Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T12:33:48.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of pre-pandemic depression for changes in depression, anxiety, and loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a longitudinal probability sample of adults from Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2022

Christoph Benke Open the ORCID record for Christoph Benke [Opens in a new window] ,
Eva Asselmann Open the ORCID record for Eva Asselmann [Opens in a new window] ,
Theresa M. Entringer Open the ORCID record for Theresa M. Entringer [Opens in a new window]  and
Christiane A. Pané-Farré Open the ORCID record for Christiane A. Pané-Farré [Opens in a new window]
Christoph Benke*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps University of Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany
Eva Asselmann
Affiliation:
Differential and Personality Psychology, HMU Health and Medical University, 14471 Potsdam, Germany
Theresa M. Entringer
Affiliation:
Socio-Economic Panel, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), 10117 Berlin, Germany
Christiane A. Pané-Farré
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps University of Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior (CMBB), University of Marburg and Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
*
*Author for correspondence: Christoph Benke, E-mail: christoph.benke@uni-marburg.de

Abstract

Background

The present study aims to delineate the role of preexisting depression for changes in common mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Using mixed-effects linear regression models, we analyzed data on the course of depressive (Patient Health Questionnaire-2) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2) symptoms as well as loneliness (three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale) in a subset of the Socio-Economic Panel Study, a large and nationally representative household panel study from Germany. Participants were assessed during the first COVID-19 wave in Germany (March 31 to July 4, 2020; n = 6,694) and prospectively followed up at the peak of the second COVID-19 wave (January 18 to February 15, 2021; n = 6,038).

Results

Overall, anxiety and depressive symptoms decreased, whereas loneliness increased from the first to the second COVID-19 wave. However, depressive symptoms increased and the surge in loneliness was steeper in those with versus without clinically relevant depressive symptoms in 2019 or a history of a depressive disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety symptoms remained stable throughout the pandemic in individuals with versus without clinically relevant depressive symptoms in 2019. Pre-pandemic depression was associated with overall higher depressive and anxiety symptoms and loneliness across both assessments. The stringency of lockdown measures did not affect the results.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that individuals with a history of depressive symptoms before the COVID-19 pandemic are at increased risk to experience an escalation of mental health problems due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, they might particularly profit from targeted prevention and early intervention programs.

Keywords

Depressive disorderlockdown measuresrisk groupsocial distancing

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e76
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association

Introduction

Depressive symptomatology is prevalent among the general population and causes major psychological, social, and economic burdens [Reference Paykel, Brugha and Fryers1, Reference Wittchen and Jacobi2]. Individuals with increased depressive symptoms are at risk for several somatic sequelae (e.g., cardiovascular disease) and mental health issues including loneliness, anxiety, and the recurrence or deterioration of depression [Reference Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley and Thisted3–Reference Lasgaard, Goossens and Elklit5]. These mental health sequelae of depression, in turn, amplify the risk for somatic and mental disorder comorbidities, chronicity, as well as elevated psychosocial impairment and burden [Reference Paykel, Brugha and Fryers1, Reference Beutel, Klein, Brähler, Reiner, Jünger and Michal6–Reference Valtorta, Kanaan, Gilbody and Hanratty9]. Environmental adversities such as traumatic experiences, major stressful life events, and minor daily hassles are well known to play a central role in the development and course of depression and related mental health problems. Usually, they interact with other biological (e.g., genetic vulnerabilities), developmental (e.g., early childhood adversities), psychological (e.g., specific personality traits), and sociodemographic factors (e.g., gender) [Reference Hammen10]. Moreover, an increasing body of evidence indicates that individuals affected by elevated depressive symptoms are more vulnerable to stressful events (i.e., higher stress reactivity and diminished recovery toward lower levels of stress; stress sensitization) [Reference Monroe and Harkness11] and may experience a greater number of depression-related stressors such as interpersonal problems or conflicts (stress generation) [Reference Hammen10], which may cause a further increase in emotional disturbances in the long run.

