Journal Pre-proof

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.

Peter G. van der Velden , Carlo Contino Fonds Slachtofferhulp ,

Marcel Das , Peter van Loon , van Loon Crisis Stress Trauma ,
Mark Bosmans

PII: S0165-0327(20)32622-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.026
Reference: JAD 12339

To appear in: Journal of Affective Disorders

Received date: 24 April 2020

Revised date: 10 August 2020
Accepted date: 12 August 2020

Please cite this article as: Peter G. van der Velden , Carlo Contino Fonds Slachtofferhulp ,
Marcel Das , Peter van Loon , van Loon Crisis Stress Trauma , Mark Bosmans , 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., Journal of
Affective Disorders (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.026

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Highlights

 The COVID-19 pandemic is a major global progressive disaster.

 The effects on mental health and emotional support among the population are unclear.

 For this purpose, a prospective population-based study was conducted.

 High anxiety and depression symptoms levels and lack of support did not increase.

 Risk factors for symptoms and support before and during pandemic partly changed.

1
Title

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.

Authors

Peter G. van der Velden, CentERdata, Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail:

[email protected]

Carlo Contino, Fonds Slachtofferhulp, The Hague, The Netherlands. E-mail:

[email protected]

Marcel Das, CentERdata, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Peter van Loon, van Loon Crisis Stress Trauma, Barsingerhorn, The Netherlands. Email:

[email protected]

Mark Bosmans, NIVEL, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Corresponding author: P.G. van der Velden, PhD, CentERdata, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg,

The Netherlands. Mobile: +31 6 51851494. E-mail: [email protected] or

[email protected]

2
Abstract

Background: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and emotional support

among the general population are unclear. We therefore assessed if the prevalence of high

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms (ADS) levels and lack of Emotional Support (ES) increased,

and if risk factors of ADS and ES changed.

Methods: Data was extracted from surveys conducted with the Dutch longitudinal population-

based LISS panel (N=3,983). ADS and ES were assessed in March 2019 and 2020. Risk factors

for ADS and ES were extracted from surveys in November 2018 and 2019. These were: ADS,

gender, education, domestic situation, employment, age, ethnicity, lung and heart problems, and

diabetes.

Results: The prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES did not increase compared to the pre-

outbreak prevalence. ADS, non-native ethnic background, (partial) work disabilities and lung

problems were predictive of both ADS and lack of ES in March 2019 and 2020. Job seekers,

students and those who take care of housekeeping were more at risk for ADS in March 2020, but

not in 2019. While 35-49 years old respondents were less at risk for ADS in March 2019, they

were more at risk in 2020. Parents with child(ren) at home and those who take care of

housekeeping more often lacked ES in March 2020, but not in 2019.

Limitations: No other mental health problems were assessed.

Conclusions: No increase in the prevalence of ADS and lack of ES was found. Some risk factors

remained significant after the outbreak, while others changed notably.

Keywords: COVID-19: Anxiety symptoms; Depression symptoms, Lack of emotional support,

General population; Prospective.

3
1. Introduction

The corona or COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020ab) is a major global progressive

disaster. It negatively impacts the health of infected people, people in quarantine, hospitalized

patients and their families and friends, and the health of the bereaved of those who died because

of COVID-19. With respect to the clinical spectrum of the disease, Wu and McGoogan (2020)

reported that, based on the 44,415 confirmed cases in China, 81% was mild, 14% severe and 5%

critical. The overall case-fatality rate in China was 2.3% (among 44,472 confirmed cases). To

encapsulate and gain control over this pandemic, many countries have closed important parts of

their societies. The effects of this pandemic on the global economy seem, already at the time the

present study was conducted, worse than the devastating effects of the financial crisis in 2008

(IMF, 2020ab).

A central question is extent to which this pandemic and its consequences affect the mental

health of the general population because, in contrast to “normal” human-made and natural

disasters, this pandemic affects countries as a whole and not local communities. Do anxiety and

depression symptoms increase among the general population because of this COVID-19

pandemic? Although a very large number of studies assessed the effects of disasters on mental

health (Rubonis & Bickman, 1991; Norris et al., 2002; Neria et al., 2009), it is unclear to what

extent the results can be generalized to the general population during this pandemic. This

pandemic is not a “classical” disaster suddenly and directly affecting groups of individuals (such

as an airplane disaster), community or cities (such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks) or regions (such as

the Katrina disaster and Tjernobyl disaster). Nevertheless, and also based on the Conservation of

Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018) we may expect that this

pandemic has negative effects among the general population since it directly or indirectly
4
threatens important resources such as safety and health (for instance by being infected), social

contacts and support (for instance by social distancing and staying-at-home), housing, and work

and income (for instance by loss of job) among the general population.

A search using PUBMED and PsycINFO identified two prospective studies published

between Jan 1 and July 31 2020 using probability samples of the general population with pre-

outbreak measures indeed found an increase in mental health problems. In the study by Twenge

and Joiner (2020), adults were three to four times as likely to screen positive for anxiety and

depression disorder according to the PHQ‐2, or both, in April-May 2020, compared to U.S. adults

in the first half of 2019. About 30% screened positive for these disorders during the pandemic.

The study by Pierce and colleagues (2020) among U.K. residents of 16 years and older showed

that mean scores on the GHQ-12 increased from 11.5 in 2018-2019 to 12.6 in April 2010, and the

increase was not a simply a continuation of previous upwards trends from 2014 to 2019. The

prevalence of clinically significant mental distress among the total study sample according to the

GHQ-12 increased from 18.9% in 2018-2019 to 27.3% in April 2020. Other pandemic-related

studies on mental health were based on non-probability samples and specific groups such as

involved health care workers (cf. Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Naser et al., 2020; Newby et al., 2020;

Sahu et al., 2020).

In addition, the health threat may especially worry those with pre-conditions, such as a

lung disease, heart disease and diabetes, because these patients are more at risk of becoming

severely ill when infected (CDC, 2020). According to COR, people strive to obtain, retain, foster,

and protect resources they centrally value, and it is the loss or potential loss which causes

distress. The circumstances and governmental protective policies surrounding the pandemic,

however, may hinder efforts in this respect or contribute to feelings of helplessness that may add

further stress. The effects of this pandemic on social contacts and support because of the social
5
distancing and stay-at-home measures are of special interest (cf. Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Holt-

Lunstad 2018). Does this pandemic and preventive measures negatively affect emotional support

among the general population? Social contacts and emotional support are important resources

according to COR. Research has shown that emotional support may provide a buffer for and

moderate or mediate the potential negative effects of disasters on mental health, although post-

event mental health problems such as PTSD-symptoms in turn may erode support at later stages

(Adams et al., 2006; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Birkeland et al., 2017; Kaniasty & Norris, 2008; Yap

& Devilly, 2004). However, little is known about which other subgroups affected by disasters

(besides those with post-event mental health such as PTSD symptomatology) are at risk for a lack

of emotional support. Studies on risk factors for a lack of emotional support following disasters

and other potentially traumatic events are sparse (cf. Tracy et al., 2014; van der Velden et al.,

2020a). It is therefore unclear if and which subgroups are more at risk for a lack of emotional

support during this pandemic, for instance due to the ongoing social distancing measures,

compared to “normal” circumstances.

