The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems and mental health service use before and 9 months after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general Dutch population. A 3-wave prospective study

Peter G. van der Velden; Miquelle Marchand; Marcel Das; Ruud Muffels; Mark Bosmans

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276834

Abstract

Objectives

Gain insight into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems among the Dutch general population and different age groups in November-December 2020, compared with the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors in the same period in 2018 and 2019. More specifically, the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, and use of medicines for sleep problems, medicines for anxiety and depression, and mental health service.

Methods

We extracted data from the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel that is based on a probability sample of the Dutch population of 16 years and older by Statistics Netherlands. We focused on three waves of the longitudinal Health module in November-December 2018 (T1), November-December 2019 (T2), and November-December 2020 (T3), and selected respondents who were 18 years and older at T1. In total, 4,064 respondents participated in all three surveys. Data were weighted using 16 demographics profiles of the Dutch adult population. The course of mental health problems was examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal ordinal data and differences in incidence with logistic regression analyses. In both types of analyses, we controlled for sex, age, marital status, employment status, education level, and physical disease.

Results

Among the total study sample, no significant increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, use of medicines for sleep problems, of medicines for anxiety and depression, and of mental health service in November-December 2020 was observed, compared with the prevalence in November-December 2018 and 2019 (T3 did not differ from T1 and T2). Among the four different age categories (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, and 65 years old and older respondents), 50–64 years respondents had a significantly lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms at T3 than at T1 and T2, while the prevalence at T1 and T2 did not differ. A similar pattern among 65+ respondents was found for mental health service use. We found no indications that the incidence of examined health problems at T2 (no problems at T1, problems at T2) and T3 (no problems at T2, problems at T3) differed. Risk factors for mental health problems at T2 were mostly similar to risk factors at T3; sex and age were less/not a risk factor for sleep problems at T3 compared with at T2.

Conclusions

The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of the examined mental health problems examined nine months after the COVID-19 outbreak appear to be very stable across the end of 2018, 2019, and 2020 among the Dutch adult population and different age categories, suggesting that the Dutch adult population in general is rather resilient given all disruptions due to this pandemic.

Citation: van der Velden PG, Marchand M, Das M, Muffels R, Bosmans M (2022) The prevalence, incidence, and risk factors of mental health problems and mental health service use before and 9 months after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general Dutch population. A 3-wave prospective study. PLoS ONE 17(11): e0276834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834

Editor: Marcus Tolentino Silva, Universidade de Sorocaba, BRAZIL

Received: February 12, 2021; Accepted: October 14, 2022; Published: November 10, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 van der Velden et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The study was conducted using the Dutch Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) pane. The LISS panel started in 2007 and is based on a large traditional probability sample drawn from the Dutch population. The Dutch Research Counsel (NWO) funded the set-up of LISS. Panel members receive an incentive of €15 per hour for their participation and those who do not have a computer and/or Internet access are provided with the necessary equipment at home. Further information about all conducted surveys and regulations for free access to the data can be found at https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/ (in English). The LISS panel has received the international Data Seal of Approval (see https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/). All data of studies conducted with the LISS panel are anonymized.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The ongoing COVID-pandemic and preventive measures to contain the pandemic as much as possible have profound negative effects on affected countries and their residents. These effects vary from, but are not restricted to, higher death rates, recovery problems among infected, overloaded hospitals, closed schools, and diminished social contact, job loss, repeated lockdowns, political tensions, diminished economic growth, and large governmental financial debt. The global weekly Operational Update on COVID-19 of the World Health Organization of November 6 2020 and December 21 2020 [1], the period in which the last survey of the present study was conducted, reported 1,231,017 and 1,690061 deaths respectively and 48,534,508 and 75,704,857 confirmed COVID-19 cases respectively.

Although effective vaccines became available in 2021 [2], the question to what extent this pandemic affected the mental health of the general population is and remains important. Based on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory of Hobfoll [3, 4] we may expect that the pandemic has negative effects among the general population since it directly or indirectly threatens important resources such as safety and health (for instance by being infected, loss of a significant other), social contacts and support (for instance by social distancing and staying-at-home following lockdowns), work and income (for instance by loss of job or reduced work) among the general population. Resource loss is an important factor, like existing problems, in predicting the impact of stressful events on mental health such as this pandemic. However, according to the COR [3, 4] people also strive to obtain, retain, protect resources, and to restore lost resources (such as social contacts, employment, housing, health) and their resilience should not be underestimated [3–6]. The duration of this pandemic and effects may nevertheless undermine the capacity of individuals, communities, and countries to cope with the negative effects of this pandemic on the medium and longer term. This may cause stress and increase the risk for mental health problems.

To gain insight into the effects on mental health, prospective studies based on probability samples of the general population with pre-COVID-19 data are warranted. However, compared with the large number of cross-sectional COVID-19 studies that are often based on convenience samples for which the representativeness is unclear [7, 8], the number of prospective studies based on probability samples is relatively limited. In the beginning of 2021, we identified 12 prospective peer-reviewed studies that were based on probability samples of the general population with nonretrospective data on pre-COVID-19 mental health. Below we first provide a brief summary of the main outcomes of these studies. Given the aim of the present study, we focus on the prevalence of mental health problems among the total study samples and different age categories.

With respect to the UK, the study by Pierce et al. [9] showed that mean scores on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) increased significantly from 11.5 in 2018–2019 (data were collected year-round) to 12.6 in April 2020. This increase was not considered a simple continuation of previous upwards trends from 2014 to 2019. The prevalence of clinically significant mental distress increased from 18.9% in 2018–2019 to 27.3% in April 2020. The increase in mental distress appeared to be the largest in respondents 18–34 years old. The study by Proto and Quintana-Domeque [10] showed similar findings up to April 2020 but focused especially on ethnicity and gender. Niedzwiedz et al. [11] found that the proportion of people drinking four or more times per week increased (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.4) as did binge drinking (RR = 1.5). Daly et al. [12] analyzed data on mental health up to June 2020. Their results showed that the prevalence of mental health problems increased from 24.3% in 2017–2019 to 37.8% in April, 34.7% in May, and 31.9% in June 2020. Although elevated in June 2020 compared with 2017–2019, the prevalence was lower (-5.9%) than in April 2020. Respondents of 18–34 years old showed the largest increase in the prevalence of mental health problems.