This vulnerability to stressful events in depression may become particularly relevant in times in which individuals are faced with an inevitable stressor such as the COVID-19 pandemic that may threaten mental health. This assumption is corroborated by reports of increases in experienced distress, anxiety, depression, and loneliness from the time before the pandemic to the first wave of the pandemic in Germany [Reference Beutel, Hettich, Ernst, Schmutzer, Tibubos and Braehler12, Reference Riepenhausen, Veer, Wackerhagen, Reppmann, Köber and Ayuso-Mateos13] and countries worldwide [Reference Robinson, Sutin, Daly and Jones14]. Recent studies on the longitudinal course of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that anxiety, depression, and loneliness decreased during the easing of the first lockdown [Reference Bendau, Plag, Kunas, Wyka, Ströhle and Petzold15–Reference Fancourt, Steptoe and Bu19], but, again, increased while lockdown measures were extended and during the second and third COVID-19 waves in Europe [Reference Bu, Mak, Fancourt and Paul20, Reference Daly and Robinson21]. In contrast, there are studies demonstrating that mental health problems were relatively stable over time or even decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic [Reference Riepenhausen, Veer, Wackerhagen, Reppmann, Köber and Ayuso-Mateos13, Reference Bendau, Asselmann, Plag, Petzold and Ströhle22–Reference Kok, Pan, Ottenheim, Jörg, Eikelenboom and Horsfall24]. These inconsistent findings might be partly explained by differences in the composition of study populations and timing of the assessments.

It is particularly plausible to assume that especially individuals affected by elevated depressive symptoms before the pandemic would show unfavorable changes in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent studies on the effect of depression on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, revealed inconclusive results. Current data collected during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that previous or current depression was associated with higher depression, anxiety, loneliness, and COVID-19-related distress during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic [Reference Asmundson, Paluszek, Landry, Rachor, McKay and Taylor25, Reference Kwong, Pearson, Adams, Northstone, Tilling and Smith26]. In contrast, individuals with versus without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis did not differ in mental health changes during the initial COVID-19 phase [Reference Daly, Sutin and Robinson17, Reference Bendau, Kunas, Wyka, Petzold, Plag and Asselmann27]. Beyond these findings from the initial COVID-19 phase, we know little about differences in the long-term course of depression, anxiety, and loneliness among individuals with versus without depressive symptoms or disorders prior to the pandemic so far. Most importantly, research on strictly prospective associations between depression levels prior to the pandemic and mental health changes during the pandemic is rare.

To close this research gap, we used data from the Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), a nationally representative panel study from Germany. A subsample of SOEP participants (SOEP-CoV) was asked about depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness during the first COVID-19 wave (March to July 2020) and 6 months later, during the second COVID-19 wave (January to February 2021). In this publication, we aimed to test our a priori hypothesis of whether preexisting depressive symptomatology is associated with unfavorable changes in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we analyzed the role of depressive symptoms in 2019 and a history of a diagnosed depressive disorder (as derived from the regular SOEP waves before the pandemic) for changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic (as derived from the additional SOEP COVID-19 assessments in 2020 and 2021). Elucidating the role of depression in mental health during an enduring stressful situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may help to advance our understanding of the development and chronicity of depression and related mental health problems as well as inform public health and clinical approaches to prevention and intervention.

Methods

Participants

We used data from a subset of SOEP, a nationally representative household panel with approximately 30,000 participants in 15,000 German households assessed since 1984 (v36) [Reference Liebig, Goebel, Schröder, Grabka, Richter and Schupp28]. In 2020, a random SOEP subsample (SOEP-CoV) of 6,694 regular SOEP respondents was assessed during the first COVID-19 wave in Germany (March 31 to July 4, 2020) and, then, prospectively followed up at the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in Germany (n = 6,038), that is, from January 18 to February 15, 2021 [Reference Kühne, Kroh, Liebig and Zinn29]. As can be seen in Figure 1, the overall stringency of the government’s imposed lockdown measures was higher during the second versus first assessment period. All participants of the SOEP-CoV subsample were assessed using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The characteristics of the present study sample are summarized in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the mean age of the sample was 54.2 years (age range: 18–99 years). In the present sample, 60.8% were female, and 32.6% had tertiary education. The mean equivalized household income was 2,237€ per month. Further information on the SOEP and SOEP-CoV is presented in the supplementary methods (see the Supplementary Material).

Figure 1.

