Comparing psychological distress in Australians before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Objective

To determine if psychological distress has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify predictors of distress.

Method

Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) scores from nationally representative Australian samples before (n = 955) and during (n = 1173) the pandemic were compared. The pandemic sample also completed additional COVID-19 attitudinal scales.

Results

The pandemic sample reported significantly higher distress than the pre-pandemic sample, especially among Melbourne residents, women, and younger and older Australians. Stress attributed to COVID-19, feeling the pandemic management is out of control, and an unwillingness to vaccinate were also predictive of psychological distress.

Conclusions

Women, youth, and Melbourne residents were most vulnerable to the negative effects of COVID-19 on wellbeing, while feelings related to a loss of control, stress about the virus, and vaccine hesitancy may have also contributed to psychological distress.

KEY POINTS

What is already known about this topic:

• (1) Correlational research suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has increased levels of psychological distress among Australians.

• (2) This may be more pronounced among women, youth, and those that have endured extended lockdowns.

• (3) Few studies have explicitly compared distress from pandemic and pre-pandemic samples.

What this topic adds:

• (1) Comparisons between nationally representative surveys found that Australians in the pandemic sample reported a higher level of psychological distress than the pre-pandemic survey.

• (2) Distress increased most among women, Melbourne residents, and young and old Australians.

• (3) Other risk factors are COVID-19 related stress, vaccine hesitancy, and feeling the pandemic management is out of control.

KEYWORDS:

• Kessler psychological distress scale
• K10
• psychological distress
• COVID-19
• lockdown

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YRN49, reference number [yrn49].

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badge for Open Data. The data are openly accessible at https://osf.io/j3hga/?view_only=d676f0cba3634f86bc45ccb215b95bd3