The objective of the present prospective population-based study is to shed light on these

issues. The first aim was to compare the prevalence of high Anxiety and Depression Symptom

(ADS) levels and lack of Emotional Support (ES) during the period in which the COVID-19

pandemic developed very rapidly in the Netherlands (during March 2020), with high ADS levels

and lack of ES before the COVID-19 outbreak. The second aim was to examine to what extent

specific subgroups are at risk for high ADS levels and lack of ES compared to “normal”

circumstances. More specifically: to what extent are pre-outbreak high ADS levels, gender,

educational level, domestic situation, employment status, age, ethnicity, and physical illness

(lung disease, heart disease and diabetes) risk factors for high ADS levels and lack of emotional

support during the outbreak period compared to “normal”, that is pre-outbreak circumstances?
6
 Normally a prospective comparative study design including non-affected adults would be

used to assess if changes in the prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES and risk factors for

high ADS levels and lack of ES can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. After all, it must

be ruled out as much as possible that changes in high ADS levels and lack of ES, and risk factors

are attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic when the same changes and risk factors are present

under normal circumstances, e.g. are caused by possible seasonality effects. However, this

pandemic and governmental preventive interventions affect each adult precluding the existence of

such a comparison group. Fortunately, we had the unique opportunity to analyze identical data

from the same population-based study sample that was obtained in previous surveys before the

outbreak (similar risk factors were assessed in November 2018, and similar ADS and lack of ES

were assessed four months later in March 2019 respectively). If high ADS levels and lack of ES

are more prevalent, and/or if risk factors for high ADS levels and lack of ES differ between pre-

outbreak period and outbreak period, then these findings may serve as an indication that the

differences can be attributed the COVID-19 pandemic.

High ADS levels and lack of ES during the COVID-19 epidemic were assessed between

March 2 and March 31 2020. In this period the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the

Netherlands increased from 10 to 12,595. Furthermore, 4,714 corona patients were hospitalized

during this period, and 1039 patients with confirmed COVID-19 had died (although the actual

numbers of persons infected and deceased persons in this month is (much) higher, because many

persons have not been tested). In February 2020, discussions about closing primary and

secondary schools, universities, bars and restaurants, and working at home started and around

March 15 2020 the Dutch government decided to close these public facilities and advised people

to work at home.

7
2. Methods

2.1. Sample

For the present study we extracted data from the Longitudinal Internet studies for the

Social Sciences (LISS) panel which started in 2007. The LISS panel is administered by

CentERdata and the setup was funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). The panel is based

on a probability sample drawn from the Dutch population register by Statistics Netherlands

(Scherpenzeel & Das, 2011). Panel members who do not have a computer and/or internet access

are provided with the necessary equipment at home. All members receive an incentive of 15

euros per hour for their participation. Further information about the panel and free access to the

de-identified data can be found on https://www.lissdata.nl/ (in English). In accordance with the

new General Data Protection Regulation, participants gave explicit consent for the use of the

collected data for scientific and policy relevant research.

We extracted and merged data collected in four surveys. Data was extracted from the

(yearly) Health module of the longitudinal core study, in this case the surveys conducted in

November 2018 (Ninvited=6,466, responsecompleted=84.4%, T1), and in November 2019

(Ninvited=5,954, responsecompleted=86.4%, T3). In addition, we used data from two surveys of the

longitudinal VICTIMS-study (Van der Velden et al., 2020a, 2020b) conducted in March 2019

(Ninvited=6,298, responsecompleted=83.2%, T2) and March 2020 (Ninvited=6,568,

responsecompleted=83.6%, T4). Reminders for non-responders were sent the following month. The

longitudinal LISS core study was designed with assistance from international experts in the

relevant fields. The different modules were evaluated and approved by the Board of Overseers,

the Internal Review Board until 2014. The VICTIMS survey was approved by an Institutional
8
Review Board, consisting of external and internal reviewers of CentERdata not involved in the

development of the VICTIMS-study.

In total, 3,983 out of the 5,379 adult respondents at T1 participated in all four surveys

(74.0%), and 258 participated at T1 only. We weighted the data using 16 exclusive demographic

profiles among the total adult Dutch population 2019 (N2019=13,926,066), based on data of

Statistics Netherlands. The 16 profiles were constructed using the following demographic

characteristics: gender (man, woman), age (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65 years and older) and marital

status (married and unmarried), totaling 2*4*2=16 exclusive demographic profiles. All results are

based on the weighted sample (N=3,983).

2.2. Measures

Demographics. The November 2018 and 2019 surveys assessed gender, age, educational

level, marital status, domestic situation and employment status (primary occupation). See Table 1

for subcategories of these demographics.

Anxiety and depression symptoms (ADS). Anxiety and depressive symptoms were

examined in all four surveys using the 5-item Mental Health Index or Inventory (MHI-5; Means-

Christensen et al., 2005; Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). Respondents were asked to rate their mental

health during the past month on 6-point Likert scales (0=never to 5=continuously). After

recoding (reversing) the negative formulated items, the total scores were computed by

multiplying the total score by four (Cronbach’s Alpha’s: T1=0.87, T2=0.87, T3=0.87, and

T4=0.86) resulting in a score from 0 to 100. Low scores reflect higher symptom levels. A cut-off

of < 60 (Driessen, 2011) was used to identify respondents with moderate to high anxiety and

depression symptom levels.

9
 Physical health problems. The Health modules of the LISS Core Study assessed several

Physician-diagnosed Diseases (PD) in the past year (1= yes, 2=no) and Health Problems (HP)

respondents regularly suffer from (1=yes, 0=no). For the present study we focused on reported:

1.) lung problems ((PD=chronic lung disease such as chronic bronchitis or emphysema or

asthma) or (HP=short of breath, problems with breathing, or coughing, a stuffy nose or flu-

related complaints)); 2.) heart problems ((PD=angina, pain in the chest, a heart attack including

infarction or coronary thrombosis or another heart problem including heart failure) or (HP =heart

complaints or angina, pain in the chest due to exertion)); and 3.) diabetes (PD=diabetes or a too

high blood sugar level). These physical health problems were assessed in November 2018 and

November 2019.

Lack of emotional support (ES). Lack of ES in response to problems was assessed in

March 2019 and 2020 using the 8-item subscale of the Social Support List - Discrepancy (SSL–

D; Bridges, Sanderman, & van Sonderen, 2002; van Sonderen, 2012). The SSL-D invites

respondents to rate their opinions or perceptions about people with whom they interact, and to

respond in these situations on 4-point Likert scales (1=I miss it, I would like it to happen more

often, 2=I don't really miss it, but I prefer more, 3=Exactly the right amount, 4=It happens too

often; Cronbach’s alpha’s: T2=0.89, and T4=0.89).Total scores were subtracted from the total

maximum scores whereby high scores reflect more lack of ES. For the present study we, using a

cut-off score of 13 that corresponds to the upper two deciles (upper 20%), dichotomized scores

into no lack of ES (0 thru 12) and lack of ES (13 thru high).

