVID-19 infections and enabled them to opt for more lenient domestic containment strategies. In contrast, mitigator countries such as France and the UK opted for loss prohibitive international travel restrictions and aimed to control – rather than eliminate – the virus through strict and lengthy domestic policy measures including physical distancing and stay-at-home requirements.
Dr Lara Aknin, Simon Fraser University (Canada), author of the first study said that eliminator countries implemented much harsher strategies than other countries because of their widely reported international travel bans. The first study indicates that the type and timing of pandemic restriction plays a factor in determining mental health impacts, the second study suggests that these are felt disproportionately by different groups.
DEGREE OF STRICTNESS AND TYPE OF CONTAINMENT DETERMINE IMPACT ON MENTAL HEALTH
As part of assessing how variation in COVD-19 policy restrictions affects mental health, the first study combined daily policy stringency data with mental health data captured fortnightly. The countries were grouped based on their response to COVID-19 from April 2020 to June 2021 as either eliminators (Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) or mitigators (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK).
The study found stronger link between severe containment policies and lower life evaluation compared to eliminator countries in mitigator countries. On individual, the policies leading to a loss in social connection and primarily adopted in mitigator countries were associated with greater psychological distress and lower life evaluations. Policies such as school, workplace, public events, and public transport closures, as well as restrictions on domestic travel, were not linked to mental health. Perhaps surprisingly, the number of consecutive days spent under high or low levels of pandemic restrictions yielded no difference in mental health outcomes, the study said.
The studies also said that there was a decline in the negative association between stringency and future mental health over time. This was mainly due to the effect on reduced deaths. Study author Dr Rafael Goldszmidt noted that mitigation strategies could be associated with worse mental health outcomes at least in part because containment measures such as long periods of lockdowns and physical distancing could impede social connections. Though stricter policies are proven to be effective at reducing deaths, they may have impact on psychological distress and life evaluations, Goldsmidt added.
WOMEN’S MENTAL HEALTH
In the second study, the authors underscore that the mental health impacts of lockdown were not felt equally across all demographic groups. They used data from over 20,000 individuals included in the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. They compared the mental health of individuals in the state of Victoria during lockdown (the treatment group) relative to their mental health the year before lockdown and compared this relative change with the relative change of mental health of residents living in the remainder of Australia (the control group) who were relatively free of restrictions
In the study, the researchers found females were more likely to suffer mental health consequences than males, especially those between 20 and 29 years of age. There were no significant effects for adolescents of either gender and no effects for younger males (aged 20-29). Meanwhile, males aged 55 years and above saw an improvement in their mental health during lockdown – the only demographic group that did so, the authors said. They also found large effects for females living in coupled households with dependent children. They were more likely than any other group to face negative mental health outcomes, while males in coupled households with dependent children and without children only saw modest negative outcomes. No negative effect of lockdown was found for single mothers.
Study author Prof Mark Wooden of the University of Melboume says, “while the effects of lockdowns on overall population mental health were small there were substantial and clinically relevant impacts for some groups, Women, especially those living in couple families with dependent children, have been hit hardest and were more likely than men in any age group to see a decline in their mental health. This gendered effect may be due to the additional workload associated with working from home while having to care for and educate their children at the same time, heightening already existing inequalities in household and caring responsibilities.”
Wooden adds, “it may seem unexpected that this trend did not apply to single mothers. One reason for this may be the financial support package Australia’s Federal Governent provided this group with as part of its economic recovery response which could have eased concerns and anxiety about lockdowns. In addition, single mothers are more likely to have experienced life without a safety net and strong support system before the pandemic. As such, they may have found it easier to adapt to sudden changes than women in coupled households.”
