Keywords
COVID-19, lockdown, perceived stress, anxiety, stressors, India, PSS-10, GAD-7
This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.
This article is included in the Coronavirus collection.
COVID-19, lockdown, perceived stress, anxiety, stressors, India, PSS-10, GAD-7
Unpaired t-test has been used to compare the data. Percentages have been added to table 2.
Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel 2016 with data analysis add-in and epidemiology & biostatistics calculator available on www.openepi.com.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Javier Santabárbara
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kiran Chaudhari
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Krishna Prasad Muliyala
Since the beginning of 2020, humanity has been confronted with a pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1. The government of India declared a 21-day nationwide ‘lockdown’ from 25th March 2020, which was subsequently extended in phases till 31st May 2020, to break the cycle of spread of infection. The lockdown was in tune with the initiatives taken by many countries across the globe against this pandemic2,3.
‘Lockdown’ is an emergency protocol and is a means of preventing the public from moving from one place to the other. This led to shutting down of all activities except those considered ‘essential services’, which included healthcare, police, sanitation, grocery shops, petrol stations and fire stations. All educational institutions, offices, factories, shopping malls, religious places, and public transport, including buses, railways and aeroplanes, were completely shut down, and sports, religious ceremonies, family functions and all outdoor activities were strictly prohibited.
While isolation and lockdown are recognized as effective strategies of social distancing to stop the spread of COVID-19, the reduced access to family, friends, and other social support systems causes loneliness, increasing mental health issues like anxiety and depression4–6.
Researchers, in the past and during this present crisis, have tried to address the psychological stress in healthcare providers7–9 and the general population2,3,10. The present study, conducted during the fourth phase of nationwide lockdown, from 18th to 31st May 2020, attempts to examine levels of perceived stress and generalized anxiety disorders and causal stressors among the Indian population related to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown.
We conducted an online survey wherein 300 participants were invited via snowball and virtual snowball sampling; the sample size was decided on the basis of logistics and time availability for the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the ABV Government Medical College, Vidisha, MP, India (reference no. 21(b)/IEC/ABV GMC/Vidisha/2020).
A link to the electronic survey forms (Extended data11) was posted on Facebook, and was sent via WhatsApp by the authors to multiple contacts, including colleagues and acquaintances that were from a wide section of society. Consent to participate was implied if the participant completed the questionnaire. The items for the questionnaire were derived from previous study on the topic12.
Inclusion criteria of participants were: a) aged >18 years; b) have an internet connection and Facebook or WhatsApp installed on their mobile phone. Those unwilling to participate or did not provide consent and those <18 years of age were excluded because the psychometric measures utilized in the study were designed for adults only.
Data was collected from 18th to 25th May 2020.
The survey questionnaire, based on the perceived stress scale (PSS-10)12 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)7 instruments, explored the psychosocial stressors among the respondents. For each potential stressor, the frequency of occurrence was classified as never, almost never, sometimes, often, and very often, and these were scored as 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. While PSS measures perception of stress over the last month GAD measures anxiety for the last 2 weeks; both these instruments have been used in previous studies on this subject7,10,12.
The data collected were tabulated and analysed using Microsoft Excel 2016 with data analysis add-in and epidemiology & biostatistics calculator available on www.openepi.com. Frequency and percentage were used for categorical variables. Unpaired t-test was applied to compare responses based on gender, age, level of education, and place of residence. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
We used the STROBE cross sectional checklist when writing our report13.
A total of 257, out of the 300 participants who were sent the survey, responded and completed the survey. They belonged to central, north and western India. The mean age of the participants was 25 years. Men constituted 58% (n=149) of the respondents. Overall, 84% (n=217) of participants had moderate to severe levels of perceived stress and 88% (n=228) had moderate to severe levels of anxiety (Figure 1).
Table 1 shows the PSS-10 and GAD-7 scores of the study participants as stratified by gender, age, level of education, and place of residence. Women as well as those not employed reported significantly higher perceived stress and anxiety, urban residents reported higher perceived stress while the level of education had no difference in terms of perceived stress as well as anxiety. The psychosocial impact of the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic is shown in Table 2. Fear of contracting COVID-19 was the highest stressor followed by difficulties in executing routine exercise schedule and worry about the future.