2.3. Data analyses

10
 To examine the extent to which the prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES

increased between November 2019 and March 2020, and (not) between November 2018 and

March 2019 repeated logistic multivariate regression analyses were conducted (GEE) with time

as predictor while controlling for gender, educational level, domestic situation, employment

status, age, and physical illness in November in the previous year. Similar analyses were

conducted for a lack of ES, but then between March 2019 and March 2020, because lack of ES

was not assessed in November in previous years.

To examine which subgroups are more at risk for high ADS levels and more at risk for a

lack of ES due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted bi-variate chi-square tests and

multivariate logistic regression analyses with high ADS levels and lack of ES in March 2019 and

March 2020 as dependent variables. In each regression analyses, high ADS levels, gender,

educational level, domestic situation, employment status, age, and physical illness assessed in

November of the previous year were entered as predictors. As said, lack of ES was not assessed

in November 2018 and 2019.

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 26.0.

3. Results

3.1. Non-response analyses

Non-response analyses using multivariate logistic regression analyses with non-response at T2,

T3 and T4 as dependent variable showed that the non-response was not significantly associated

with anxiety and depression symptoms, gender, education level, lung problems, heart problems

and diabetes at T1. Because the results of the three regression analyses were similar, we focus on

T4. Respondents aged 50 to 64 years (adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=2.05, 95% confidence interval
11
(CI)=1.36-3.11, p=0.001) and of 65 years and older (AOR=2.69, 95% CI=1.33-5.43, p=0.006)

were more likely to participate than 18-34-year old respondents. With respect to employment

status, students (AOR=1.90, 95% CI=1.06-3.40, p=0.30) and those with (partial) work disabilities

(AOR=3.09, 95% CI=1.20-7.99, p=0.02) participated more often than respondents with paid

employment, but no significant associations were found for the other five employment status

categories. Compared to married respondents, respondents with the marital status “other” (see

Table 1) participated less often (AOR=0.42, 95% CI=0.21-0.83, p=0.013), but no significant

associations were found for the other three marital status categories. Non-natives participated less

often than Dutch natives at all surveys (AOR=0.16, 1.23-2.13; Nagelkerke R Square=0.15).

Similar analyses adding social support at T2 to the list of predictors among those who

participated at T1 and T2 (because social support was not assessed at T1) showed that social

support was not significantly associated with non-response.

3.2. Descriptive statistics

The characteristics in November 2018 and 2019 of the study sample are presented in

Table 1.

-Table 1-

3.3. High ADS levels and lack of ES before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

The repeated logistic regression analyses (GEE) showed no significant differences in high

ADS levels between November 2018 and March 2019 (16.7% and 16.8%) and between

November 2019 and March 2020 (16.9% and 17.0%, respectively). Paired t-tests again showed
12
no significant differences in total anxiety and depression symptom scores: MNovember 2018=74.5,

sd=16.5 and MMarch 2019=74.2, sd=16.7; MNovember 2019 =74.5, sd=16.4; and MMarch 2020=74 .7,

sd=16.7).

For ES in March 2019 and March 2020 we found similar results: repeated logistic

regression analyses showed no significant differences (20.4% and 19.7%, respectively). Paired t-

test showed that the total scores of lack of ES were significantly lower in March 2020 than in

March 2019 (MMarch 2019=10.4, sd= 3.55; MMarch 2020= 10.2, sd=3.41; t(3,982)=3.50, p <.001).

However, the difference in scores was trivial (Cohen’s D=0.055).

-Table 1-

3.4. Risk factors for high ADS levels before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

The results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses predicting high ADS levels in

March 2019 and March 2020 are shown in Table 2. Findings clearly demonstrate that

respondents with work disabilities, lung problems, a non-native ethnic background and especially

previous high ADS levels more often had high ADS levels before (March 2019) and during the

COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) than employed respondents, respondents without lung

problems, Dutch natives and respondents without previous high ADS levels respectively.

Table 2 furthermore shows that risk factors for high ADS levels in March 2019 and

March 2020 partly differed. Those with heart problems more often had high ADS levels during

the COVID-19 pandemic, in contrast to one year earlier. During the COVID-19 pandemic,

women were not more at risk for high ADS levels in contrast to one year earlier. Risk factors

related to the domestic situations such as being single with and without children were no longer
13
significant in predicting high ADS levels in March 2020, in contrast to high ADS levels in March

2019. Job seekers, students and those who take care of the housekeeping significantly more often

had high ADS levels in March 2020 than those with paid employment, while they were not more

at risk for high ADS levels in March 2019. In addition, while 35-49 years old respondents were

less at risk for high ADS levels in March 2019 than 18-34 years old respondents, they were more

at risk for high ADS levels in March 2020 than the youngest age group. There was a statistical

trend (p <.010) that self-employed more often had high ADS levels in March 2019 than those

with paid employment, but less often in March 2020.

-Table 2-

3.5. Risk factors for lack support before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Table 3 shows the results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses with lack of ES

in March 2019 and March 2020 as dependent variables. Similar to risk factors of high ADS levels

in March 2019 and March 2020, respondents with high ADS levels, work disabilities, lung

problems about four months earlier, and those with a non-native ethnic background, were more at

risk for a lack of ES in March 2019 and in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic than the

reference groups.

Again, there are a few differences in risk factors for a lack of ES in March 2019 and 2020.

While those who take care of the housekeeping more often lack ES in March 2020, students less

often lacked ES in March 2020 than those with paid employment, but no differences were found

for a lack of ES in March 2019. In addition, no differences were found between 18-34 years old

respondents and older respondents in both periods. Finally, there was a significant trend that
14
those with heart problems and diabetes more often lacked ES in March 2020, but not in March

2019.

-Table 3-

The March 2020 survey was completed by 1,980 respondents between March 2 and March 12, by

1,130 respondents between March 13 and March 22, and by 873 respondents between March 23

and March 31. To assess if respondents who participated later in March 2020 differed in high

ADS levels and lack of ES from those who participated soon after the start of the survey, we

repeated the bi-variate and multivariate logistic regression analyses adding the period of

participating (three categories) to the list of predictors. Results of the bi- and multivariate

analyses showed no significant differences between these three subgroups. In the multivariate

analyses all other adjusted Odds Ratios did not or hardly change (see appendix).

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences in prevalence high ADS level and lack of ES

Aim of the present population-based study was to assess if the COVID-19 pandemic

affected the mental health and emotional support among the general population. This was done

by comparing the prevalence of high Anxiety and Depression Symptom (ADS) levels and lack of

Emotional Support (ES) during this pandemic (March 2020) with the prevalence before this

pandemic (in November and March 2019 respectively). The results showed a clear pattern: we
15
found no indications that the prevalence of high ADS levels and lack of ES increased (or

decreased) during our study period among the total study sample compared to the pre-outbreak

prevalence. In other words, in contrast to the studies of Twenge and Joiner (2020) and Pierce and

colleagues (2020) on a group level the prevalence mental health problems, e.g. high ADS levels,

and lack of ES appeared to be very stable. These results suggest that the general Dutch population

was capable to cope with and capable of adjusting to the drastic developments and changes due to

the COVID-19 pandemic in the short term (March 2020; cf. Chen & Bonanno, 2020; Wessely,

2005).

