The Emotional Response to Pandemic of Middle- and High-School Students of an Italian Northern Province: The ERP Study
1
AdRes Health Economics and Outcome Research, 10121 Torino, Italy
2
Research & Clinical Governance, 37100 Verona, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(1), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010059
Submission received: 25 November 2021
/
Revised: 15 December 2021
/
Accepted: 29 December 2021
/
Published: 4 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Global Pediatric Health)
Abstract
:The COVID-19 outbreak variably affected people’s mental reactions worldwide but was only episodically investigated in healthy Italian teenagers. Our aim was to investigate the emotional responses of Italian middle and high school students to the pandemic. An anonymous 10-item questionnaire was distributed in pre-selected school samples. Responders had to score their perceived extent for each reaction from 0 (lowest perception) to 10 (highest perception). A group of adults was selected as control. Generalized linear models were used to estimate differences among adults and students, high school (HS) and middle school (MS) students, and urban (U) and rural (R) MS students. Comparisons were presented as mean difference (Δ) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 1512 questionnaires (635 adults, 744 HS, 67 UMS, and 66 RMS) were analyzed. Students appeared more indifferent (Δ = 1.97, 1.52–2.41), anxious (Δ = 0.56, 0.07–1.04), aggressive (Δ = 2.21, 1.72–2.70), and depressed (Δ = 1.87, 1.40–2.34) than adults did, and claimed a higher loss of interest in their activities (Δ = 1.21, 0.72–1.70). Students were less disbelieving (Δ = −0.93, −1.50–0.35) and feared for their loved ones (Δ = −0.89, −1.40–0.39). MS students were less affected by the outbreak than HS students were. Furthermore, R-MS students were significantly less aggressive and depressed, but more indifferent and disbelieving than U-MS. Female sex was an independent factor associated to almost all the questionnaire domains. The pattern of the psychological responses to the pandemic in Italian students proved multifaceted. In addition to anxiety, loss of interest in activities, and depression, aggressiveness emerged as the most characterizing mental attitude in response to the pandemic.
1. Introduction
The long-lasting derangement of usual activities and social relationships, together with the loneliness induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, variably impacted people’s mental reactions worldwide [1].
The mental impact of the COVID-19 outbreak was widely investigated in general populations; however the majority of studies available in the literature mainly focused on specific clusters of adult subjects identified at higher risk: the elderly [2,3,4], pre-existing psychiatric patients [5,6,7,8,9,10], health care workers [11,12,13,14,15], persons in detention [16,17], migrants [18], and university students [19,20,21]. Moreover, the few Italian studies presently available concentrated their attention on the emotional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in adults, mostly [22,23,24,25].
After the first Chinese reports [26], limited attention was paid to the different psychological effects of the pandemic in adolescents and middle school students [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], particularly in western countries [34,35]. In general, the international literature reported a higher prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescents [34,35,36], particularly in females [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], together with a high risk of their negative coping [26].
In Italy, the psychological distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic was only episodically investigated in healthy teenagers. A significant emotional dysregulation was generically described during the early Italian phase of the 2019 pandemic, and it was associated with an increased vulnerability to the stressful effect of the coronavirus outbreak [37]. A descriptive Italian cross-sectional report, though carried out without any support of psychometric questionnaires or scales, tended to minimize this aspect, and rather emphasized the excellent ability of adolescents to manage the adverse emotional conditions and situations of insecurity caused by the pandemic [38]. Recently, a cross-sectional study enrolled two cohorts of Italian subjects (for a total of more than of 1100 records), investigated the relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (i.e., intrusion, hyperarousal, and avoidance) and the fear of COVID-19 and mental health [39]. The results showed that within the post-traumatic stress disorder framework, hyperarousal compared with avoidance mediated the relationship between intrusion and the analyzed outcomes.
Stemming from the evidence provided by the few Italian surveys currently available, the present study was planned with the aim to investigate the emotional response of Italian middle and high school students to the COVID-19 pandemic (the ERP study) and to highlight possible differences in terms of emotional response by age and sex.
2. Materials and Methods
The investigational tool adopted in the study was an anonymous form reporting ten different domains of possible emotional reactions induced by the pandemic. Responders were merely required to score their perceived extent for each reaction in a Likert scale from 0 (lowest perception) to 10 (highest perception). The list of possible emotional reactions was based on a previous systematic literature review [31] and was purposely reported in a scattered order. As aggressiveness was never investigated in all other studies but it could be relevant when dealing with adolescents, it was also included in the questionnaire. Further variables requested from responders were their age, sex, and the location of their school institute (city or rural location) (Figure 1).
The questionnaire had been previously validated in a different sample of adolescents during the pre-study phase, and its comprehension resulted in 100%. Once the study was accepted by the Heads of the Institutes selected and by the teachers voluntarily involved, the questionnaire was distributed to the students who were invited to fill the form completely. Data collection was carried out online via Google forms in 96.4% of cases and the remaining 3.6% by paper questionnaires.