Of the prospective studies in the USA, Twenge and Joiner [13] compared anxiety and depression symptomatology among adults in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; January-June 2019) and the Household Pulse Survey (HPS; April-May 2020). Respondents in the HPS were three to four times more likely to screen positive for anxiety or depression disorders compared with respondents in the NHIS. McGinty et al. [14] using data of the NHIS (2018) and the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Civic Life and Public Health Survey (April 2020), found that the prevalence of psychological distress increased from 3.9% to 13.6%, and the prevalence increased the most among young adults aged 18 to 29 years (4% to 24.0%). Daly et al. [15] used data of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNE, 2017–2018) and the Understanding America Study (UAS, March and April 2020). Results showed a significant higher prevalence of depression symptoms in March (10.6%) and April 2020 (14.4%) than before the outbreak (8.7%). Among 18–34 years old respondents, the increase was 7.3% between pre-COVID and March 2020, and 13.4% between March and April 2020. Among older respondents, a smaller increase between March and April 2020 was found. Breslau et al. [16] found that the prevalence of clinical psychological distress in February 2019 (10.9%) was as high as in May 2020 (10.2%). Among 20–39 and 40–59 years old respondents, the prevalence of respondents who suffered from an increase in problems (20.8% and 14.4% respectively) was higher than among those of 60 years and older. Ettman et al. [17] compared the prevalence of depression symptoms among respondents of the COVID-19 Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-being study conducted in the period March 31, 2020-April 13, 2020 and, like Daly et al. [15], and respondents of the NHNE Survey conducted in 2017–2018. Results showed that the prevalence of mild and severe symptoms was higher during COVID-19 than before (mild: 24.6% vs 16.2%, severe: 5.1% vs 0.7%). In contrast to pre-COVID-19, during the pandemic moderate to severe depression symptom levels differed between age categories with a higher prevalence among younger adults.

With respect to the Netherlands, Van der Velden et al. [18] found, like Breslau [16], no increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms among adults in March 2020 (17.0%) compared with the prevalence in November 2019 (16.9%). Compared with 18–34 years old respondents (19.7%), 35–49 years respondents had a significant higher prevalence (22.1%) and 65 years and older respondents had a lower prevalence of symptoms (10.6%) in March 2020. The study by Van Tilburg et al. [19] focused on respondents of 65 years and older. Results showed a significant but trivial improvement in May 2020 compared with November 2019. The follow-study by Van der Velden et al. [20] with data up to June 2020, showed a significant but small decrease in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms in June (15.3%) compared with March 2020 (17.2%) and November 2019 (16.8%). In addition, they found that the recovery of symptoms in the period November 2019- March 2020, did not differ significantly from the period March 2020 to June 2020.

The aforementioned studies mainly focused on psychological distress, anxiety, and depression symptoms, and did not provide insight into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of other relevant mental health problems such as fatigue and sleep problems, and other indicators of mental health such as the use of medicines for anxiety and depression symptoms, use of medicines for sleep problems, mental health service use, and impaired functioning due to health problems. Moreover, little is known about the post-COVID-outbreak incidence of mental health problems compared with the incidence of mental health problems before the COVID-19 outbreak. Finally, very little is known about the extent to which prospective risk factors of mental health problems before the outbreak are also prospective risk factors of problems and service use after the outbreak [18].

With respect to COVID-19 in the Netherlands, soon after the outbreak, the Dutch government implemented large financial support programs for companies who significantly lost revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic to allow them to keep people employed. In addition, governmental taxes were postponed. The Dutch governmental deficit increased in 2020 with 40 billion euro to 435 billion euro largely due to these financial programs [21]. In 2020, about 800,000 residents were tested positive for COVID-19, although the number of residents with COVID-19 in 2020 is presumably higher [22]. After the outbreak, residents and companies were confronted with several (partial) lockdowns in 2020, including closed schools and universities. Statistics Netherlands (CBS) reported that about 169,000 had died in the Netherlands, 10% more than expected compared with previous years [23].

The aim of the present prospective population-based study is to fill the above identified gaps of scientific knowledge. For this purpose, data on health were extracted from surveys conducted with the LISS panel in November-December 2018 (T1), November-December 2019 (T2), and November-December 2020 (T3), nine months after the COVID-19 outbreak. It is part of an ongoing COVID-19 study [18, 20, 24] using this longitudinal panel. Research questions of the present study were:

To what extent did the prevalence of mental health problems and mental health service use among the general population before the COVID-19 outbreak in November-December 2018 (T1) and 2019 (T2), differ from the prevalence after the COVID-19 outbreak in November-December 2020 (T3)?
To what extent did the incidence of mental health problems and mental health service use among the general population before the COVID-19 outbreak in November-December 2019 (T2), differ from the incidence after the COVID-19 outbreak in November-December 2020 (T3)?
To what extent were well-documented risk factors of mental health problems and mental health service use before the outbreak (November-December 2019, T2), comparable with risk factors of problems and service use after the outbreak (November-December 2020, T3), such as sex, age, education level, marital status, employment status and physical health [25–28].

Materials and methods

Procedures and participants

For the present study, data on mental health were extracted from the Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel [29]. This panel is based on a traditional probability sample drawn from the Dutch population register of 16 years and older by Statistics Netherlands and administered by Centerdata. People cannot sign up themselves as respondents for the LISS panel. The set-up was funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). Panel members receive an incentive of 15 euros per hour and members who do not have a computer and/or internet access are provided with the necessary equipment at home (for further information about the LISS panel, all conducted studies since 2007, and open access data see: https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl; in English).

Data on mental health of adults were extracted from the longitudinal Health module, in particular the waves in November 2018 (T1: N^invited = 6,466, response = 84.4%), in November 2019 (T2: N^{invited =} 5,954, response = 86.4%), and in November 2020 (T3: N^invited = 6,832, response = 83.6%), with reminders in December of each year. In total, 4,107 respondents who were 18 years or older at T1, participated at T1, T2, and T3. The total study sample consisted of 4,064 respondents with complete data across the three surveys (99%). We next weighted the data using 16 exclusive demographic profiles among the total adult Dutch population to optimize the representativeness of the current study, based on the data of Statistics Netherlands (see: https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/en/; in English). The 16 profiles were constructed using the variables sex (male, female), age (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, 65 years and older), and marital status (married and unmarried), yielding 2*4*2 = 16 demographic profiles. All findings are based on the weighted sample.

Ethical approval and informed consent

Since our research did not impose certain (experimental) behavior, our research did not need the approval of a Dutch Medical Ethical Testing committee according to the Dutch Law (see https://english.ccmo.nl/investigators/legal-framework-for-medical-scientific-research/your-research-is-it-subject-to-the-wmo-or-not). Nevertheless, the Health module (as part of the Longitudinal Core Study in LISS, starting in 2007) was evaluated and approved by the Board of Overseers, an Internal Review Board (IRB) until 2014. In accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), participants gave explicit written consent for the use of the collected data for scientific and policy relevant research.