How can we explain the absence of differences in the Netherlands on a population level?

The way in which the general population experienced the pandemic during the study period is,

among others, also related to how the Dutch government reacted and intervened and to existing

social welfare and health care systems in the Netherlands. Adult people without a job can invoke

for unemployment benefits and, in principle, each Dutch citizen has a health care insurance

regardless of being employed. In March 2020, each day the Dutch government and/or the Dutch

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), informed the public in a non-

political way about factual developments. This included the number of infected, number of

deceased persons, number of patients in Intensive Care, and risks and taken measures

(preventive, curative, financial). The government explicitly and repeatedly praised and

acknowledged the work of all people working in and outside the frontline organizations (such as

hospitals, nursing homes, schools, public transport, et cetera) and how the general population

complied with all preventive measures. More than 5 million citizens followed the special press

conferences via the national public broadcasting company. On March 11, the European

Commission invested 25 billion (euros) to combat the (first) effects of this pandemic and relaxed

regulations about state aid to companies. On March 17, the Dutch government opened a 20
16
billion (euros) emergency fund for the next three months to financially support employers and

self-employed. According to Hobfolls’ COR theory, people strive to obtain, retain, foster, and

protect resources they centrally value such as social contacts. All digital infrastructures remained

intact enabling people to stay in contact and interact via telephone, social media and apps like

WhatsApp and FaceTime. During “normal” disasters, the absence of information about loved

ones may cause extra worries and stress. During this pandemic these facilities may have

prevented these worries because people could speak and inform each other.

4.2. Similarities and differences in risk factors

Results with respect to risk factors showed that those with high pre-outbreak ADS levels

were most at risk for high ADS levels and lack of ES during the pandemic. Of those with high

pre-outbreak ADS levels, 62% had high ADS levels and 46% lack of ES during the pandemic.

However, an identical pattern was found one year earlier indicating that this pattern was not

unique for the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, those with a non-native ethnic background,

(partial) work disabilities and lung problems, compared to the reference groups, were more at risk

for high ADS level and lack of support during this pandemic, but they were also more at risk one

year earlier. With respect to age a striking difference emerged: 35-49 years old respondents were

more at risk for high ADS levels than 18-34 years old respondents during the pandemic, but one

year earlier findings showed the opposite suggesting that this pandemic especially hits people

during the “rush hour of life” (Zannella et al., 2018). However, the finding with respect to pre-

outbreak high ADS levels that older respondents had less often high ADS levels than the

youngest group of respondents is in line with previous studies (Jorm, 2000).

17
 With respect to employment status, the finding that self-employed, in contrast to one year

earlier, were less at risk for high ADS levels than paid employed respondents during the

pandemic is more or less counter-intuitive. Possible explanations are that the (partial) loss of

work due to the pandemic also created some rest (in terms of workload), that the government

recognized that self-employed are at high risk to lose work and offered financial support, and that

self-employed are better prepared for uncertainties. Relevant but less surprising are the findings

that job seekers, students, and those who take care of the housekeeping were more at risk for high

ADS levels than paid employed respondents. Unemployment rates are expected to increase fast,

there are unknown effects on study careers and post-graduation work, and people are disturbed in

their daily routines. The finding that persons with heart problems (a risk factor for becoming ill

when infected) had a higher prevalence of ADS and somewhat more often lacked ES, indicate

that, like persons with lung problems, they must be considered a group at risk.

Importantly, those who take care of the housekeeping also more often lacked emotional

support in contrast to one year earlier suggesting this group is especially at risk for more

persistent mental health problems. This may also be true for parents with children and singles

because, although they did not more often suffer from high ADS levels during this pandemic,

they more often lacked ES. This may be considered a risk factor for later mental health problems.

In line with other research (McLean et al., 2011), in the year before this pandemic women

more often had high ADS levels than men but this difference was absent during this pandemic,

but men are more at risk becoming very ill or to die when infected than women (RIVM, 2020). A

somewhat similar pattern was found in the study by Katikireddi et al. (2012) showing an increase

in poor mental health for men but not women following the Great Recession, with no clear

evidence for an increase in socioeconomic inequalities. The results of the longitudinal study by

Thomson et al. (2018) also showed that gender inequalities in poor mental health narrowed
18
following the Great Recession, but widened during austerity, creating the widest gender gap since

1994.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

The use of a large longitudinal sample based on a random sample of the Dutch population

with non-retrospective data on pre-outbreak on anxiety and depression symptoms, emotional

support, and physical illness is a major strength of the present study. We used well-validated

instruments to assess anxiety and depression symptoms and perceived lack of emotional support.

Unfortunately, we have no data on other relevant mental health problems such as fatigue and

sleep problems in March 2019 and 2020. We did not conduct clinical interviews to assess mental

disorders and the use of mental health services during the pandemic compared to earlier periods.

In their systematic review, Silva et al. (2018) concluded that economic crises might be associated

with a higher use of prescription drugs and an increase in hospital admissions for mental

disorders. It was outside the aim of the present study to assess measurement invariance of the

MHI-5 and SSL-D across surveys. However, given the differences in MHI-5 and SSL-D scores

between victims and non-victims of potentially traumatic events (Van der Velden et al., 2019)

events we do not consider it very likely that large differences are masked by measurement

invariance.

Anxiety and depression symptoms, and perceived emotional support during the COVID-

19 pandemic were assessed in March 2020. Some governmental preventive measures were taken

in the second half of March 2020, but we found no differences in symptoms and support between

those who participated in the beginning of March versus those who participated at the end of

March. Nevertheless, future research is needed to gain insight in how mental health problems and
19
various forms of social support among the general population develop in the next months and

years. The 2-wave longitudinal study by Wang et al. (2020) with a four-week time interval

between two assessed cohorts, found no changes in initial outbreak stress (8.1%), anxiety

(28.2%) and depression symptoms (16.5%) but a significant decrease in mean posttraumatic

stress symptoms scores. However, it may be expected that, when the threat or loss of important

resources (such as employment, income, housing) intensify and become chronic mental health

and social problems increase (Chang et al., 2013; Hobfoll, 1989, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018;

Glonti et al., 2015). The dramatic forecasts of the IMF about the economic developments in the

near future possibly resulting in a global recession (IMF, 2020ab) leaves little doubt in this

perspective. The study by Brugging et al. (2016) showed that the prevalence of “mental health

less than good” in the Netherlands increased from 9.2% among pre-financial crisis cohorts in the

Netherlands (2006-2008) to 10.4% among the post-financial crisis cohorts (2009-2013).

However, it is unknown whether these results can be generalized to this COVID-19 pandemic.

4.4. Conclusions

This study is one of the very few prospective and national probability studies on the effects of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and social support among the general population. In

contrast to the U.S. and U.K., we found no indications that high anxiety and depression symptom

levels increased in March 2020, compared to pre-outbreak symptom levels in November 2019.