The study was conducted in the Province of Verona (a Province highly affected by the coronavirus outbreak over the last eighteen months) during May-June 2021, before the summer closure of schools. A sample of high school (HS) and middle school (MS) institutes was randomly selected. As high school institutes are concentrated in the cities, while middle schools are much more widespread within the Province, the students’ sample was proportionally calculated for urban (U) and rural (R) schools. Assuming that adolescents’ emotional reactions would likely be different from those of adult individuals, a pre-calculated sample of adults was also included in order to compare their pattern of response to that of adolescents. Questionnaires were administered, over the same period, to people working in or linked to the schools involved in the study, and to parents and relatives of students who accepted to participate in the study.
Based on the preliminary analysis on the first 100 questionnaires collected, a 30% difference between adults’ and adolescents’ responses was considered clinically significant. The formula for two independent (unmatched) samples was used (59): with 5% type I error and 90% statistical power, and assuming a 20% dropout rate, at least 756 patients (378 adults and 378 students) should be enrolled in the study [40].
Continuous data were presented as means and standard deviation (SD), while categorical data as absolute and relative frequencies. Median and interquartile range were also reported for the questionnaire scores. Differences in baseline characteristics among the groups recruited were tested by non-parametric Wilcoxon test for continuous data and by Fisher exact test for categorical variables.
Each domain of the questionnaire was analyzed by a generalized linear regression model (family Gamma). The difference between adults and students (in the preliminary analysis), between HS and MS students, and between U-MS and R-MS students (in the secondary analysis) were adjusted by age and sex. Moreover, a global analysis was performed considering a 4-level categorical variable (0: adults; 1: HS students; 2: U-MS students, and 3: R-MS students) in order to evaluate all the differences among the four subgroups. Comparisons were presented as mean difference (Δ) together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To correct for multiple comparison, in the last analysis, 99.15% CI were calculated according to Šidák correction [40].
3. Results
A total of 1530 questionnaires were collected, by a redemption of 98.2%: 887 among students and 643 among adults. Eighteen questionnaires were excluded due to missing or wrong information reported (ten among students and eight among adults). Finally, 1512 questionnaires (877 students and 635 adults) were included in the study, and then analyzed. The internal reliability of the variables considered in the questionnaire was adequate and consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.7995).
Baseline characteristics were reported in Table 1. Sex was quite balanced among all subgroups, with the exception of that of HS students among whom the percentage of females was higher (70.43%, Fisher exact test, p < 0.001). Moreover, no difference was detected in the age distribution of students from U-MS and R-MS institutes (12.7 vs. 12.3 years of age, p = 0.1704).
According to the primary analysis (Table 2 and Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials), when compared to adults, students appeared more indifferent to the pandemic (Δ = 1.97, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.41), though more anxious (Δ = 0.56, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04), more aggressive (Δ = 2.21, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.70), more depressed (Δ = 1.87, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34), and also claiming a much higher loss of interest in their activities (Δ = 1.21, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70). On the contrary, students were less disbelieving (Δ = −0.93, 95% CI −1.50 to −0.35) and claimed less fear for their loved ones (Δ = −0.89, 95% CI −1.40 to −0.39). Irritation, concern, and fear for themselves were similar among students and adults.
In general, MS students appeared less affected by the COVID-19 outbreak than HS students (Table 2 and Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials). In particular, they experienced significantly less irritation (Δ = −1.28, 95% CI −1.94 to −0.63), anxiety (Δ = −1.22, 95% CI −1.91 to −0.53), aggressiveness (Δ = −2.76, 95% CI −3.39 to −2.12), concern (Δ = −0.88, 95% CI −1.52 to −0.24), and depression (Δ = −1.79, 95% CI −2.53 to −1.06). In particular, students of rural areas were significantly less aggressive (Δ = −1.65, 95% CI −2.81 to −0.48), less depressed (Δ = −1.64, 95% CI −2.87 to −0.40), and more indifferent (Δ = 138, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.56) and disbelieving (Δ = 1.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.67) than those of urban schools (Table 2 and Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials).
Female sex proved to be an independent, critical factor associated with almost all domains investigated by the questionnaire (Figure 2).
Specifically, females were more irritable (Δ = 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.68), anxious (Δ = 1.73, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.05), concerned (Δ = 1.29, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57), afraid for themselves (Δ = 1.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.00) and for their loved ones (Δ = 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.55), and depressed (Δ = 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.06). Equivalent trends were observed for females in all the four subgroups (see Figures S2–S5 in Supplementary Materials).
Multiple comparison analysis involving the 4-level categorical variable (0: adults; 1: HS students; 2: U-MS students, and 3: R-MS students) confirmed previous results (Table 3). In particular, students were more disbelieving and less fearful for their loved ones than adults, regardless of their school level (high or middle) and geographic area (urban or rural). When compared to adults, the highest levels of aggressiveness and depression were mostly recorded in HS students. In general, MS students were significantly less irritated, anxious, aggressive, indifferent to their activities, and depressed than high school students, regardless of their school location (urban or rural). U-MS students and adults were actually comparable, while R-MS students were significantly less aggressive and depressed.