Course of new cases of COVID-19 (7-day rolling average, per million) and level of restrictions due to lockdown measures (indicated by the stringency index of the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (February 2020 to March 2021). The gray bars represent the time points and durations of the assessment phases (T1: first COVID-19 wave; T2: second COVID-19 wave).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Abbreviations: CASMIN, Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Measures

Sociodemographic variables

Sociodemographic information, such as age, gender, and education, was assessed during the COVID-19 assessment or derived from previous assessment waves. Education was stratified as primary, secondary, and tertiary based on the highest level of education or vocational training according to the Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations. The equivalized household income included all disposable monthly household incomes, including all types of after-tax and transfer income. Differences in household size are considered by equivalization, that is, divided by the square root of the number of household members.

Outcome measures

Loneliness. In 2020 and 2021, loneliness during the past 2 weeks was assessed with the German version of the three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale [Reference Hughes, Waite, Hawkley and Cacioppo30] and rated on a four-point Likert scale (hardly, ever, some of the time, or often). Very similar to previous research [Reference Hughes, Waite, Hawkley and Cacioppo30], our study demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for the UCLA Loneliness Scale (i.e., α = 0.71).

Depressive and anxiety symptoms. In 2020 and 2021, depressive symptoms over the past 2 weeks were assessed with the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2; scores range from 0 to 6) and anxiety was assessed with the two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2; scores range from 0 to 6) questionnaire [Reference Löwe, Kroenke and Gräfe31–Reference Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams and Löwe33]. Similar to previous studies [Reference Löwe, Kroenke and Gräfe31, Reference Löwe, Wahl, Rose, Spitzer, Glaesmer and Wingenfeld32], in the present sample, the internal consistency was α = 0.68 for the PHQ-2 and α = 0.68 for the GAD-2.

Predictors

Depression diagnosis. In 2019, individuals were asked to indicate whether a doctor had ever diagnosed a depressive disorder.

Depressive symptoms in 2019. In 2019, depressive symptoms were assessed using the PHQ-2. PHQ-2 scores of 3 and above indicate a depressive disorder with a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 86% [Reference Löwe, Kroenke and Gräfe31].

Restrictions due to public health measures in 2020. In 2020, 14 forms of restriction measures that have been suggested to disrupt self-regulated and psychologically relevant behavior of individuals were systematically documented for each of the 16 German federal states on a day-by-day basis (e.g., prohibition to meet with others in public places, closure of kindergartens or daycare, and prohibition to leave the apartment without reason) by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID, Germany; [Reference Steinmetz, Batzdorfer and Bosnjak51]). Each type of restriction was coded as not present (=0), partially (=1), or fully (=2) in place. A sum score of the level of restriction measures was computed per day to determine the daily level of personal and social restrictions resulting from public health measures in each federal state. Afterward, we matched the restriction scores of the respective federal state with the participants’ federal state. A higher sum score indicates a higher level of lockdown restrictions in the respective participants’ federal state on the day of the telephone interview. The stringency of lockdown measures significantly differed between federal states (see Supplementary Figure S1).

Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted using mixed-effects linear regression models with repeated measurement occasions (Level 1) nested within persons (Level 2), nested within federal states (Level 3). First, we analyzed changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness from 2020 to 2021. Specifically, we regressed the score of the respective outcome (depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or loneliness) on a timing variable (Level 1), coded with 0 at the first wave and coded with 1 at the second wave of the SOEP COVID-19 assessments. To investigate the role of (a) pre-pandemic depressive symptoms (PHQ-2 score in 2019) and (b) a history of a depressive disorder (no vs. yes) for changes in the respective outcome from 2020 to 2021, an interaction term between the respective predictor (i.e., depressive symptoms or disorder) and the timing variable was included in the respective model. Significant interactions were probed using simple slope analyses [Reference Preacher, Curran and Bauer34] to evaluate the significance of the time effects (i.e., change from 2020 to 2021) for conditional values of the moderator (for pre-pandemic depression diagnosis or clinically relevant depression assessed by the PHQ-2 in 2019: no vs. yes [0 vs. 1]). In the next step, we added the level of lockdown restrictions in 2020 and their interaction with pre-pandemic depressive symptoms or pre-pandemic depression diagnosis and time to the models. All analyses were controlled for age, gender, income, and education and conducted with R (version 4.1.2 [35]; packages: lme4, jtools, tidyverse, and ggplot). The alpha level was set to 0.05.