This pattern was similar to the pattern of symptoms between November 2018 and March 2019.

No difference in lack of support was found. These findings suggest that the Dutch general

population was able to adjust to and cope with all COVID-19-related changes and threats. Results

showed that a few subgroups were at risk, who were not at risk one year earlier, such as job

20
seekers, students, those who take care of the housekeeping, people with heart problems and those

in the age category 35-49 years old.

Author statement declaration of interest

Competing conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

Role of the funding source

One co-author is an employee of the Victims Support Foundation, the sponsor of the VICTIMS-

study. All authors had complete freedom to direct the analysis and its reporting without influence

from the sponsor. There was no editorial direction or censorship from the sponsor.

Contributors

PVDV designed the present study in collaboration with CC, MD, PVL and MB. PVDV

conducted the statistical analyses in collaboration with MD and MB. PVDV wrote the first draft.

All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results of the statistical analyses, revising the

first draft and subsequent versions of the manuscript, and approved the final version for

publication.

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the LISS panel for their time and effort.

21
Appendix
High ADS levels Lack of emotional support
Predictors November March 2020 March 2020
Previous year n (%) aOR (95% CI) n (%) aOR (95% CI)
Mental health problems
- no (ref.) 257 (7.8)*** 1 475 (14.4)*** 1
- yes 419 (62.4) 15.36 (12.40-19.01)*** 308 (45.9) 4.21 (3.47-5.12)***
Gender
- man (ref.) 306 (15.6)* 1 356 (18.1)* 1
- woman 370 (18.3) 1.04 (0.84-1.29) 428 (21.2) 1.07 (0.90-1.27)
Educational level
- low (ref.) 206 (20.9)*** 1 222 (22.4)*** 1
- medium 235 (16.4) 0.73 (0.56-0.96)* 303 (21.2) 1.06 (0.85-1.32)
- high 235 (15.0) 0.91 (0.69-1.19) 259 (16.6) 0.84 (0.67-1.06)
Domestic situation
- (un)married co. without c. (ref.) 167 (12.1)*** 1 210 (15.2)*** 1
- (un)married co. with c. 238 (18.0) 1.04 (0.78-1.38) 277 (20.9) 1.36 (1.08-1.72)*
- single with c. 49 (22.0) 1.13 (0.71-1.80) 52 (23.3) 1.42 (0.97-2.09)+
- single 206 (21.6) 1.24 (0.94-1.64) 220 (23.0) 1.37 (1.09-1.72)**
- other 16 (15.7) 1.08 (0.54-2.16) 25 (24.8) 1.65 (1.00-2.75)+
Employment status
- paid employment (ref.) 281 (14.5)*** 1 355 (18.3)*** 1
- self-employed 20 (9.3) 0.58 (0.33-1.02)+ 32 (15.0) 0.86 (0.57-1.29)
- job seeker 29 (33.0) 1.98 (1.09-3.58)* 26 (29.5) 1.31 (0.78-2.21)
- student 82 (29.7) 2.39 (1.58-3.61)*** 52 (18.8) 0.65 (0.44-0.95)*
- housekeeping 61 (19.6) 1.67 (1.10-2.54)* 80 (25.7) 1.46 (1.04-2.05)*
- pensioner 92 (11.2) 1.67 (0.96-2.90)+ 144 (17.5) 1.14 (0.76-1.73)
- (partial)work disability 80 (43.0) 2.00 (1.31-3.05)** 62 (33.2) 1.21 (0.84-1.76)
- else 32 (22.5) 1.25 (0.73-2.16) 34 (23.9) 1.05 (0.67-1.65)
Age categories (in years)
- 18-34 (ref.) 196 (19.7)*** 1 198 (20.0)** 1
- 35-49 201 (22.1) 1.48 (1.09-2.02)* 214 (23.5) 1.06 (0.82-1.37)
- 50-64 170 (16.3) 1.06 (0.76-1.48) 189 (18.2) 0.85 (0.65-1.11)
- 65 and older 110 (10.6) 0.49 (0.27-0.86)* 183 (17.6) 0.84 (0.55-1.29)
Ethnicity
- native (ref.) 464 (14.7)*** 1 566 (17.9) 1
- non-native 213 (26.0) 1.41 (1.11-1.79)** 218 (26.6)*** 1.41 (1.16-1.72)**
Lung problems
- no (ref.) 444 (14.1)*** 1 562 (17.8)*** 1
- yes 233 (28.1) 1.61 (1.27-2.04)*** 223 (26.9) 1.27 (1.04-1.55)*
Heart problems
- no (ref.) 591 (15.9)*** 1 700 (18.8)*** 1
- yes 86 (32.6) 1.48 (1.02-2.16)* 84 (31.8) 1.33 (0.97-1.82)+
Diabetes
- no (ref.) 646 (17.0) 1 735 (19.3)** 1
- yes 31 (17.4) 0.74 (0.45-1.21) 49 (27.5) 1.38 (0.95-2.00)+
Period participating
- March 2 to March 12 (ref.) 323 (16.3) 1 383 (19.3) 1
- March 13 to March 22 191 (16.9) 1.07 (0.84-1.35) 223 (19.7) 1.04 (0.86-1.26)
- March 23 to March 31 162 (18.6) 1.10 (0.85-1.42) 170 (20.5) 1.03 (0.83-1.28)

22
References

1. Adams, R.E., Boscarino J.A., Galea, S., 2006. Social and psychological resources and

health outcomes after the World Trade Center disaster. Soc. Sci. Med. 62, 176-188.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.008

2. Birkeland, M.S., Nielsen, M.B., Hansen, M.B., Knardahl, S., Heir, T., 2017. Like a bridge

over troubled water? A longitudinal study of general social support, colleague support,

and leader support as recovery factors after a traumatic event. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 8,

1302692. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1302692

3. Bridges, K.R., Sanderman, R., Sonderen, E. van, 2002. An English language version of

the social support list: preliminary reliability. Psychol. Rep. 90, 1055-1058.

https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.90.3.1055-1058

4. Bruggink, J.W., Goeij, M.C. de, Otten, F, Kunst, A.E., 2016. Changes between pre-crisis

and crisis period in socioeconomic inequalities in health and stimulant use in Netherlands.

Eur. J. Public Health 26, 772-777. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw016

5. CDC, 2020. If You Are at Higher Risk. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/specific-groups/high-risk-complications.html (accessed March 19, 2020).

6. Chang, S.S., Stuckler, D., Yip, P., Gunnell, D., 2013. Impact of 2008 global economic

crisis on suicide: time trend study in 54 countries. BMJ 347: f523.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5239

7. Chen S, Bonanno GA., 2020. Psychological adjustment during the global outbreak of

COVID-19: A resilience perspective. Psychol. Trauma 12, s51-s54.

https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000685. doi:10.1037/tra0000685

23
8. Cohen, S., Wills, T.A., 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychol. Bull. 98, 310-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

9. Driessen, M., 2011. 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: CBS, Statistics

Netherlands.