Results of the correlation analysis carried out within the 10 items of the questionnaire was reported in Table 4. Irritation, anxiety, aggressiveness, concern, and fear were strongly correlated with each other (p < 0.001), regardless of the subgroup analyzed (see Tables S1–S4 in Supplementary Materials). Moreover, a strong linear association was observed between irritation vs. anxiety/aggressiveness, anxiety vs. concern/fear for themselves, and concern vs. fear for themselves and their loved ones (see Figure S6 in Supplementary Materials).
4. Discussion
The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted the behaviors and attitudes of many communities worldwide [1]. In general, the pandemic has been described as capable of causing higher levels of psychopathological symptoms in adults regardless of the study design adopted, though reactions appeared variably characterized in different sets of subjects [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
The psychological reactions of children and adolescents to the pandemic were investigated by traditional methods and social media platforms in different studies [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. The majority of studies agreed in affirming the pandemic as capable of significantly affecting the psychological profile of teenagers, even in the absence of prior mental disorders. Anxiety, panic attacks, irritability, and depression were the most frequent mood disorders reported in these cases [31,33,41], with a prevalence of approximately 20% in adolescents [26].
The majority of the subjects investigated in a study conducted on 1067 students aged 6–18 years, from 56 schools located, proved to be psychologically affected by the pandemic, females in particular. Their psychological impact, mostly characterized by panic reactions, was much more pronounced than the physical impact (78.1% vs 1.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) [27]. A further survey reported the occurrence of behavioral disorders and emotional (such as anxious or anxious-depressive) symptoms in children and adolescents [34].
A large online survey confirmed these results and added evidence that ethnicity might variably affect the occurrence of outbreak-induced mental disorders in young people in terms of anxiety, lower vitality, increased depression, and lower self-control [33]. As expected, subjects with prior mental health disorders and/or belonging to disadvantaged families showed a clear worsening in their mental health status with higher probability (OR = 1.68 and 5.83, respectively) [33]. A recent review on near 23,000 children and adolescents from 15 studies further confirmed that a significant proportion of them was suffering from anxiety (34.5%), depression (41.7%), irritability (42.3%), and inattention (30.8%) [31].
In Italy, the stressful impact of the pandemic was investigated for the first time in 500 healthy children during the early Italian phase of the COVID-19 outbreak [37]. Concerns and fears induced by the pandemic were further investigated in an unspecified number of secondary school-first degree students [38]. Even if the study was merely descriptive and biased by the non-use of any psychometric scale or questionnaire, the data suggested the tendency of these young students (in particular males) to underestimate the danger. They seemed less anxious than their parents did; their apprehension was age-dependent, and higher in students from central-southern Italian regions.
The present epidemiological survey, aimed to investigate adolescents’ emotional reactions to the pandemic and the possible occurrence of a response able to discriminate their reactions from those of adults, allowed for some novel and peculiar results. In concordance with a couple of previous studies [38,41], the general psychological pattern of the responses of students to the pandemic confirmed different characterization when compared to that of adults. Furthermore, a multifaceted response was for the first time described within the students’ population, and its age-dependency resized.
High school students were dramatically much more irritated, anxious, concerned, fearful, depressed, and aggressive than adults, peculiarly in the female sex. Moreover, middle school students showed a dichotomous pattern of response: those of the city schools, even if younger, showed a response very similar to that of the high school students, while the response of those of the rural schools was very similar to that of adults, particularly in terms of anxiety, aggressiveness, depression, and loss of interest in their activities.
Different from all previous studies, the present survey also focused for the first time the peculiar degree of aggressiveness induced by the pandemic in middle and high school students, and calculated the linear relationships existing among the different emotional symptoms, variably associated. Actually, aggressiveness mostly discriminated the students’ from the adults’ response, and differently characterized the emotional response within the students’ cohort.
If age can be hypothesized as the critical factor from this point of view, this hypothesis is very difficult to sustain for explaining the difference in the psychological response recorded within rural and city middle school students that are equally aged. Moreover, the results of the present study confirmed that the female sex is characterized by dramatically higher degrees of mental stress, regardless of the age (and the kind of school).
Other factors, still scarcely investigated [29], could likely have to be invoked in order to explain the much smoother response of the former cohort, such as: the hormonal imprinting, a less stressful lifestyle that is much more prone to personal relationships in the smaller communities where they usually live, a less compulsive addiction to social media applications, the lower impact of social media in the spreading of panic reactions. However, it should also be considered the variable abilities of teenagers to manage situations of insecurity and to cope with unfavorable adverse conditions, reported as excellent in some studies [38,40], but insufficient in others [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Obviously, students with higher levels of resilience are more likely to be characterized by positive mental reactions [37].