Measures

We used the following six measures administered in each survey to obtain insight into the mental health problems and mental health service use of respondents in November-December 2018, 2019, and 2020. At each survey respondents’ sex, age, marital status, and employed status (primary occupation) was assessed. For the present study, marital status and employed status were recoded into married (1 = yes, 2 = no) and employed (1 = yes, 2 = no).

Anxiety and depression symptoms.

Anxiety and depression symptoms were examined using the Mental Health Index or Inventory (5-item subscale of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-36, [30, 31])). Respondents were asked to rate their mental health during the past month on 6-point Likert scales (0 = never to 5 = continuously). After recoding the negatively formulated items (items 1, 2, and 4), the total scores were computed and multiplied by four (range 0 to 100, all Cronbach’s α > .85). Lower scores reflect higher symptom levels. A cut-off of ≤ 59 was used to identify respondents with moderate to severe symptom levels and a cut-off of ≤ 44 to identify respondents with severe symptom levels [32].

Fatigue and sleep problems.

Respondents were furthermore administered a list of 10 (physical) problems people may suffer from, varying from heart complaints to sleeping problems. For the present study, we focused on the items ‘Do you regularly suffer from fatigue’ and ‘Do you regularly suffer from sleep problems’ (1 = no, 2 = yes).

Impaired functioning due to (mental) health problems.

Psychopathology is consistently and independently associated with increased disability [31]. Health-related impaired functioning were assessed with the question ‘To what extent did your physical health or emotional problems hinder your work over the past month, for instance in your job, the housekeeping, or in school? This question is comparable with questions of the MOS-36 [33] and the European Health Interview Surveys (SILC-EU) [34], and had a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much). For the present study, the scores were recoded into low (1 = 1,2,3) and high (2 = 4,5).

Medicines for anxiety and depression.

Use of medicines were assessed for several conditions varying from medicines for blood pressure to sleep problems (‘Are you currently taking medicine at least once a week for ‥ ‘). In the present study, we focused on the current use of medicines for anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep problems (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Mental health service use.

Mental health service use (MHS) was assessed by one question ‘How often did you use the following health services over the past 12 months?’, with answer categories varying from psychiatrist/ psychologist/ psychotherapist to dentist. For the present study, we focused on the use of a psychiatrist, psychologist, or psychotherapist and recoded ‘use’ into ‘no’ (0 = no use) and ‘yes’ (1 = once or more) in the past 12 months.

Physical disease.

Respondents were administered a list of 19 physical diseases/ problems and asked if they had one or more of these diseases/problems according to a physician (‘Has a physician told you this last year that you suffer from one of the following diseases/ problems?’) varying from cancer to chronic lung disease. For the present study, we recoded the answers into ‘no disease’ (1 = none of the diseases/problems included in ‘diseases’) and ‘disease’ (2 = angina; pain in the chest a heart attack including infarction or coronary thrombosis or another heart problem including heart failure; stroke or brain infarction or a disease affecting the blood vessels in the brain; diabetes or a too high blood sugar level; chronic lung disease such as chronic bronchitis or emphysema; asthma; arthritis, including osteoarthritis, or rheumatism, bone decalcification or osteoporosis; cancer or malignant tumor, including leukemia or lymphoma; and/or benign tumor (skin tumor, polyps, angioma)).

Statistical methods

To examine the extent to which the prevalence of the seven assessed mental health problems after the COVID-19 outbreak in November-December 2020 (T3) changed compared with the prevalence in November-December 2018 (T1) and 2019 (T2), generalized estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal ordinal data were conducted (GENLIN in SPSS version 28, using an autoregressive working correlation structure) with problems at T1, T2 and T3 as dependent variables (separate analyses for each dependent variable). In the analyses, sex, age, marital status, employment status, education level, and disease at T1, T2, and T3 were used as control variables.

For the incidence at T3 (prevalence of new cases), the prevalence of mental health problems and use at T3 was assessed among those without these problems and or use at T2. Likewise, for the incidence at T2, problems and use at T2 were assessed among those without these problems and use at T1 (the incidence at T1 could not be computed among the current study sample). To assess the extent to which the incidence of mental health problems and use in November-December 2020 (T3) changed compared with the incidence in November-December 2019 (T2), multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted as follows. The incidence at T2 and T3 cannot directly be compared because those with problems and use at T2 and T3 without problems and use at the previous survey partly overlap. To enable a comparison of the incidence at T2 and T3, we therefore first randomly split the total study sample into two almost equal independent subgroups of respondents (A: n = 2,025; and B: n = 2,019; because of the weighting the numbers of both groups slightly differs). In both subgroups, the incidence at T2 (A1, B1) and T3 (A2, B2) were computed. We finally compared the incidence of A1and B2, and compared the incidence of B1 and A2 using logistic regression with the same control variables (control variables at T1 for analyses incidence at T2, control variables at T2 for analyses incidence at T3).

Prospective risk factors of mental health problems and service use were examined using multivariate logistic regression analyses with problems and service use at T2 and T3 as dependent variables. The variables sex, age, education level, marital status, employment status, and physical disease at T1 and T2, respectively, were simultaneously entered as predictors (for instance, variables at T2 were entered as predictors for problems at T3).

Results

Nonresponse

Multivariate logistic regression analyses (before weighting) with nonresponse at T2 and T3 as the dependent variable (1 = participated at T1, T2 and T3, 2 = did not participate at T2 and T3) showed that the nonresponse was not significantly (p > .05) associated with the seven mental health and mental service use variables at T1, disease at T1, and not with sex, employment status, and education level at T1. Unmarried respondents (85.1%) compared with married respondents (90.4%) participated less at T1, T2, and T3 (adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.66–0.98, p = .029)). Compared with 18–34 years old respondents (79.1%), 34–50 years old (85.7%, aOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.10–1.87, p = .008), 50–64 years old (92.3%, aOR = 2.80, 95% CI = 2.10–3.75; p < .001), and 65 years or older respondents (90.7%, aOR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.53–2.84, p < .001) participated significantly more often. As described, the study sample was weighted for sex, marital status, and age.

Characteristics of respondents

The characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. It shows, among others, that in absolute numbers as time passes by, more respondents are married, become older, have a higher education level, as well as more often have a physical disease. At T3, the youngest respondents were 20 years old.

Download:

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents (N = 4,064).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.t001

Prevalence of mental health problems and service use of total study sample

The prevalence of the assessed mental health problems and service use among the total study sample at T1, T2, and T3 are presented in Table 2. The prevalence of mental health problems and service use at T3 did not significantly differ from T1 and T2 except for impaired functioning due to health problems. The prevalence of impaired functioning due to health problems was significantly lower at T3 (8.5%) than at T1 (9.9%), but not significantly different from the prevalence at T2 (8.5%).