Results

Change in depression, anxiety, and loneliness from 2020 to 2021

As can be seen in Table 2, depressive and anxiety symptoms decreased over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2021 (depressive symptoms: β = −0.02, p = 0.020; anxiety symptoms: β = −0.03, p < 0.001; see Supplementary Table S1). Conversely, loneliness increased during the same period (β = 0.05, p < 0.001; see Supplementary Table S1).

Table 2.

Means (SD) and percentages of individuals above the cutoff scores for depression and anxiety as well as loneliness in 2019 (before the pandemic), 2020 (first COVID-19 wave), and 2021 (second COVID-19 wave) in the overall sample and individuals with versus without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis or clinically relevant depressive symptoms in 2019.

Note: Depressive symptoms were assessed by PHQ-2, scores range from 0 to 6; anxiety symptoms were assessed by GAD-2, scores range from 0 to 6; loneliness was assessed by the three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale, scores range from 0 to 12. Loneliness was not assessed in 2019.

Abbreviations: GAD-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2; M, mean; PHQ-2, Patient Health Questionnaire-2; SD, standard deviation.

Effects of pre-pandemic depressive symptoms on changes in depression, anxiety, and loneliness

Pre-pandemic depressive symptoms were associated with overall higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness in 2020 and 2021 (all p < 0.001; see Supplementary Table S2). Moreover, changes in depressive symptoms during the pandemic varied as a function of pre-pandemic depressive symptoms in 2019 (pre-pandemic depressive symptoms × time: β = 0.03, 95% CI [0.02; 0.05], p < 0.001). To assess the direction of interaction in greater detail, we distinguished between individuals above and below the clinical cutoff PHQ-2 score for a potential depression diagnosis in 2019. Post hoc simple slope analyses revealed that individuals above the cutoff score experienced an increase of depressive symptoms from 2020 to 2021 (p < 0.001), whereas individuals below the cutoff score experienced a decrease (see the upper-left panel of Figure 2; p < 0.001).

Figure 2.

Course of depressive (PHQ-2) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2) as well as loneliness (three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale) depending on the presence of a probable depressive disorder in 2019 (assessed by the PHQ-2; PHQ-2 scores of 3 and above indicate a probable depressive disorder; upper panel) or a diagnosed depressive disorder before the pandemic (lower panel). The lines represent conditional effects derived from simple slope analyses. Abbreviations: GAD-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2; PHQ-2, Patient Health Questionnaire-2.

Moreover, higher levels of pre-pandemic depressive symptoms (PHQ-2 score in 2019) predicted a steeper increase in loneliness from 2020 to 2021 (pre-pandemic depressive symptoms × time: β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01; 0.04], p = 0.001, all post hoc simple slope analyses p < 0.001; see the right panel of Figure 2).

Changes in anxiety symptoms did not vary significantly by pre-pandemic depressive symptoms (pre-pandemic depressive symptoms × time: p > 0.05). However, as depicted in the upper panel of Figure 2, anxiety symptoms did not change in individuals above the cutoff PHQ-2 score for a potential depression diagnosis in 2019 (p > 0.05), but decreased in individuals below the cutoff score (p < 0.001).

Effect of a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis on the changes in depression, anxiety, and loneliness

A pre-pandemic depression diagnosis was associated with overall higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness in 2020 and 2021 (all p < 0.001; see Supplementary Table S3). Most interestingly, depressive symptoms increased from 2020 to 2021 in individuals with (p = 0.03), but decreased in individuals without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis (p < 0.001; pre-pandemic depression diagnosis × time: β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.02; 0.11], p = 0.009; see the lower panel of Figure 2). Similarly, the increase in loneliness from 2020 to 2021 was stronger in individuals with versus without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis (pre-pandemic depression diagnosis × time: β = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01; 0.09], p = 0.028; all post hoc simple slope analyses p < 0.001). Change in anxiety during the pandemic did not differ significantly between individuals with versus without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis (p > 0.05).

Effects of pre-pandemic depressiveness and level of lockdown restrictions on the course of depression, anxiety, and loneliness

The stringency of lockdown restrictions in 2020 did not interact significantly with pre-pandemic levels of depressive symptoms or a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis in predicting changes in depression, anxiety, or loneliness from 2020 to 2021 (all p > 0.05; see supplementary Tables S4 and S5).