All the emotional reactions described above, included sleep disorders [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,41], can obviously substantially impact young students’ lifestyles and social relationships. As human nature requires social connections [42], the impact of homestay, loneliness, and long-term social isolation can frequently lead to frustration and anger [43], particularly in teenagers as shown in the present study. This aspect represents a peculiar issue that should be regarded as a transversal medical problem of crucial clinical importance. In effect, even though in the absence of prior psychological disorders, young subjects who are suffering from any chronic disease (such as, bronchial asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy, hematological disorders, etc.) and need the daily consumption of specific drugs at regular time intervals have a much higher probability to skip doses, to drop significantly the adherence to their treatments, and to reduce dramatically the effectiveness of their therapeutic strategy. Actually, the exalted boredom, depression, and aggressivity induced by the pandemic in adolescents can magnify their negative approach to all procedures requiring regular actions, including the compliance to pharmacological treatments. In this context, a psychological profile mainly characterized by depression, loss of interest, and aggressiveness as the major emotional response, particularly in the female sex, represents a clear risk factor [44].
The present paper has some limitations. First, the study only attains to the secondary school population of a northern Italian province, one heavily affected by the outbreak. Second, prior psychological disorders of students and of the social status of their families were impossible to investigate due to strict privacy limitations. Lastly, the cross-sectional design used in this analysis does not allow for causal inference about the relationship among the study variables. However, the empirical evidence and the differences observed among the enrolled cohorts are plausible and realistic.
Points of strength include: (1) the use of a validated mental scale, (2) the strict epidemiological model adopted that allowed to obtain a representative sample to investigate, (3) the adoption of strict and proper statistical models, (4) the comparison between teenagers and adults, (5) the analytical comparison between high school and middle school students, and (6) the comparison within the middle school students according to the rural and city communities of students.
5. Conclusions
The results of the present study highlighted the significant rates of psychological consequences of the pandemic in adolescent and teenager students, and revealed for the first time the differences in their multifaceted pattern of response. In addition to anxiety, a loss of interest in activities, depression, and aggressiveness emerged as the most characterizing mental attitudes in response to the pandemic. The students’ age, but mostly female sex, were the drivers.
As it is not known how the students may react to a persisting pandemic, their psychological profile should be periodically investigated by means of the simple questionnaire used in the present study, and subjects at risk be monitored. There is urgent need to plan (or improve) psychological interventions and mental health support in schools and social institutions in order to reduce and minimize the impact of the outbreak on adolescent and teenage students, and to facilitate their coping with difficulties.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children9010059/s1, Table S1: Correlation matrix in adults. Table S2: Correlation matrix in high school students. Table S3: Correlation matrix in middle school students from urban areas. Table S4: Correlation matrix in middle school students from rural areas. Figure S1: Pairwise comparisons for the 10 items investigated in the questionnaire: adults vs. students (right radar diagram), high vs. middle school students (middle radar diagram), and middle school students from urban vs. rural areas (left radar diagram). Figure S2: Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in adults. Figure S3: Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in high school students. Figure S4: Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in middle school students from urban areas. Figure S5: Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in middle school students from rural areas. Figure S6: Correlation plots, the dimension of each bubble is proportional to the frequency of responders.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.W.D.N.; methodology, R.W.D.N. and M.P.; software, M.P.; validation, R.W.D.N. and P.T.; formal analysis, M.P.; investigation, P.T.; resources, R.W.D.N. and P.T.; data curation, R.W.D.N. and P.T.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W.D.N. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethical and Scientific Commission of Research and Clinical Government in the session of 30 April 2021(cod.: ERP/2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Authors do not wish to share their data without their permission.
Acknowledgments