Download:

Table 2. Prevalence of mental health problems and service use (N = 4,064).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.t002

Analyses for anxiety and depression scores using the cut-off score of ≤ 44 of the MHI-5 showed similar outcomes: the prevalence of severe symptom levels at T1 (6.6%), T2 (6.5%) and T3 (6.3%) also did not differ significantly (results not shown in table).

Prevalence of mental health problems and service use among age categories

Among respondents 18–34 years old, the prevalence of anxiety symptoms at T3 (22.3%) was significantly higher than at T1 ((19.9%, adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 1.30, 95% Confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.08–1.57, p = .009)), but not compared with T2 (20.7%). In contrast, among respondents 50–64 years old, the prevalence of these symptoms at T3 (13.3%) was significantly lower than at T1 (14.6%, aOR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68–0.99, p = .043) and T2 (15.1%; aOR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.68–0.95, p = .013).

With respect to sleep problems, among respondents 18–34 years old, the prevalence at T3 (14.6%) was significantly higher than at T1 (13.2%; aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.02–1.39, p = .023), but not compared with T2 (14.8%).

For fatigue, no significant changes in the prevalence were found between T1, T2 and T3 across the four age categories. Only among respondents 50–64 years old, the prevalence of impaired functioning due to health problems differed significantly to some extent: the prevalence was lower at T3 (10.6%) compared with T1 (12.2; aOR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62–0.99, p = .039, but not compared with T2 (10.0%).

The use of medicine for anxiety and depression among respondents 18–34 years old was significantly more prevalent at T3 (3.4%) than at T2 (2.9%; aOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.01–1.46, p = .040) but not at T1. Concerning the use of medicines for sleep problems, no significant changes in the prevalence were found between T1, T2, and T3 across the four age categories.

Finally, the use of mental health professionals among respondents 65 years old and older decreased significantly in the 12 months before T3 (2.2%) compared with T1 (3.5%; aOR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.41–0.87, p = .006) and T2 (3.1%; aOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.49–0.97, p = .031). No significant differences were found between T1 and T2 (for details see S1 Appendix Age categories).

Incidence of mental health problems and service use of total study sample

Table 3 shows the incidence of mental health problems and service use at T2 and T3 among the total study sample and the results of crosswise multivariate logistic regression analyses (A1 incidence versus B2 incidence, and B1 incidence versus A2 incidence) showing that the incidence of mental health problems and service use at T2 and T3 did not differ significantly. Similar analyses using the cut-off ≤ 44 of the MHI-5, showed that the incidence of severe anxiety and depression symptom levels at T2 (3.7%) and T3 (3.3%) also did not significantly differ (results not shown in table).

Download:

Table 3. Incidence of mental health problems and service use (N = 4,064).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.t003

Incidence of mental health problems among age categories

Due to the cell counts of the incidence of mental health problems and service use at T2 and T3 (see Table 3) we limited the (cross-wise) multivariate logistic regression analyses among the four age categories to the incidence of anxiety and depression symptoms. The events-per-variable (EPV) ratio for the other dependent variables, with seven predictors including control variables, became lower than 10. The results of these analyses showed no significant differences in incidence between T2 and T3 among 18–34 years old respondents (T2^incidence = 12.4%, T3^incidence = 13.1%), 35–49 years old respondents (T2^incidence = 9.9%, T3^incidence = 9.7%), 50–64 years old respondents (T2^incidence = 6.2%, T3^incidence = 5.0%), and 65 years and older respondents (T2^incidence = 6.1%, T3^incidence = 4.8%). Using the cut-off ≤ 44 of the MHI-5 also did not reveal significant differences between the T2 and T3 incidence (results not shown in table).

Risk factors of mental health problems and service use

In Table 4, the results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses are presented (for 95% confidence intervals of the adjusted OR’s, see S2 Appendix Risk factors). Table 4 shows that existing mental health problems and service use (e.g., assessed one year earlier) were by far the strongest predictors for problems and use before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. For example, about 90% of the respondents with existing sleep problems and fatigue at T1 and T2, had sleep problems and fatigue at T2 and T3, respectively. With respect to anxiety and depression symptoms at T2 and T3, almost the same predictors were significant for these symptoms at T2 and T3: only those with a medium education level were no longer less at risk of symptoms than those with a relatively low education level. An almost similar pattern can be observed for sleep problems, only males and females did no longer differ in sleep problems after the outbreak (T3). However, 35–49 years old respondents were more at risk of sleep problems after the outbreak (at T3), but not before (at T2) relative to 65+ respondents. The patterns of risk factors of fatigue at T2 and T3 are identical. For impaired functioning due to health problems, e.g., that physical health or emotional problems hinder respondents’ work over the past month, for instance, in their job, housekeeping, or in school, the results show that significant differences between subgroups disappeared after the outbreak: those with a medium and high education level compared with those with a relative low level, males compared with females, and youngest adult group (18–34 years) compared with 65+ respondents no longer differed in impaired functioning due to health problems. Finally, for mental health service use those employed before the outbreak (T2) used services significantly less often after the outbreak (T3) than unemployed, in contrast to the period before the outbreak (T1-T2). Because of the relative low prevalence of medicines for anxiety/depression and medicines for sleep problems, we have omitted these dependent variables from the analyses.

Download:

Table 4. Risk factors of mental health problems and service use (N = 4,064).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.t004

Discussion

The aims of the present prospective population-based study were to examine the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for mental health problems and mental health service use among the adult general population 9 months after the COVID-19 outbreak, compared with before the outbreak (November-December 2018 and 2019). To optimize the representativeness of the study sample (N = 4,064), data were weighted using 16 demographic profiles of the adult Dutch population.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from the present study is that the prevalence, incidence, as well as risk factors of the assessed mental health problems and service use appear to be very stable among the general population (cf. [35]). We found no indications that on population level, the prevalence or incidence of anxiety and depression symptoms, sleep problems, fatigue, impaired functioning due to health problems, use of medicines for sleep problems, anxiety and depression, and mental health service use increased in November-December 2020, compared with pre-COVID-19 mental health and service use in November-December 2018 and in 2019. Results showed a small significant decrease in the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms at T3 (13.3%) compared with T1 (14.6%) and T2 (15.1%), and a small significant decrease in the mental health service use at T3 (2.2%) compare to T1 (3.5%) and T2 (3.1%). Based on the results of previous COVID-19 studies, we also examined the prevalence among 18–34 years, 35–49 years, 50–64 years, and 65 years and older respondents separately, showing almost identical results. Results did not show differences between mental health problems and mental health service use at T1 and T2 on the one side, and problems and use at T3 on the other side, except among 50–64 years old respondents and among 65+ old respondents. Our results about mental health problems seem to differ from almost all identified COVID-19 studies in the UK and US, but these studies focused on mental health problems until the summer of 2020.