Discussion

In the present study, we examined the effect of pre-pandemic depression on the course of depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large probability sample of adults from Germany. We found that depressive and anxiety symptoms decreased, whereas loneliness increased from the first to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. However, these symptom changes varied as a function of pre-pandemic depressive symptoms in 2019 and a diagnosed depressive disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic: depressive symptoms increased and the surge in loneliness was steeper in those with versus without clinically relevant depressive symptoms in 2019 or a history of a depressive disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in anxiety symptoms did not vary as a function of a pre-pandemic depressive disorder. However, throughout the pandemic, anxiety symptoms remained stable in individuals with but declined in individuals without clinically relevant depressive symptoms prior to the pandemic. The stringency of lockdown measures did not affect the results.

Taken together, our findings suggest that the long-term course of depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic is less favorable in vulnerable individuals with versus without pre-pandemic depression. These results are in line with evidence that depression relates to less favorable responses to inevitable and uncontrollable/unpredictable stressors [Reference Herman36, Reference Tafet and Nemeroff37]. However, they conflict with previous evidence that mental health problems during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic improved in individuals with and without pre-pandemic mental health problems [Reference Fancourt, Steptoe and Bu19, Reference Bendau, Kunas, Wyka, Petzold, Plag and Asselmann27]. These findings might indicate that individuals with preexisting depression psychologically adapt to the demands of the pandemic in the short term, but show impaired adaptation and related exacerbation of mental health issues upon repeated or ongoing stressors.

Our finding that pre-pandemic depression predicted a greater increase of depression and loneliness during the pandemic is consistent with previous evidence that depression prospectively predicts higher loneliness and depressive symptoms [Reference Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley and Thisted3, Reference Lee, Pearce, Ajnakina, Johnson, Lewis and Mann38]. The potential underlying mechanisms of these associations are multifaceted. For example, depression not only relates to social withdrawal, but also interpersonal problems, interpersonal avoidance, and withdrawal of social support [Reference Hammen10, Reference Joiner39, Reference Santini, Jose, York Cornwell, Koyanagi, Nielsen and Hinrichsen40]. Such factors might amplify the adverse effect of COVID-19-related social distancing and isolation and explain our results. At the same time, feelings of loneliness might reinforce feelings of depression and vice versa [Reference Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley and Thisted3, Reference Lasgaard, Goossens and Elklit5], leading to a vicious cycle of symptom escalation in particularly vulnerable individuals over time.

Particular strengths of this study are the prospective-longitudinal design, the inclusion of pre-pandemic data, and the use of a probability sample of a nationally representative household panel, which have been highly recommended as it reduces the risk of sampling and recall biases [Reference Nieto, Navas and Vázquez41, Reference Pierce, McManus, Jessop, John, Hotopf and Ford42]. In addition to these strengths, the following limitations need to be taken into account. Based on previous evidence, we assumed that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a stressor for most people. As the actual degree of experienced distress might have varied between individuals, future research ought to include appropriate measures to assess stress responses. Moreover, the present findings relied on self-report data and brief screening instruments such as the GAD-2. To obtain a more nuanced characterization of the course of anxiety, comprehensive assessments above and beyond generalized anxiety symptoms are needed. We did not assess information regarding a previous psychiatric or psychological treatment, which, indeed, should be addressed in future studies. Moreover, evidence from previous studies suggests that changes in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic depend on the timing of the assessment (e.g., assessments during lockdown vs. easing of lockdown restrictions) [Reference Bendau, Plag, Kunas, Wyka, Ströhle and Petzold15–Reference Daly, Sutin and Robinson17, Reference Fancourt, Steptoe and Bu19]. In the present study, the stringency of lockdown measures was slightly higher during the second compared with the first assessment. However, because only two assessment time points during the pandemic were considered in the present study, we were not able to reveal potential changes associated with a decrease in the stringency of lockdown measures.