10. Frasquilho, D., Matos, M.G., Salonna, F., Guerreiro, D., Storti, C.C., Gaspar, T., Caldas-

de-Almeida, J.M., 2016. Mental health outcomes in times of economic recession: a

systematic literature review. BMC Public Health 16, 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-

016-2720-y

11. Glonti, K., Gordeev, V.S., Goryakin, Y., Reeves, A., Stuckler, D., McKee, M., Roberts,

B., 2015. A systematic review on health resilience to economic crises. PLoS ONE 23;

10(4):e0123117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123117

12. Have, M. ten, Dorsselaer, S. van, Graaf, R. de, 2015. The association between type and

number of adverse working conditions and mental health during a time of economic crisis

(2010-2012). Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 50(6):899-907.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1009-2.

13. Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources a new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

Am. Psychol. 44, 513–524. https://doi.org/0.1037/0003-066×443513.

14. Hobfoll, S.E., 2002. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev. Gen.

Psychol. 6, 307–324. https://doi.org/0.1037//1089-268064307

15. Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.P., Westman, M., 2018. Conservation of

resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences

annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior. Annu. Rev.

24
 Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-

032117-104640

16. Holt-Lunstad, J., 2018. Why social relationships are important for physical health: a

systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Ann. Rev. Psychol.

69, 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011902

17. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Layton, J.B., 2010. Social relationships and mortality risk:

a meta-analytic review. PLoS MED. 77, e1000316.

https://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

18. IMF (2020a). The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great

Depression. International Monetary Fund. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-

lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/ (assessed April 14,

2020).

19. IMF (2020b). COVID-19 Crisis Poses Threat to Financial Stability. International

Monetary Fund. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/covid-19-crisis-poses-threat-to-

financial-stability/ (assessed April 14, 2020).

20. Jahanshahi, A.A., Dinani, M.M, Madavani, A.N., Li, J., Zhang, S.X., 2020. The distress

of Iranian adults during the Covid-19 pandemic – More distressed than the Chinese and

with different predictors. MedRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.03.20052571

(assessed April 16 2020).

21. Jorm, A.F., 2000. Does old age reduce the risk of anxiety and depression? A review of

epidemiological studies across the adult life span. Psychol. Med. 30, 11-22.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291799001452

25
22. Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. H. (2008). Longitudinal linkages between perceived social

support and posttraumatic stress symptoms: sequential roles of social causation and social

selection. J. Trauma. Stress 21, 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20334

23. Katikireddi, S.V., Niedzwiedz, C.L., Popham, F., 2012. Trends in population mental

health before and after the 2008 recession: a repeat cross-sectional analysis of the 1991-

2010 Health Surveys of England. BMJ Open 17;2(5): e001790.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001790.

24. Martin-Carrasco, M., Evans-Lacko, S., Dom, G., Christodoulou, N.G., Samochowiec, J.,

González-Fraile, E., Bienkowski, P., Gómez-Beneyto, M., Dos Santos, M.J., Wasserman,

D., 2016. EPA guidance on mental health and economic crises in Europe. Eur. Arch.

Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 266, 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-016-0681-x

25. Newby, J. M., O'Moore, K., Tang, S., Christensen, H., & Faasse, K., 2020. Acute mental

health responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. PloS one 15, e0236562.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236562

26. McLean, C.P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B.T., Hofmann, S.G., 2011. Gender differences in

anxiety disorders: Prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. J.

Psychiatr. Res. 45, 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006

27. Means-Christensen, A.J., Arnau, R.C., Tonidandel, A.M., Bramson, R., Meagher, M.W.,

2005. An efficient method of identifying major depression and panic disorder in primary

care. J. Behav. Med. 28, 565-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-005-9023-6

28. Meltzer, H., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Jenkins, R., McManus, S. ,Stansfeld, S., 2010.

Job Insecurity, Socio-Economic Circumstances and Depression. Psychol. Med. 40, 1401-

1407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991802

26
29. Naser, A.Y., Dahmash, E.Z., Al-Rousan, R., Alwafi, H., Alrawashdeh, H.M., Ghoul,, I.,

Abidine, A., Bokhary, M.A., AL-Hadithi, H.T., Ali, D., Abuthawabeh, R., Abdelwahab,

G.M., Alhartani, Y.J., Muhaisen, H.A., Dagash, A., 2020. Mental health status of the

general population, healthcare professionals, and university students during 2019

coronavirus disease outbreak in Jordan: a cross-sectional study. MedRxiv preprint.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.09.20056374 (assessed April 16 2020).

30. Neria, Y., Galea, S., Norris, F.H., 2009. Mental Health and Disasters. New York,

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511730030

31. Norris, F.H., Friedman, M.J., Watson, P.J., Byrne, C.M., Diaz, E., Kaniasty, K., 2002.

60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature,

1981-2001. Psychiatry 65, 207-239. https/doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173

32. Pierce, M., Hope, H., Ford, T., Hatch, S., Hotopf, M., John, A., Kontopantelis, E., Webb,

R., Wessely, S., McManus, S., & Abel, K. M., 2020. Mental health before and during the

COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population.

Lancet Psychiatry. S2215-0366(20)30308-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-

0366(20)30308-4

33. RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), 2020. Epidemiological

situation COVID-19 in the Netherlands, April 19 2020 (In Dutch: Epidemiologische

situatie COVID-19 in Nederland. RIVM: Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

34. Rossi, R., Socci, V., Talevi, D., Mensi, S., Niolu, C., Pacitti, F., Di Marco, A., Rossi, A.,

Siracusano, A., Di Lorenzo, G., 2020. COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures

impact on mental health among the general population in Italy. An N=18147 web-based

survey. MedRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.09.20057802 (assessed April

16 2020).
27
35. Rubonis, A., Bickman, L., 1991. Psychological impairment in the wake of disaster: the

disaster-psychopathology relationship. Psychol. Bull. 109, 384-399.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.384

36. Sahu, A.K., Amrithanand, V.T., Mathew, R., Aggarwal, P., Nayer, J., Bhoi, S., 2020.

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J.

Emerg. Med. 38, 1727-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.113

37. Scherpenzeel, A., Das, M., 2011. True longitudinal and probability-based internet panels:

evidence from the Netherland, in: Das, M., Ester, P., Kaczmirek, L. (Eds.). Social and

Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research

Strategies. Taylor & Francis: New York, pp. 77-104.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844922

38. Sonderen, E. van, 2012. Het meten van sociale steun met de Sociale Steun Lijst -

Interacties SSL-I en Sociale Steun Lijst - Discrepanties ,SSL-D: een handleiding. Tweede

herziene druk. Research Institute SHARE RUG: Groningen.

39. Thomson, R.M., Niedzwiedz, C,L., Katikireddi, S.V., 2018. Trends in gender and

socioeconomic inequalities in mental health following the Great Recession and

subsequent austerity policies: a repeat cross-sectional analysis of the Health Surveys for

England. BMJ Open 30, 8(8):e022924. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022924

40. Tracy, M., Morgenstern, H., Zivin, K., Aiello, A.E., Galea, S. 2014. Traumatic event

exposure and depression severity over time: results from a prospective cohort study in an

urban area. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 49, 1769–1782.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-014-0884-2

28
41. Twenge, J. M., & Joiner, T. E., 2020. U.S. Census Bureau-assessed prevalence of anxiety

and depressive symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Depress.