Authors are particularly grateful to Ilaria Viviani, Gaia Benetti, Daniela Vesentini, Martina Vicentini, Venturino Cacciotti, and Michele De Santi for their valuable contributions to the present investigation. All individuals included in aknoledgments have agreed and consented.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Talevi, D.; Socci, V.; Carai, M.; Carnaghi, G.; Faleri, S.; Trebbi, E.; Di Bernardo, A.; Capelli, F.; Pacitti, F. Mental health outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic. Riv. Psichiatr. 2020, 55, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, R.; Nellums, I.B. COVID-19 and the consequences of isolating the elderly. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calenda, C.C.; Reynolds, C.F.; Applegate, W.B.; Sloane, P.D.; Zimmerman, S.; Newman, A.N.; Meeks, S.; Ouslander, J.G. COVID-19 Pandemic and Ageism: A Call for Humanitarian Care. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2020, 28, 805–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plagg, B.; Engl, A.; Piccoliori, G.; Eisendle, K. Prolonged social isolation of the elderly during COVID-19: Between benefit and damage. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 89, 104086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Zhang, Y. Mental healthcare for psychiatric inpatients during the COVID-19 epidemic. Gen. Psychiatry 2020, 33, e100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bojdani, E.; Rajagopalan, A.; Chen, A.; Gearin, P.; Olcott, W.; Shankar, V.; Cloutier, A.; Solomon, H.; Naqvi, N.Z.; Batty, N.; et al. COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on psychiatric care in the United States. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 289, 113069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Zheng, P.; Jia, Y.; Chen, H.; Mao, Y.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Fu, H.; Dai, J. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunnell, D.; Appleby, L.; Arensman, E. Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 468–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, H.; Chen, J.H.; Xu, Y.F. Patients with mental health disorders in the COVID-19 epidemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, Y.T.; Zhao, Y.J.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.H.; Zhao, N.; Cheung, T.; Ng, C.H. The COVID-19 outbreak and psychiatric hospitals in China: Managing challenges through mental health service reform. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 16, 1741–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chew, N.W.S.; Lee, G.K.H.; Tan, B.Y.Q.; Jing, M.; Goh, Y.; Ngiam, N.J.H.; Yeo, L.L.L.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, F.A.; Shanmugam, G.N.; et al. A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 88, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santarone, K.; McKeneny, M.; Elkbuli, A. Preserving mental health and resilience in frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 38, 1530–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsamakis, K.; Rizos, E.; Manolis, A.J.; Chaidou, S.; Kumpouropoulos, S.; Spartalis, E.; Spandidos, D.A.; Tsiptsios, D.; Triantafyllis, A.S. COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on mental health of healthcare professionals. Exp. Ther. Med. 2020, 19, 3451–3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaka, A.; Shamloo, S.E.; Fiorente, P.; Tafuri, A. COVID-19 pandemic as a watershed moment: A call for systematic psychological health care for frontline medical staff. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 883–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.R.; Wang, K.; Yin, L.; Zhao, W.; Xue, Q.; Peng, M.; Min, B.; Tian, Q.; Leng, H.; Du, J.; et al. Mental Health and Psychosocial Problems of Medical Health Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China. Psychother. Psychosom. 2020, 89, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebenz, M.; Bhugra, D.; Buadze, A.; Schleifer, R. Caring for persons in detention suffering with mental illness during the Covid-19 outbreak. Forensic Sci. Int. Mind Law 2020, 1, 100013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewson, T.; Shepherd, A.; Hard, J.; Shaw, J. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of prisoners. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 568–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liem, A.; Wang, C.; Wariyanti, Y.; Latkin, C.A.; Hall, B.J. The neglected health of international migrant workers in the COVID-19 epidemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, H.; Shu, W.; Li, M.; Li, Z.; Tao, F.; Wu, X.; Yu, Y.; Meng, H.; Vermund, S.H.; Hu, Y. Social Distancing among Medical Students during the 2019 Coronavirus Disease Pandemic in China: Disease Awareness, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Behavioral Activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, W.; Fang, Z.; Hou, G.; Han, M.; Xu, X.; Dong, J.; Zheng, J. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 287, 112934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huckins, J.F.; da Silva, A.W.; Wang, W.; Hedlund, E.; Rogers, C.; Nepal, S.K.; Wu, J.; Obuchi, M.; Murphy, E.I.; Meyer, M.L.; et al. Mental Health and Behavior of College Students During the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Smartphone and Ecological Momentary Assessment Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e20185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moccia, L.; Janiri, D.; Pepe, M.; Dattoli, L.; Molinaro, M.; De Martin, V.; Chieffo, D.; Janiri, L.; Fiorillo, A.; Sani, G.; et al. Affective temperament, attachment style, and the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak: An early report on the Italian general population. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montemurro, N. The emotional impact of COVID-19: From medical staff to common people. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 23–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villani, L.; Pastorino, R.; Molinari, E.; Anelli, F.; Ricciardi, W.; Graffigna, G.; Boccia, S. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being of students in an Italian university: A web-based cross-sectional survey. Glob. Health 2021, 17, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balsamo, M.; Carlucci, L. Italians on the Age of COVID-19: The Self-Reported Depressive Symptoms through Web-Based Survey. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 569276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Ye, M.; Fu, Y.; Yang, M.; Luo, F.; Yuan, J.; Tao, Q. The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Teenagers in China. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 67, 747–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radwan, E.; Radwan, A.; Radwan, W. The role of social media in spreading panic among primary and secondary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online questionnaire study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaman, M.A.; Esici, H.; Tomar, I.H.; Aliyev, R. COVID-19: Are School Counseling Services Ready? Students’ Psychological Symptoms, School Counselors’ Views, and Solutions. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 647740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Siddiqui, A.A.; Arshad, M.S.; Iqbal, F.; Arif, T.B. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on lifestyle and mental health of students: A retrospective study from Karachi, Pakistan. Ann. Méd.-Psychol. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Roy, D.; Sinha, K.; Parveen, S.; Sharma, G.; Joshi, G. Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, P.K.; Gupta, J.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Kumar, R.; Meena, A.K.; Madaan, P.; Sharawat, I.K.; Gulati, S. Psychological and Behavioral Impact of Lockdown and Quarantine Measures for COVID-19 Pandemic on Children, Adolescents and Caregivers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Trop. Pediatrics 2021, 67, fmaa122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, K.; Mann, S.; Singh, R.; Bangar, R.; Kulkarni, R. Impact of COVID-19 on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents. Cureus 2020, 12, e10051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkaya-Kalayci, T.; Kothgassner, O.D.; Wenzel, T.; Goreis, A.; Chen, A.; Ceri, V.; Özlü-Erkilic, Z. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health and Psychological Well-Being of Young People Living in Austria and Turkey: A Multicenter Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massa, J.L.P. Mental Health and COVID-19 in children and adolescents: Psychopathologycal and Public Health approach. Rev. Española Salud Publica 2020, 94, e202010141. [Google Scholar]
- Genta, F.D.; Neto, G.B.R.; Sunfeld, J.P.V.; Porto, J.F.; Xavier, A.D.; Moreno, C.R.C.; Lorenzi-Filho, G.; Genta, P.R. COVID-19 pandemic impact on sleep habits, chronotype, and health-related quality of life among high school students: A longitudinal study. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2021, 17, 1371–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deolmi, M.; Pisani, F. Psychological and psychiatric impact of COVID-19 pandemic among children and adolescents. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, e2020149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janiri, D.; Moccia, L.; Dattoli, L.; Pepe, M.; Molinaro, M.; De Martin, V.; Chieffo, D.; Di Nicola, M.; Fiorillo, A.; Janiri, L.; et al. Emotional dysregulation mediates the impact of childhood trauma on psychological distress: First Italian data during the early phase of COVID-19 outbreak. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2021, 55, 1071–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buzzi, C.; Tucci, M.; Ciprandi, R.; Brambilla, I.; Caimmi, S.; Ciprani, G.; Marseglia, G.L. The psycho-social effects of COVID-19 on Italian adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors. Ital. J. Pediatrics 2020, 46, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Gomez, M.; Giorgi, G.; Finstad, G.L.; Urbini, F.; Foti, G.; Mucci, N.; Zaffina, S.; Leon-Perez, J.M. COVID-19 Pandemic as a Traumatic vent and Its Associations with Fear and Mental Health: A Cognitive-Activation Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolson, R.F.; Clarke, W.R. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Biomedical Data, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ghanamah, R.; Eghbaria-Ghanamah, H. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Behavioral and Emotional Aspects and Daily Routines of Arab Israeli Children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cacioppo, J.T.; Patrick, W. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need of Social Connection; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Banerjee, D.; Rai, M. Social isolation in COVID-19: The impact of loneliness. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 66, 525–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prout, T.A.; Zicha-Mano, S.; Aafjes-van Dorn, K.; Bekes, V.; Christman-Cohen, I.; Whistler, K.; Kui, T.; Di Giuseppe, M. Identifying predictors of psychological distress during COVID-19: A machine learning approach. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The questionnaire with all variables requested.
Figure 2.
Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in the whole sample (comparison was adjusted by age).
Figure 2.
Difference among males and females regarding the 10 questions of the questionnaire in the whole sample (comparison was adjusted by age).
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the whole sample by subgroups.
| Variables | Adults | HS | U-MS | R-MS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 635 | 744 | 67 | 66 |
| Sex (% males) | 303 (47.72%) | 220 (29.57%) | 32 (47.76%) | 34 (51.52%) |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 46.84 ± 17.16 | 16.71 ± 1.53 | 12.70 ± 1.85 | 12.33 ± 1.14 |
HS: High School; MS: Middle School; U-MS: Urban Middle School; R-MS: Rural Middle School; SD: standard deviation.
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of the whole sample by subgroups: data for each group are reported as mean ± SD, median and range (in brackets); data in bold indicate the most significant difference between adults and students in terms of their emotional response.
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of the whole sample by subgroups: data for each group are reported as mean ± SD, median and range (in brackets); data in bold indicate the most significant difference between adults and students in terms of their emotional response.