Importantly, in our previous study [20], assessing anxiety and depression symptoms until the summer of 2020 (June), like the study of Breslau et al. [16] and Hyland et al. [36] no increase in prevalence compared with November-December 2019 was observed. Van Tilburg et al. [19] reported a similar finding among older respondents. As described, in the study of Breslau et al. [16] also no differences between the past-month prevalence of serious psychological distress in May 2020 and past-year prevalence assessed in February 2019 were found. In addition, they [16] found an incidence of 3.2% of serious distress according to K6. Although we used the MHI-5, this seems close to our incidence number for severe anxiety and depression symptom levels at T2 (3.7%) and T3 (3.3%). The extent to which the incidence of mental health problems after the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK and USA differed from the incidence before the outbreak is unknown. Nevertheless, in our previous study [18] we found no indications that the recovery of symptoms after the outbreak differed from the recovery before the outbreak. A recent report by Statistics Netherlands [46] showed that in the period July 2020-September 2020, 83% of the Dutch residents were positive about their general health, compared with 79–80% in the same period in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

In our study we focused on the mental health effects of this pandemic at the end of 2020, nine months after the outbreak. The identified studies with pre-COVID-19 outbreak data on mental health (see Introduction) were aimed at the mental health effects during the first months after the outbreak. This differences in study period may be of relevance. The meta-analysis by Robinson et al. [37] of peer-reviewed and all other non-peer reviewed population-based studies (until January 11, 2011) with pre-COVID-19 data found that “There was a small increase in mental health symptoms soon after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic that decreased and was comparable to pre-pandemic levels by mid-2020 among most population sub-groups and symptom types”. In the recent post-outbreak USA population-based study by Riehm et al. [38] a similar pattern was found: “by August 1, the odds of mental distress had returned to levels comparable to March 11.”

We are not aware of prospective population-based COVID-19 studies to compare our findings on sleep problems, fatigue, use of pharmaceuticals, and mental health service use to. For example, sleep problems were assessed in many studies [39–41], but all studies used cross-sectional study designs and many were based on convenience samples.

How can we, given the outcomes of several studies showing an increase in mental health problems [9–17], understand the contradicting results of the present study [20, 42]?

Several elements, other than the resilience of people [3–5], may play a role and may help explain these differences, but future empirical research is required to examine and test these elements and explanations. First, unemployment might be a cause for increases in mental health problems [43] but unemployment remained relatively stable in the Netherlands during the COVID 19 outbreak, whereas they increased strongly in the USA in March and April 2020. However, also in the UK the unemployment figures did not rise as dramatically as in the USA in the first two months after the outbreak. From May 2020 on, due to the COVID-19 recovery programs put in place, the employment figures declined again strongly in the USA whereas they remained stable in the UK and the Netherlands [44]. Hence, the unemployment incidence might explain some of the differences with the USA, but they cannot explain the differences with the UK findings.

Analyses of the UK Household Longitudinal Study data showed an increase until the summer of 2020 in contrast to the Netherlands [20]. Another possible explanation could be that the Brexit process and the final end of the UK membership of the EU in 2020, similar to the USA due to the presidential elections, strongly divided the country, resulting in societal tensions and uncertainties about the future outside the EU. These tensions and uncertainties may have caused stress and therefore may have increased the risk of mental health problems [45–47]. With respect to the political climate, other than in the USA where the COVID-19 pandemic became part of an intense political debate and elections, to date this pandemic did not result in a similar political discourse in the Netherlands as in the USA.

Furthermore, mental disorders were much more prevalent in the USA than in the Netherlands, which may increase the risk for higher post-outbreak mental health problems [48]. It might be that the Dutch welfare and mental health care system provided better support to people with mental health issues during the COVID-19 outbreak or to people who experienced mental health issues after the outbreak than the USA or UK welfare system and mental health care system does. Unemployed adults (or adults who lost their jobs due to this pandemic) can invoke for unemployment benefits and, in principle, each Dutch citizen has health care insurance regardless of being employed or not in contrast to for example the USA.

Finally, we used other questionnaires to examine mental health than the UK and USA studies did (for instance, we used the MHI-5 and not the GHQ-12 as in the UK and K6 as in the USA studies). It is unknown if our study would have yielded other results, specifically a strong increase in mental health problems after the COVID-19 outbreak, when we had administered the GHQ-12 or K6 instead of the MHI-5. However, given the high correlations between such mental health measures [49] we do not consider that very likely.

The role of pre-COVID mental health and stressors

The absence of an increase of mental health problems between T1 and T2 on the one side and T3 on the other side does not indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak has not negatively affected the mental health of individuals. As shown by the incidence rates, a minority suffers from mental health problems not experienced one year earlier that may be partly related to the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, besides this pandemic, on a yearly basis, about 40% of adults were confronted with potentially traumatic and life-events that increase the risk for mental health problems among those confronted with these events [50, 51]. There are no valid reasons to assume that those events put mental health less at risk because of this COVID-19 pandemic. The stress sensitization model even suggests the opposite [52]. In other words, without ignoring the disruptive effects of this pandemic, we should be aware this pandemic does not occur in a vacuum. The very strong predictive values of pre-existing mental health problems clearly demonstrate, as in the study by Breslau et al. [16], this aspect. Perhaps this pandemic partly reveals mental health problems and patterns of mental health problems that were already present before the pandemic but, because of the large (media and scientific) attention towards the mental health effects [7, 53], have become more visible because of the pandemic. An increased visibility of mental health problems should not be confused with an (strong) increased prevalence of mental health problems. In either way, this underlines the relevance of nonretrospective pre-COVID mental health assessment among post-COVID-19 population-based probability study samples.

Strengths and limitations

Although our results showed very clear patterns, some limitations need to be discussed when interpreting and using the outcomes of this study. We did not conduct clinical interviews that would certainly have enriched our study. Although our results do not point in the direction of a strong post-COVID-19 outbreak increase of mental disorders, future studies using clinical interviews will provide further insight into this topic. We extended previous prospective COVID-19 studies by assessing sleep problems, fatigue, use of medicines for sleep problems, anxiety and depression, impaired functioning due to health problems, and mental health service use. As described, sleep problems, fatigue and impaired functioning were assessed by one item questions. Future research is needed to examine the course of different aspects of sleep problems, fatigue and impaired functioning. In addition, future studies focusing on other mental health problems such as eating disorders, panic attacks, phobias, alcohol and drug misuse, and low self-esteem are warranted. The three surveys had a one-year time interval. Although we examined anxiety and depression symptoms in March 2019, March 2020, and June 2020 in previous studies, we cannot rule out the possibility that significant increases and decreases can be observed using shorter time intervals. The last survey in the present study was conducted in November-December 2020. It is unclear to what extent the results can be generalized to other developed countries who were hit harder by the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, this study focused on adults and did not include children and adolescents who might be affected differently. At T3, the youngest respondent was 20 years old. Nevertheless, the prospective study design, the use of a large population-based probability sample, high response rates, that the nonresponse was not related to our dependent variables, and the weighting of data using 16 demographic profiles of the Dutch population are major strengths of the present study.