Conclusion

In the present study, individuals with elevated depressive symptoms or a history of a diagnosed depressive disorder were identified as a risk group for an unfavorable course of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. The observed persistence of anxiety symptoms as well as the increases in depressive symptoms and loneliness in this group might increase the risk for the clinical manifestation, exacerbation, or chronicity of depressive symptomatology and related somatic and mental health sequels. In particular, loneliness—a common concomitant feature of depression—has been associated with an increased risk for several mental disorders and somatic diseases in general [Reference Beutel, Klein, Brähler, Reiner, Jünger and Michal6, Reference Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris and Stephenson8, Reference Valtorta, Kanaan, Gilbody and Hanratty9, Reference Luhmann and Hawkley43]. Thus, targeting loneliness in prevention and intervention in this particularly vulnerable group would indeed help to mitigate these sequelae, as already shown in previous randomized controlled trials [Reference Hickin, Käll, Shafran, Sutcliffe, Manzotti and Langan44, Reference Williams, Townson, Kapur, Ferreira, Nunn and Galante45]. Moreover, addressing COVID-19-related worries or generalized worries in the context of online cognitive-behavioral interventions has also been proved to be effective in reducing worries but also depression and anxiety [Reference Heckendorf, Lehr and Boß46, Reference Wahlund, Mataix-Cols, Olofsdotter Lauri, Schipper, Ljótsson and Aspvall47]. Interestingly, recent advances in the field of online interventions indicate that mental health problems (e.g., restrictive eating, hopelessness, depression, and anxiety) can even be reduced via an online, self-guided single session intervention targeting behavioral activation or a growth mindset [Reference Schleider, Mullarkey, Fox, Dobias, Shroff and Hart48]. Moreover, previous studies found that younger individuals are more likely to experience loneliness as well as other mental health issues [Reference Hettich, Entringer, Kroeger, Schmidt, Tibubos and Braehler49, Reference Sampogna, Giallonardo, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert and Carmassi50]. Thus, a systematic evaluation of the impact of age in future studies might promote a more precise identification of at-risk persons. Finally, further research is needed to monitor potentially adverse long-term consequences in particularly vulnerable individuals with elevated depressive symptoms and to inform the health care system to implement evidence-based intervention strategies to mitigate potentially adverse consequences.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2339.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be accessed via the research data center of the SOEP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.B., E.A., and C.A.P.-F.; Data curation: T.M.E.; Formal analysis: C.B. and T.M.E.; Investigation: C.B.; Methodology: all authors; Project administration: C.A.P.-F.; Supervision: C.A.P.-F.; Visualization: C.B.; Writing—original draft: C.B.; Writing—review and editing: all authors.

Financial Support

“SOEP-CoV: The Spread of the Coronavirus in Germany: Socio-Economic Factors and Consequences” was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Grant No. 01KI2087A). All authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare none.

Ethical Standards

Because this study only involved secondary analyses of anonymized SOEP data provided by the DIW Berlin, additional ethical approval was not required. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