Characteristics | Number (%) | Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) | Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score (Mean±SD) | p –value* | Score (Mean±SD) | p –value* | |||
Gender | Male | 149 (58) | 17.28±5.25 | 0.0028 | 11.92±3.974 | 0.0176 |
Female | 108 (42) | 19.11±4.44 | 12.93±2.80 | |||
Employed | No | 176 (68.48) | 18.83±4.32 | 0.0009 | 13.18±2.93 | 0.000000722 |
Yes | 81 (31.51) | 16.34±5.91 | 10.53±4.10 | |||
Education | University | 220 (85.6) | 18.19±5.03 | 0.246 | 12.46±3.59 | 0.190 |
School | 37 (14.39) | 17.18±4.818 | 11.67±3.31 | |||
Place of residence | Urban | 178 (69.26) | 18.76±4.69 | 0.001 | 12.26±3.50 | 0.57 |
Rural | 79 (30.73) | 16.44±5.33 | 12.54±3.70 |
The levels of stress and anxiety reported in the present study are similar to those reported by researchers from other countries2,3,5,14. The present study is in agreement with previous studies from other parts of the world where women and those with lower incomes are prone to higher levels of stress and anxiety2,3,5,15,16; this was in contrast to a study from Pakistan where men reported a higher degree of stress during the current crisis17. This could be attributed to cultural factors, which need further evaluation for clearer understanding.
In the present study, older respondents reported lower levels of stress. This could suggest the struggle and hardships of daily life which the younger generation is under18; also, the younger generation tends to obtain a large amount of information from social media, which can easily trigger stress3,10. We found significant difference in the levels of perceived stress reported between urban and rural residents, while no such difference was noted in generalised anxiety scores.
In the present study, we found no difference in the levels of stress when considering the level of education of the respondents. Vallejo et al.19 found those with a lower level of education to be reporting higher stress. Other studies found that those who were highly educated had a higher risk of depression; it is presumed that highly educated and professional people are forced to stay at home and delve into other aspects of family life leading to higher levels of perceived stress5,10.
When considering the psychosocial impact of COVID-19, fear of contracting COVID-19 was the highest stressor, which was consistent with other studies17,20. This was followed by difficulties in executing your routine exercise schedule and worry about the future (Table 2).
This being a cross-sectional study, the selection of participants was non-random, and it is impossible to make unbiased estimates from snowball samples so the results of this study need to be interpreted with due caution. However, this was the best available method of data collection in the current circumstances. The study was also limited by the lack of other socio-demographic and cross-cultural comparison groups.
The psychosocial impact of the nationwide lockdown on the Indian population has been high. The vulnerable groups for stress and anxiety include women, those of a younger age, and the unemployed. The stressors recognized include fear of contracting COVID-19, inability to execute routine exercise schedule and worry about the future.
Figshare: Raw data PSS_GAD Psychosocial impact of lockdown.csv, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12860060.v211.
Figshare: Raw data PSS_GAD Psychosocial impact of lockdown.csv, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12860060.v211.
This project contains the following extended data:
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Mental health
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Neuroscience, cognition, anxiety, aging
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Santabárbara J, Lasheras I, Lipnicki D, Bueno-Notivol J, et al.: Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2021; 109. Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Mental health
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Psychiatry, mental health
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 3 (revision) 04 Aug 21 |
read | ||
Version 2 (revision) 05 May 21 |
read | read | |
Version 1 14 Oct 20 |
read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
What was the mean age of the respondents?
How were the items for the questions in Table 2 selected?
What is the time frame for these questions?
Which parts of India did the respondents belong to? The positivity rates and lockdowns may have had differential impact.
What was the mean age of the respondents?
How were the items for the questions in Table 2 selected?
What is the time frame for these questions?
Which parts of India did the respondents belong to? The positivity rates and lockdowns may have had differential impact.