Final conclusions

An important lesson that can be drawn from all prospective studies to date is that the large majority of the general population in general was capable, even though this pandemic disrupted many aspects of life, to preserve their mental health during 2020. Similar to before the outbreak, a small part of the general population developed mental health problems during the pandemic that were not present before. Interestingly, the study by Pan et al. [54] showed that among people with depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders, symptoms did not increase during the first months after the outbreak (cf. [20]). We offered possible explanations for the differences in results between the studies in the UK and USA on the one hand and the Netherlands on the other hand. Future comparative multi-country studies, including middle and low-income countries, are needed to further disentangle the complex relationships between especially existing welfare and health care systems, the size and dosage of governmental financial support programs, political systems and tensions, preventive measures, and mental health among the general population. Ongoing monitoring of the mental health of the general population is needed because the duration of this pandemic may undermine the capacity of individuals to cope with the consequences on the longer term.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Age categories.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Risk factors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276834.s002

(DOCX)

References

1. WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Epidemiological Update and Weekly Operational Update. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports (accessed February 10, 2021).
2. WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Vaccines. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines (accessed February 10, 2021).
3. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989; 44: 513–24. pmid:2648906
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002; 6: 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-268064307
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Chen S, Bonanno GA. Psychological adjustment during the global outbreak of COVID-19: A resilience perspective. Psychol Trauma 2020; 2: s51–s54. pmid:32538658
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Wessely S. Don’t panic! Short and long term psychological reactions to the new terrorism: the role of information and the authorities. J Mental Health 2005; 14: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230500048099
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Prati G, Mancini AD. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol Med. 2021; 1–11. pmid:33436130
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Santabárbara J, Lasheras I, Lipnicki DM, Bueno-Notivol J, Pérez-Moreno M, López-Antón R, et al. Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020; 109:110207. pmid:33338558
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Pierce M, Hope H, Ford T, Hatch S, Hotopf M, John A, et al. Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; 7: 883–892. pmid:32707037
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Proto E, Quintana-Domeque C. COVID-19 and mental health deterioration by ethnicity and gender in the UK. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244419. pmid:33406085
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. 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. 2020; 25: jech-2020-215060. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-215060
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Daly M, Sutin AR, Robinson E. Longitudinal changes in mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Psychol Med. 2020; 13:1–10. pmid:33183370
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Twenge JM, Joiner TE. U.S. Census Bureau-assessed prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Depress Anxiety 2020; 1–3. pmid:32667081
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. McGinty EE, Presskreischer R, Han H, Barry CL. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020; 324: 93–94. pmid:32492088
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Daly M, Sutin A, Robinson E. Depression reported by US adults in 2017–2018 and March and April 2020. J Affect Disord. 2020; 278: 131–135. pmid:32956962
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Breslau J, Finucane ML, Locker AR, Baird MD, Roth EA, Collins RL. A longitudinal study of psychological distress in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prev Med. 2021; 43: 106362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106362
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Ettman CK, Abdalla SM, Cohen GH, Sampson L, Vivier PM, Galea S. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(9): e2019686. pmid:32876685
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. van der Velden PG, Contino C, Das M, van Loon P, Bosmans MWG. Anxiety and depression symptoms, and lack of emotional support among the general population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A prospective national study on prevalence and risk factors. J Affective Disord. 2020; 277: 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.026
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. van Tilburg TG, Steinmetz S, Stolte E, van der Roest H, de Vries DH. Loneliness and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study among Dutch older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020; gbaa111. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa111
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. van der Velden PG, Hyland P, Contino C, von Gaudecker HM, Muffels R, Das M. Anxiety and depression symptoms, the recovery from symptoms, and loneliness before and after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population: Findings from a Dutch population-based longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0245057. pmid:33411843
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. CBS (Statistics Netherlands). COVID-19 impact on central government. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/coronavirus-crisis-cbs-figures/covid-19-impact-on-central-government (accessed June 7, 2020).
22. Dutch Government. Number of confirmed cases. https://coronadashboard.government.nl/landelijk/positief-geteste-mensen (accessed June 7 2021).
23. CBS (Statistics Netherlands). Almost 169 thousand people died in 2020, 10 percent more than expected (in Dutch) https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2021/04/bijna-169-duizend-mensen-overleden-in-2020-10-procent-meer-dan-verwacht (accessed February 10, 2021).
24. van der Velden PG, Marchand M, Cuelenaere B, Das M. Pre-outbreak determinants of perceived risks of corona infection and preventive measures taken. A prospective population-based study. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0234600. pmid:32609763
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Modini M, Joyce S, Mykletun A, Christensen H, Bryant RA, Mitchell PB, et al. The mental health benefits of employment: Results of a systematic meta-review. Australas Psychiatry. 2016; 24: 331–633. pmid:26773063
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Read JR, Sharpe L, Modini M, Dear BF. Multimorbidity and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2017; 221: 36–46. pmid:28628766
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Roberts T, Miguel Esponda G, Krupchanka D, Shidhaye R, Patel V, Rathod S. Factors associated with health service utilisation for common mental disorders: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018; 18–262: 1–19. pmid:30134869
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, et al. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980–2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43: 476–493. pmid:24648481
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Scherpenzeel A, Das M. True longitudinal and probability based internet panels: evidence from The Netherlands. In: Das M, Ester P, Kaczmirek L, editors. Social and behavioral esearch and the internet: advances in applied methods and research strategies. Taylor & Francis, New York, 2011, 77–104. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844922
30. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey, SF-36: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 1992; 30; 473–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/3765916
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Means-Christensen AJ, Arnau RC, Tonidandel AM, Bramson R, Meagher MW. An efficient method of identifying major depression and panic disorder in primary care. J Behav Med. 2005; 28: 565–572. pmid:16249822
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Driessen M. Een beschrijving van de MHI-5 in de gezondheidsmodule van het Permanent Onderzoek Leefsituatie [A Description of the MHI-5 in the Health Module of Permanent Research of Living Conditions, POLS]. Den Haag, Statistics Netherlands, 2011.
33. Ormel J, VonKorff M, Ustun TB, Pini S, Korten A, Oldehinkel T. Common mental disorders and disability across cultures. Results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. JAMA. 1994; 272:1741–1748. pmid:7966922
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Eurostat, 2016. European Health Interview Survey. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5926729/KS-RA-13-018-EN.PDF/26c7ea80-01d8-420ebdc6-e9d5f6578e7c (Accessed February 2, 2016)
35. de Graaf R, ten Have M, van Gool C, van Dorsselaer S. Prevalence of mental disorders and trends from 1996 to 2009. Results from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012; 47: 203–213. pmid:21197531
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Hyland P, Shevlin M, McBride O, Murphy J, Karatzias T, Bentall RP, et al. Anxiety and depression in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020; 142: 249–256. pmid:32716520
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Robinson E, Sutin AR, Daly M, Jones A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. J Affect Disord. 2022; 296: 567–576. pmid:34600966
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Riehm KE, Holingue C, Smail EJ, Kapteyn A, Bennett D, Thrul J, et al. Trajectories of Mental Distress Among U.S. Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann Behav Med. 2021; 55: 93–102. pmid:33555336
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Jahrami H, BaHammam AS, Bragazzi NL, Saif Z, Faris M, Vitiello MV. Sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic by population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 202; 17: 299–313. pmid:33108269
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Nochaiwong S, Ruengorn C, Thavorn K, Hutton B, Awiphan R, Phosuya C, et al. Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10173. pmid:33986414
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Souza LFF, Paineiras-Domingos LL, Melo-Oliveira MES, Pessanha-Freitas J, Moreira-Marconi E, Lacerda ACR, et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the quality of sleep by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A systematic review. Cien Saude Colet. 2021 Apr;26(4):1457–1466. pmid:33886773
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Heinrich LM, Gullone E. The clinical significance of loneliness: a literature review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006; 26: 695–718. pmid:16952717
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90: 53–76. pmid:15641890
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. OECD. Unemployment rate (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/52570002-en. (accessed February 7, 2021).
45. APA. Presidential Election a Source of Significant Stress for More Americans than 2016 Presidential Race. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/10/election-stress (accessed June 7 2021).
46. O’Neill S. Brexit and Northern Ireland: leaders must consider the mental health of the population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019; 6: 372–373. pmid:30952569
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Smith KB, Hibbing MV, Hibbing JR. Friends, relatives, sanity, and health: The costs of politics. PLoS ONE 2019; 14: e0221870. pmid:31553726
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, Gasquet I, Kovess V, Lepine JP, et al. Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA. 2004; 291: 2581–2590. pmid:15173149
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Batterham P, Sunderland M, Slade T, Calear A, Carragher N. (2018). Assessing distress in the community: Psychometric properties and crosswalk comparison of eight measures of psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2018; 48: 1316–1324. pmid:28967345
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Hentschel S, Eid M, Kutscher T. The influence of major life events and personality traits on the stability of affective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2016; 18: 719–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9744-y
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. van der Velden PG, Komproe I, Contino C, de Bruijne M, Kleber RJ, Das M, et al. Which groups affected by Potentially Traumatic Events (PTEs) are most at risk for a lack of social support? A prospective population-based study on the 12-month prevalence of PTEs and risk factors for a lack of post-event social support. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0232477. pmid:32469880
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Harkness KL, Hayden EP, Lopez-Duran NL. Stress sensitivity and stress sensitization in psychopathology: an introduction to the special section. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015; 124:1–3. pmid:25688427
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Sheridan Rains L, Johnson S, Barnett P, Steare T, Needle JJ, Carr S, et al. 2020. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021; 56: 13–24. pmid:32804258
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Pan KY, Kok AAL, Eikelenboom M, Horsfall M, Jörg F, Luteijn RA, et al. The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders: a longitudinal study of three Dutch case-control cohorts. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021; 8(2):121–129. pmid:33306975
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Epidemiological Update and Weekly Operational Update. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports (accessed February 10, 2021).