Anxiety. 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.23077

42. Velden, P. G. van der, Das, M., Contino, C., & Knaap, L. M. van der, 2019. From Health

to Financial Problems: Multiproblems Among Victims of Partner and Non-Partner

Physical Violence, and Matched Nonvictims. J. Interpersonal Violence.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519885915

43. Velden, P.G. van der, Komproe, I., Contino, C., Bruijne, M. de , Kleber, R.J., Das, M.,

Schut, H., 2020a. 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,

15(5): e0232477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232477

44. Velden, P.G. van der, Contino, C., Marchand, M., Das, M., Schut, H., 2020b. Does pre-

event lack of emotional support increase the risk of post-event PTSD, anxiety, depression

symptoms and lack of support? A comparative population-based study among victims of

threat and violence, J. Anxiety Disord., In press.

45. Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, C.D., 1992. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey, SF- 36:

conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473-483.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

46. Wessely, S., 2005. Don’t panic! Short and long term psychological reactions to the new

terrorism: The role of information and the authorities. J. Mental Health 14, 106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230500048099

29
47. WHO (2020a). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) SITUATION REPORT-1, 21

JANUARY 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-

2019/situation-reports/ (accessed March 17, 2020).

48. WHO (2020b). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) SITUATION REPORT-41, 3 MARCH

2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-

reports/ (accessed March 17, 2020).

49. Wu, Z., McGoogan, J., 2020. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72

314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648

50. Yap, M.B., Devilly, G.J., 2004. The role of perceived social support in crime

victimization. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 24, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2003.09.007

51. Zannella, M., Hammer, B., Prskawetz, A., Sambt, J., 2018. A Quantitative assessment of

the rush hour of life in Austria, Italy and Slovenia. Eur. J. Popul. 21, 751-776.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9502-4

30
Table 1
Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics (N=3,983)
November 2018 November 2019
N (%) N (%)
High ADS levels
- no 3,316 (83.3) 3,308 (83.1)
- yes 667 (16.7) 671 (16.8)
Gender
- man 1,963 (49.3) 1,962 (49.3)
- woman 2,020 (50.7) 2,020 (50.7)
Educational level
- low 1,012 (25.4) 988 (24.8)
- medium 1,455 (36.5) 1,431 (35.9)
- high 1,516 (38.1) 1,563 (39.2)
Domestic situation
- (un)married cohabitation without child(ren) 1,358 (34.1) 1,380 (34.6)
- (un)married cohabitation with child(ren) 1,358 (34.1) 1,323 (33.2)
- single with child(ren) 226 (5.7) 223 (5.6)
- single 945 (23.7) 955 (24.0)
- other 97 (2.4) 102 (2.6)
Employment status (primary)
- paid employment 1,915 (48.1) 1,943 (48.8)
- self-employed 205 (5.1) 215 (5.4)
- unemployed/job seeker 106 (2.7) 88 (2.2)
- student 344 (8.6) 276 (6.9)
- takes care of housekeeping 301 (7.6) 311 (7.8)
- pensioner 791 (19.9) 822 (20.6)
- has (partial) work disability 179 (4.5) 186 (4.7)
- other 140 (3.5) 142 (3.6)
Age categories (in years)
- 18-34 1,062 (26.7) 993 (24.9)
- 35-49 941 (23.6) 911 (22.9)
- 50-64 1,031 (25.9) 1,041 (26.1)
- 65 and older 949 (23.8) 1,038 (26.1)
Ethnicity
- native 3,164 (79.4) 3,164 (79.4)
- non-native 819 (20.6) 819 (20.6)
Lung problems
- no 3,151 (79.1) 3,155 (79.2)
- yes 832 (20.9) 828 (20.8)
Heart problems
- no 3,733 (93.7) 3,719 (93.4)
- yes 250 (6.3) 264 (6.6)
Diabetes
- no 3,819 (95.9) 3,806 (95.6)
- yes 164 (4.1) 178 (4.5)
ADS=Anxiety and depression symptoms. self-employed=autonomous professional, freelancer, self-employed, or works or assists
in family business. Educational level: low=primary education, preparatory intermediate vocational education, or other,
medium=higher general secondary/pre-university education, intermediate professional education, high=higher professional
education/university.

31
Table 2
Predictors of high anxiety and depression symptom levels (N=3,983)
high ADS levels March 2019 high ADS levels March 20202
Predictors November (N=3,983) (N=3,980)
Previous year N (%) aOR (95% CI)1 N (%) aOR (95% CI)2
High ADS levels
- no (ref.) 239 (7.2)*** 1 257 (7.8)*** 1
- yes 430 (64.5) 19.2(15.5-23.9)*** 419 (62.4) 15.3 (12.4-19.0)***
Gender
- man (ref.) 287 (14.6)*** 1 306 (15.6)* 1
- woman 382 (18.9) 1.26 (1.01-1.56)* 370 (18.3) 1.04 (0.84-1.29)
Educational level
- low (ref.) 199 (19.7)*** 1 206 (20.9)*** 1
- medium 267 (18.4) 1.08 (0.82-1.41) 235 (16.4) 0.73 (0.56-0.96)*
- high 203 (13.4) 0.83 (0.62-1.11) 235 (15.0) 0.91 (0.69-1.19)
Domestic situation
- (un)married co. without c. (ref.) 163 (12.0)*** 1 167 (12.1)*** 1
- (un)married co. with. 230 (16.9) 1.12 (0.84-1.51) 238 (18.0) 1.04 (0.78-1.38)
- single with c. 56 (24.8) 1.82 (1.15-2.88)* 49 (22.0) 1.14 (0.72-1.81)
- single 196 (20.7) 1.47 (1.10-1.96)** 206 (21.6) 1.24 (0.94-1.64)
- other 25 (25.8) 1.88 (0.98-3.58)+ 16 (15.7) 1.08 (0.54-2.16)
Employment status (primary)
- paid employment (ref.) 272 (14.2)*** 1 281 (14.5)*** 1
- self-employed 34 (16.6) 1.59 (0.98-2.58)+ 20 (9.3) 0.58 (0.33-1.02)+
- job seeker 21 (19.8) 1.08 (0.57-2.03) 29 (33.0) 1.98 (1.09-3.58)*
- student 85 (24.7) 0.92 (0.62-1.36) 82 (29.7) 2.38 (1.58-3.60)***
- takes care of housekeeping 57 (18.9) 1.41 (0.91-2.18) 61 (19.6) 1.67 (1.10-2.54)*
- pensioner 85 (10.7) 1.48 (0.84-2.60) 92 (11.2) 1.68 (0.97-2.90)+
- (partial) work dis. 88 (49.2) 3.16 (2.02-4.93)*** 80 (43.0) 1.99 (1.30-3.03)**
- other 26 (18.6) 0.68 (0.38-1.22) 32 (22.5) 1.25 (0.73-2.16)
Age categories (in years)
- 18-34 (ref.) 245 (23.1)*** 1 196 (19.7)*** 1
- 35-49 181 (19.2) 0.72 (0.53-0.98)* 201 (22.1) 1.49 (1.09-2.03)*
- 50-64 139 (13.5) 0.46 (0.33-0.64)*** 170 (16.3) 1.06 (0.77-1.48)
- 65 and older 103 (10.9) 0.36 (0.20-0.64)*** 110 (10.6) 0.48 (0.27-0.85)*
Ethnicity
- native (ref.) 460 (14.5)*** 1 464 (14.7)*** 1
- non-native 209 (25.5) 1.41 (1.10-1.80)** 213 (26.0) 1.41 (1.11-1.79)**
Lung problems
- no (ref.) 446 (14.2)*** 1 444 (14.1)*** 1
- yes 223 (26.8) 1.59 (1.24-2.03)*** 233 (28.1) 1.61 (1.28-2.04)***
Heart problems
- no (ref.) 596 (16.0)*** 1 591 (15.9)*** 1
- yes 73 (29.2) 1.23 (0.82-1.85) 86 (32.6) 1.49 (1.02-2.17)*
Diabetes
- no (ref.) 640 (16.8) 1 646 (17.0) 1
- yes 29 (17.7) 1.06 (0.62-1.81) 31 (17.4) 0.74 (0.45-1.21)
ADS=Anxiety and depression symptoms. aOR= Odds Ratios adjusted for all other predictors in Table 2. CI= Confidence interval.
Ref.=Reference category. self-employed=autonomous professional, freelancer, self-employed, or works or assists in family
business. (un)married co. with c.=(un)married cohabitation with child(ren). (un)married co. without c.=(un)married cohabitation
without child(ren). single with c.=single with children. (partial) work dis.=has (partial) work disability. Ref.=Reference category.
Educational level: low=primary education, preparatory intermediate vocational education, or other, medium=higher general
secondary/pre-university education, intermediate professional education, high=higher professional education/university. * p <
0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. + < 0.10. The asterisks near the percentages refer to the p-values of the chi-square tests, and the
asterisks near the 95% CI’s to the p-values of the aOR’s. 1Nagelkerke R Square=0.42, 2 Nagelkerke R Square=0.39.