| Reaction | Adults (n = 635) | Students (n = 877) | Δ (95% CI) | HS (n = 744) | MS (n = 133) | Δ (95% CI) | U-MS (n = 67) | R-MS (n = 66) | Δ (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indifference | 2.72 ± 3.11 1 (0–5) | 4.33 ± 3.10 4 (1–7) | 1.97 (1.52 to 2.41) | 4.39 ± 3.09 5 (2–7) | 3.97 ± 3.18 4 (1–6) | −0.57 (−1.31 to 0.18) | 3.33 ± 3.34 3 (0–6) | 4.62 ± 2.89 4 (1–6) | 1.38 (0.20 to 2.56) |
| Disbelief | 5.04 ± 3.20 5 (2–8) | 4.75 ± 3.04 5 (2–7) | −0.93 (−1.50 to −0.35) | 4.94 ± 2.99 5 (2–7) | 3.65 ± 3.12 3 (1–6) | −0.50 (−1.25 to 0.24) | 2.97 ± 3.11 2 (0–5) | 4.35 ± 2.99 4.5 (2–7) | 1.51 (0.35 to 2.67) |
| Irritation | 5.38 ± 3.17 6 (3–8) | 6.47 ± 3.11 7 (4–9) | −0.12 (−0.65 to 0.40) | 6.73 ± 3.02 8 (5–9) | 5.01 ± 3.17 5 (2–8) | −1.28 (−1.94 to −0.63) | 5.21 ± 3.55 6 (2–8) | 4.80 ± 2.74 5 (3–7) | −0.17 (−1.25 to 0.91) |
| Anxiety | 5.44 ± 3.09 6 (3–8) | 6.60 ± 3.18 7 (5–10) | 0.56 (0.07 to 1.04) | 6.89 ± 3.04 8 (5–10) | 4.99 ± 3.48 6 (2–8) | −1.22 (−1.91 to −0.53) | 5.10 ± 3.71 6 (2–9) | 4.88 ± 3.27 6 (2–7) | 0.04 (−1.21 to 1.29) |
| Aggressiveness | 2.74 ± 2.89 2 (0–5) | 5.74 ± 3.42 6 (3–9) | 2.21 (1.72 to 2.70) | 6.26 ± 3.22 7 (3–9) | 2.87 ± 3.07 2 (0–5) | −2.76 (−3.39 to −2.12) | 3.74 ± 3.37 4 (0–6) | 1.98 ± 2.46 1 (0–3) | −1.65 (−2.81 to −0.48) |
| Concern | 6.81 ± 2.71 8 (5–9) | 6.46 ± 2.75 7 (5–9) | −0.31 (−0.79 to 0.17) | 6.63 ± 2.60 7 (5–9) | 5.53 ± 3.33 6 (3–9) | −0.88 (−1.52 to −0.24) | 5.39 ± 3.61 6 (1–9) | 5.68 ± 3.04 6 (4–8) | 0.00 (−1.20 to 1.20) |
| Fear for you | 5.39 ± 3.11 6 (3–8) | 5.60 ± 3.09 6 (3–8) | 0.29 (−0.23 to 0.81) | 5.75 ± 3.00 6 (3–8) | 4.72 ± 3.43 5 (1–8) | −0.29 (−0.98 to 0.40) | 4.30 ± 3.21 4 (1–7) | 5.15 ± 3.62 6 (1–8) | 0.74 (−0.45 to 1.94) |
| Fear for YLO | 7.49 ± 2.65 8 (6–10) | 6.95 ± 2.91 8 (5–9) | −0.89 (−1.40 to −0.39) | 7.04 ± 2.77 8 (5–9) | 6.46 ± 3.54 8 (3–10) | −0.55 (−1.24 to 0.14) | 6.19 ± 3.81 8 (2–10) | 6.73 ± 3.25 8 (5–10) | 0.61 (−0.64 to 1.87) |
| LOI in your activities | 3.38 ± 3.12 3 (0–6) | 5.17 ± 3.45 5 (2–8) | 1.21 (0.72 to 1.70) | 5.42 ± 3.42 6 (2–8) | 3.77 ± 3.25 3 (0–6) | −0.40 (−1.20 to 0.40) | 3.88 ± 3.53 3 (0–6) | 3.67 ± 2.97 3 (1–6) | 0.40 (−0.84 to 1.63) |
| Depression | 2.88 ± 2.97 2 (0–5) | 5.06 ± 3.56 5 (1–8) | 1.87 (1.40 to 2.34) | 5.44 ± 3.44 6 (2.5–8) | 2.93 ± 3.48 1 (0–5) | −1.79 (−2.53 to −1.06) | 3.74 ± 4.02 2 (0–8) | 2.11 ± 2.60 1 (0–4) | −1.64 (−2.87 to −0.40) |
HS: High School; LOI: loss of interest; MS: Middle School; U-MS: Urban Middle School; R-MS: Rural Middle School; SD: standard deviation; YLO: your loved ones.
Table 3.
Multiple comparisons for the 10 items investigated by the questionnaire (data in bold indicate the most significant difference between adults and students in terms of their emotional response).
Table 3.
Multiple comparisons for the 10 items investigated by the questionnaire (data in bold indicate the most significant difference between adults and students in terms of their emotional response).