[ref2] 2. WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Vaccines. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines (accessed February 10, 2021).

[ref3] 3. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989; 44: 513–24. pmid:2648906
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[4] View Article

[5] PubMed/NCBI

[6] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002; 6: 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-268064307
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Chen S, Bonanno GA. Psychological adjustment during the global outbreak of COVID-19: A resilience perspective. Psychol Trauma 2020; 2: s51–s54. pmid:32538658
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Wessely S. Don’t panic! Short and long term psychological reactions to the new terrorism: the role of information and the authorities. J Mental Health 2005; 14: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230500048099
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Prati G, Mancini AD. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol Med. 2021; 1–11. pmid:33436130
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Santabárbara J, Lasheras I, Lipnicki DM, Bueno-Notivol J, Pérez-Moreno M, López-Antón R, et al. Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020; 109:110207. pmid:33338558
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Pierce M, Hope H, Ford T, Hatch S, Hotopf M, John A, et al. Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; 7: 883–892. pmid:32707037
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Proto E, Quintana-Domeque C. COVID-19 and mental health deterioration by ethnicity and gender in the UK. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244419. pmid:33406085
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. 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. 2020; 25: jech-2020-215060. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-215060
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Daly M, Sutin AR, Robinson E. Longitudinal changes in mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Psychol Med. 2020; 13:1–10. pmid:33183370
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Twenge JM, Joiner TE. U.S. Census Bureau-assessed prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Depress Anxiety 2020; 1–3. pmid:32667081
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] PubMed/NCBI

[43] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. McGinty EE, Presskreischer R, Han H, Barry CL. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020; 324: 93–94. pmid:32492088
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Daly M, Sutin A, Robinson E. Depression reported by US adults in 2017–2018 and March and April 2020. J Affect Disord. 2020; 278: 131–135. pmid:32956962
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Breslau J, Finucane ML, Locker AR, Baird MD, Roth EA, Collins RL. A longitudinal study of psychological distress in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prev Med. 2021; 43: 106362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106362
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Ettman CK, Abdalla SM, Cohen GH, Sampson L, Vivier PM, Galea S. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(9): e2019686. pmid:32876685
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] PubMed/NCBI

[58] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. van der Velden PG, Contino C, Das M, van Loon P, Bosmans MWG. Anxiety and depression symptoms, and lack of emotional support among the general population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A prospective national study on prevalence and risk factors. J Affective Disord. 2020; 277: 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.026
View Article
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. van Tilburg TG, Steinmetz S, Stolte E, van der Roest H, de Vries DH. Loneliness and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study among Dutch older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020; gbaa111. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa111
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. van der Velden PG, Hyland P, Contino C, von Gaudecker HM, Muffels R, Das M. Anxiety and depression symptoms, the recovery from symptoms, and loneliness before and after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population: Findings from a Dutch population-based longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0245057. pmid:33411843
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. CBS (Statistics Netherlands). COVID-19 impact on central government. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/coronavirus-crisis-cbs-figures/covid-19-impact-on-central-government (accessed June 7, 2020).

[ref22] 22. Dutch Government. Number of confirmed cases. https://coronadashboard.government.nl/landelijk/positief-geteste-mensen (accessed June 7 2021).