32
Table 3
Predictors of lack of emotional support (N=3,983)
Lack of emotional support March 2019 Lack of emotional support March 2020
Predictors November (N=3,983) (N=3,980)
Previous year N (%) aOR (95% CI)1 N (%) aOR (95% CI)2
High ADS levels
- no (ref.) 511 (15.4)*** 1 475 (14.4)*** 1
- yes 301 (45.1) 3.68 (3.04-4.45)*** 308 (45.9) 4.21 (3.47-5.12)***
Gender
- man (ref.) 387 (19.7) 1 356 (18.1)* 1
- woman 425 (21.0) 1.04 (0.88-1.23) 428 (21.2) 1.07 (0.90-1.28)
Educational level
- low (ref.) 244 (24.1)*** 1 222 (22.4)*** 1
- medium 308 (21.2) 0.86 (0.70-1.06) 303 (21.2) 1.06 (0.86-1.32)
- high 260 (17.2) 0.71 (0.57-0.88)** 259 (16.6) 0.84 (0.67-1.06)
Domestic situation
- (un)married co. without c. (ref.) 215 (15.8)*** 1 210 (15.2)*** 1
- (un)married co. with c. 301 (22.1) 1.20 (0.96-1.51) 277 (20.9) 1.36 (1.08-1.72)*
- single with c. 53 (23.3) 1.06 (0.72-1.56) 52 (23.3) 1.42 (0.97-2.09)+
- single 222 (23.5) 1.29 (1.03-1.62)* 220 (23.0) 1.37 (1.09-1.73)**
- other 21 (21.9) 1.17 (0.69-2.00) 25 (24.8) 1.65 (1.00-2.75)+
Employment status
- paid employment (ref.) 373 (19.5)*** 1 355 (18.3)*** 1
- self-employed 39 (19.0) 1.04 (0.71-1.54) 32 (15.0) 0.86 (0.57-1.29)
- job seeker 36 (33.6) 2.01 (1.28-3.15)** 26 (29.5) 1.31 (0.78-2.21)
- student 82 (23.8) 0.92 (0.66-1.29) 52 (18.8) 0.65 (0.44-0.95)*
- takes care of housekeeping 61 (20.3) 0.90 (0.63-1.28) 80 (25.7) 1.46 (1.04-2.05)*
- pensioner 121 (15.3) 0.84 (0.55-1.28) 144 (17.5) 1.14 (0.76-1.72)
- (partial) work dis. 64 (35.8) 1.26 (0.87-1.83) 62 (33.2) 1.21 (0.83-1.76)
- other 37 (26.4) 1.03 (0.66-1.60) 34 (23.9) 1.05 (0.67-1.65)
Age categories (in years)
- 18-34 (ref.) 238 (22.4)*** 1 198 (20.0)** 1
- 35-49 242 (25.7) 1.27 (0.99-1.62)+ 214 (23.5) 1.06 (0.82-1.37)
- 50-64 178 (17.3) 0.78 (0.60-1.02)+ 189 (18.2) 0.85 (0.65-1.11)
- 65 and older 154 (16.2) 0.92 (0.60-1.43) 183 (17.6) 0.84 (0.55-1.65)
Ethnicity
- native (ref.) 571 (18.0)*** 1 566 (17.9)*** 1
- non-native 241 (29.4) 1.56 (1.29-1.90)*** 218 (26.6) 1.41 (1.16-1.73)**
Lung problems
- no (ref.) 584 (18.5)*** 1 562 (17.8)*** 1
- yes 228 (27.4) 1.35 (1.11-1.64)** 223 (26.9) 1.27 (1.04-1.55)*
Heart problems
- no (ref.) 737 (19.7)*** 1 700 (18.8)*** 1
- yes 75 (29.9) 1.28 (0.93-1.77) 84 (31.8) 1.33 (0.97-1.82)+
Diabetes
- no (ref.) 776 (20.3) 1 735 (19.3)** 1
- yes 36 (21.8) 1.06 (0.70-1.60) 49 (27.5) 1.38 (0.95-2.00)+
ADS=Anxiety and depression symptoms. aOR= Odds Ratios adjusted for all other predictors in Table 3. CI= Confidence interval.
Ref.= Reference category. self-employed=autonomous professional, freelancer, self-employed, or works or assists in family
business. (un)married co. with c.=(un)married cohabitation with child(ren). (un)married co. without c.=(un)married cohabitation
without child(ren). single with c.=single with children. (partial) work dis.=has (partial) work disability. Ref.=Reference category.
Educational level: low=primary education, preparatory intermediate vocational education, or other, medium=higher general
secondary/pre-university education, intermediate professional education, high=higher professional education/university. * p <
0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. + < 0.10. The asterisks near the percentages refer to the p-values of the chi-square tests, and the
asterisks near the 95% CI’s to the p-values of the aOR’s. 1Nagelkerke R Square=0.13, 2 Nagelkerke R Square=0.14.

33