| Reaction | Δ (99.15% CI) Row vs. Column | Adults | HS | U-MS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indifference | HS | 2.04 (1.41 to 2.66) | ||
| U-MS | 0.89 (−0.22 to 2.01) | −1.14 (−2.21 to −0.08) | ||
| R-MS | 2.13 (0.66 to 3.61) | 0.10 (−1.34 to 1.54) | 1.24 (−0.46 to 2.94) | |
| Disbelief | HS | −0.82 (−1.61 to −0.02) | ||
| U-MS | −2.88 (−3.90 to −1.86) | −2.06 (−2.78 to −1.34) | ||
| R-MS | −1.53 (−2.76 to −0.30) | −0.71 (−1.69 to 0.27) | 1.35 (0.24 to 2.46) | |
| Irritation | HS | 0.07 (−0.65 to 0.80) | ||
| U-MS | −1.52 (−2.64 to −0.39) | −1.59 (−2.56 to −0.62) | ||
| R-MS | −1.98 (−3.06 to −0.90) | −2.05 (−2.96 to −1.15) | −0.46 (−1.69 to 0.76) | |
| Anxiety | HS | 0.75 (0.07 to 1.43) | ||
| U-MS | −0.38 (−1.44 to 0.69) | −1.12 (−2.07 to −0.18) | ||
| R-MS | −0.89 (−1.91 to 0.13) | −1.63 (−2.51 to −0.76) | −0.51 (−1.68 to 0.66) | |
| Aggressiveness | HS | 2.67 (1.94 to 3.40) | ||
| U-MS | 0.07 (−1.11 to 1.25) | −2.61 (−3.77 to −1.44) | ||
| R-MS | −1.73 (−2.52 to −0.94) | −4.40 (−5.16 to −3.64) | −1.80 (−2.97 to −0.62) | |
| Concern | HS | −0.25 (−0.91 to 0.40) | ||
| U-MS | −1.05 (−2.03 to −0.07) | −0.80 (−1.58 to −0.02) | ||
| R-MS | −1.03 (−2.03 to −0.03) | −0.78 (−1.57 to 0.02) | 0.02 (−1.01 to 1.06) | |
| Fear for you | HS | 0.36 (−0.36 to 1.07) | ||
| U-MS | −0.51 (−1.55 to 0.53) | −0.87 (−1.71 to −0.03) | ||
| R-MS | −0.05 (−1.20 to 1.09) | −0.41 (−1.35 to 0.54) | 0.46 (−0.72 to 1.64) | |
| Fear for your loved ones | HS | −0.86 (−1.55 to −0.17) | ||
| U-MS | −1.42 (−2.46 to −0.38) | −0.56 (−1.39 to 0.27) | ||
| R-MS | −1.01 (−2.11 to 0.08) | −0.15 (−1.04 to 0.73) | 0.41 (−0.74 to 1.55) | |
| Loss of interest in your activities | HS | 1.43 (0.73 to 2.12) | ||
| U-MS | −0.11 (−1.28 to 1.06) | −1.53 (−2.63 to −0.44) | ||
| R-MS | −0.39 (−1.51 to 0.73) | −1.82 (−2.85 to −0.79) | −0.28 (−1.65 to 1.09) | |
| Depression | HS | 2.21 (1.52 to 2.90) | ||
| U-MS | 0.78 (−0.42 to 1.97) | −1.43 (−2.59 to −0.28) | ||
| R-MS | −0.88 (−1.71 to −0.06) | −3.10 (−3.86 to −2.33) | −1.66 (−2.86 to −0.47) |
CI: confidence interval; Δ: mean difference; HS: High School; MS: Middle School; R-MS: Rural Middle School; U-MS: Urban Middle School.
Table 4.
Correlation matrix of the whole sample.
| Reaction | Indifference | Disbelief | Irritation | Anxiety | Aggressi-Veness | Concern | Fear for You | Fear for YLO | LOI in Your Activities | Depression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indifference | 1 | |||||||||
| Disbelief | 0.099 *** | 1 | ||||||||
| Irritation | 0.125 *** | 0.243 *** | 1 | |||||||
| Anxiety | 0.072 ** | 0.185 *** | 0.423 *** | 1 | ||||||
| Aggressiveness | 0.205 *** | 0.208 *** | 0.518 *** | 0.443 *** | 1 | |||||
| Concern | −0.032 | 0.249 *** | 0.284 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.25 *** | 1 | ||||
| Fear for you | −0.037 | 0.241 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.323 *** | 0.692 *** | 1 | |||
| Fear for YBO | −0.091 *** | 0.214 *** | 0.209 *** | 0.362 *** | 0.157 *** | 0.537 *** | 0.544 *** | 1 | ||
| LOI in your activities | 0.264 *** | 0.129 *** | 0.305 *** | 0.342 *** | 0.434 *** | 0.207 *** | 0.197 *** | 0.115 *** | 1 | |
| Depression | 0.121 *** | 0.114 *** | 0.375 *** | 0.536 *** | 0.537 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.348 *** | 0.145 *** | 0.488 *** | 1 |
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Povero, M.; Turco, P.; Dal Negro, R.W. The Emotional Response to Pandemic of Middle- and High-School Students of an Italian Northern Province: The ERP Study. Children 2022, 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010059
AMA Style
Povero M, Turco P, Dal Negro RW. The Emotional Response to Pandemic of Middle- and High-School Students of an Italian Northern Province: The ERP Study. Children. 2022; 9(1):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010059
Chicago/Turabian StylePovero, Massimiliano, Paola Turco, and Roberto Walter Dal Negro. 2022. "The Emotional Response to Pandemic of Middle- and High-School Students of an Italian Northern Province: The ERP Study" Children 9, no. 1: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010059
APA StylePovero, M., Turco, P., & Dal Negro, R. W. (2022). The Emotional Response to Pandemic of Middle- and High-School Students of an Italian Northern Province: The ERP Study. Children, 9(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010059
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