[ref23] 23. CBS (Statistics Netherlands). Almost 169 thousand people died in 2020, 10 percent more than expected (in Dutch) https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2021/04/bijna-169-duizend-mensen-overleden-in-2020-10-procent-meer-dan-verwacht (accessed February 10, 2021).

[ref24] 24. van der Velden PG, Marchand M, Cuelenaere B, Das M. Pre-outbreak determinants of perceived risks of corona infection and preventive measures taken. A prospective population-based study. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0234600. pmid:32609763
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Modini M, Joyce S, Mykletun A, Christensen H, Bryant RA, Mitchell PB, et al. The mental health benefits of employment: Results of a systematic meta-review. Australas Psychiatry. 2016; 24: 331–633. pmid:26773063
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Read JR, Sharpe L, Modini M, Dear BF. Multimorbidity and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2017; 221: 36–46. pmid:28628766
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Roberts T, Miguel Esponda G, Krupchanka D, Shidhaye R, Patel V, Rathod S. Factors associated with health service utilisation for common mental disorders: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018; 18–262: 1–19. pmid:30134869
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, et al. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980–2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43: 476–493. pmid:24648481
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Scherpenzeel A, Das M. True longitudinal and probability based internet panels: evidence from The Netherlands. In: Das M, Ester P, Kaczmirek L, editors. Social and behavioral esearch and the internet: advances in applied methods and research strategies. Taylor & Francis, New York, 2011, 77–104. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844922

[ref30] 30. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey, SF-36: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 1992; 30; 473–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/3765916
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Means-Christensen AJ, Arnau RC, Tonidandel AM, Bramson R, Meagher MW. An efficient method of identifying major depression and panic disorder in primary care. J Behav Med. 2005; 28: 565–572. pmid:16249822
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Driessen M. Een beschrijving van de MHI-5 in de gezondheidsmodule van het Permanent Onderzoek Leefsituatie [A Description of the MHI-5 in the Health Module of Permanent Research of Living Conditions, POLS]. Den Haag, Statistics Netherlands, 2011.

[ref33] 33. Ormel J, VonKorff M, Ustun TB, Pini S, Korten A, Oldehinkel T. Common mental disorders and disability across cultures. Results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. JAMA. 1994; 272:1741–1748. pmid:7966922
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Eurostat, 2016. European Health Interview Survey. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5926729/KS-RA-13-018-EN.PDF/26c7ea80-01d8-420ebdc6-e9d5f6578e7c (Accessed February 2, 2016)

[ref35] 35. de Graaf R, ten Have M, van Gool C, van Dorsselaer S. Prevalence of mental disorders and trends from 1996 to 2009. Results from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012; 47: 203–213. pmid:21197531
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Hyland P, Shevlin M, McBride O, Murphy J, Karatzias T, Bentall RP, et al. Anxiety and depression in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020; 142: 249–256. pmid:32716520
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Robinson E, Sutin AR, Daly M, Jones A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. J Affect Disord. 2022; 296: 567–576. pmid:34600966
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Riehm KE, Holingue C, Smail EJ, Kapteyn A, Bennett D, Thrul J, et al. Trajectories of Mental Distress Among U.S. Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann Behav Med. 2021; 55: 93–102. pmid:33555336
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Jahrami H, BaHammam AS, Bragazzi NL, Saif Z, Faris M, Vitiello MV. Sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic by population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 202; 17: 299–313. pmid:33108269
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Nochaiwong S, Ruengorn C, Thavorn K, Hutton B, Awiphan R, Phosuya C, et al. Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10173. pmid:33986414
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Souza LFF, Paineiras-Domingos LL, Melo-Oliveira MES, Pessanha-Freitas J, Moreira-Marconi E, Lacerda ACR, et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the quality of sleep by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A systematic review. Cien Saude Colet. 2021 Apr;26(4):1457–1466. pmid:33886773
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Heinrich LM, Gullone E. The clinical significance of loneliness: a literature review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006; 26: 695–718. pmid:16952717
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90: 53–76. pmid:15641890
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. OECD. Unemployment rate (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/52570002-en. (accessed February 7, 2021).

[ref45] 45. APA. Presidential Election a Source of Significant Stress for More Americans than 2016 Presidential Race. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/10/election-stress (accessed June 7 2021).

[ref46] 46. O’Neill S. Brexit and Northern Ireland: leaders must consider the mental health of the population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019; 6: 372–373. pmid:30952569
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Smith KB, Hibbing MV, Hibbing JR. Friends, relatives, sanity, and health: The costs of politics. PLoS ONE 2019; 14: e0221870. pmid:31553726
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, Gasquet I, Kovess V, Lepine JP, et al. Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA. 2004; 291: 2581–2590. pmid:15173149
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Batterham P, Sunderland M, Slade T, Calear A, Carragher N. (2018). Assessing distress in the community: Psychometric properties and crosswalk comparison of eight measures of psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2018; 48: 1316–1324. pmid:28967345
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Hentschel S, Eid M, Kutscher T. The influence of major life events and personality traits on the stability of affective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2016; 18: 719–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9744-y
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. van der Velden PG, Komproe I, Contino C, de Bruijne M, Kleber RJ, Das M, et al. Which groups affected by Potentially Traumatic Events (PTEs) are most at risk for a lack of social support? A prospective population-based study on the 12-month prevalence of PTEs and risk factors for a lack of post-event social support. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0232477. pmid:32469880
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Harkness KL, Hayden EP, Lopez-Duran NL. Stress sensitivity and stress sensitization in psychopathology: an introduction to the special section. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015; 124:1–3. pmid:25688427
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Sheridan Rains L, Johnson S, Barnett P, Steare T, Needle JJ, Carr S, et al. 2020. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021; 56: 13–24. pmid:32804258
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Pan KY, Kok AAL, Eikelenboom M, Horsfall M, Jörg F, Luteijn RA, et al. The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders: a longitudinal study of three Dutch case-control cohorts. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021; 8(2):121–129. pmid:33306975
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] PubMed/NCBI

[178] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Materials and methods

Procedures and participants

Ethical approval and informed consent

Measures

Anxiety and depression symptoms.

Fatigue and sleep problems.

Impaired functioning due to (mental) health problems.

Medicines for anxiety and depression.

Mental health service use.

Physical disease.

Statistical methods

Results

Nonresponse

Characteristics of respondents

Prevalence of mental health problems and service use of total study sample

Prevalence of mental health problems and service use among age categories

Incidence of mental health problems and service use of total study sample

Incidence of mental health problems among age categories

Risk factors of mental health problems and service use

Discussion

The role of pre-COVID mental health and stressors

Strengths and limitations

Final conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Age categories.

S2 Appendix. Risk factors.

References