References

Paykel, ES, Brugha, T, Fryers, T. Size and burden of depressive disorders in Europe. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;15(4):411–23. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2005.04.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittchen, H-U, Jacobi, F. Size and burden of mental disorders in Europe—a critical review and appraisal of 27 studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;15(4):357–76. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2005.04.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, JT, Hughes, ME, Waite, LJ, Hawkley, LC, Thisted, RA. Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):140–51. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, NC, Newman, MG. Anxiety and depression as bidirectional risk factors for one another: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(11):1155–200. doi:10.1037/bul0000111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasgaard, M, Goossens, L, Elklit, A. Loneliness, depressive symptomatology, and suicide ideation in adolescence: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2011;39(1):137–50. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9442-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beutel, ME, Klein, EM, Brähler, E, Reiner, I, Jünger, C, Michal, M, et al. Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):97. doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gili, M, García Toro, M, Armengol, S, García-Campayo, J, Castro, A, Roca, M. Functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder and comorbid anxiety disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2013;58(12):679–86. doi:10.1177/070674371305801205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt-Lunstad, J, Smith, TB, Baker, M, Harris, T, Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227–37. doi:10.1177/1745691614568352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valtorta, NK, Kanaan, M, Gilbody, S, Hanratty, B. Loneliness, social isolation and risk of cardiovascular disease in the English longitudinal study of ageing. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(13):1387–96. doi:10.1177/2047487318792696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammen, C. Stress and depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:293–319. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monroe, SM, Harkness, KL. Life stress, the “kindling” hypothesis, and the recurrence of depression: considerations from a life stress perspective. Psychol Rev. 2005;112(2):417–45. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beutel, ME, Hettich, N, Ernst, M, Schmutzer, G, Tibubos, AN, Braehler, E. Mental health and loneliness in the German general population during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a representative pre-pandemic assessment. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14946. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-94434-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riepenhausen, A, Veer, IM, Wackerhagen, C, Reppmann, ZC, Köber, G, Ayuso-Mateos, JL, et al. Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study. Psychol Med. 2022;1–11. doi:10.1017/S0033291722000563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, E, Sutin, AR, Daly, M, Jones, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2021;296:567–76. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendau, A, Plag, J, Kunas, S, Wyka, S, Ströhle, A, Petzold, MB. Longitudinal changes in anxiety and psychological distress, and associated risk and protective factors during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Brain Behav. 2020;11:e01964. doi:10.1002/brb3.1964.Google ScholarPubMed
Daly, M, Robinson, E. Longitudinal changes in psychological distress in the UK from 2019 to September 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from a large nationally representative study. Psychiatry Res. 2021;300:113920. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, M, Sutin, AR, Robinson, E. Longitudinal changes in mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the UK household longitudinal study. Psychol Med. 2020; 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0033291720004432.Google ScholarPubMed
Entringer, TM, Gosling, SD. Loneliness during a nationwide lockdown and the moderating effect of extroversion. Soc Psychol Personal Sci.2022;13(3):769–80. doi:10.1177/19485506211037871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fancourt, D, Steptoe, A, Bu, F. Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England: a longitudinal observational study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(2):141–9. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30482-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bu, F, Mak, HW, Fancourt, D, Paul, E. Comparing the mental health trajectories of four different types of keyworkers with non-keyworkers: 12-month follow-up observational study of 21 874 adults in England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Psychiatry. 2022;220:1–8. doi:10.1192/bjp.2021.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M, Robinson, E. Psychological distress associated with the second COVID-19 wave: prospective evidence from the UK household longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 2022;310:274–8. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendau, A, Asselmann, E, Plag, J, Petzold, MB, Ströhle, A. 1.5 years pandemic—psychological burden over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a nine-wave longitudinal community study. J Affect Disord. 2022;319:381–7. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ettman, CK, Cohen, GH, Abdalla, SM, Sampson, L, Trinquart, L, Castrucci, BC, et al. Persistent depressive symptoms during COVID-19: a national, population-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. adults. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;5:100091. doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100091.Google Scholar
Kok, AAL, Pan, K-Y, Ottenheim, NR, Jörg, F, Eikelenboom, M, Horsfall, M, et al. Mental health and perceived impact during the first Covid-19 pandemic year: a longitudinal study in Dutch case-control cohorts of persons with and without depressive, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. J Affect Disord. 2022;305:85–93. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.02.056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asmundson, GJG, Paluszek, MM, Landry, CA, Rachor, GS, McKay, D, Taylor, S. Do pre-existing anxiety-related and mood disorders differentially impact COVID-19 stress responses and coping? J Anxiety Disord. 2020;74:102271. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwong, ASF, Pearson, RM, Adams, MJ, Northstone, K, Tilling, K, Smith, D, et al. Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in two longitudinal UK population cohorts. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;218(6):1–10. doi:10.1192/bjp.2020.242.Google Scholar
Bendau, A, Kunas, SL, Wyka, S, Petzold, MB, Plag, J, Asselmann, E, et al. Longitudinal changes of anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: the role of pre-existing anxiety, depressive, and other mental disorders. J Anxiety Disord. 2021;79:102377. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebig, S, Goebel, J, Schröder, C, Grabka, M, Richter, D, Schupp, J, et al. Sozio-oekonomisches Panel, Daten der Jahre 1984–2019 (SOEP-Core, v36, EU Edition). 2021. doi:10.5684/SOEP.CORE.V36EU.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühne, S, Kroh, M, Liebig, S, Zinn, S. The need for household panel surveys in times of crisis: the case of SOEP-CoV. Surv Res Methods. 2020;14:195–203. doi:10.18148/SRM/2020.V14I2.7748.Google Scholar
Hughes, ME, Waite, LJ, Hawkley, LC, Cacioppo, JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655–72. doi:10.1177/0164027504268574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löwe, B, Kroenke, K, Gräfe, K. Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2). J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(2):163–71. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löwe, B, Wahl, I, Rose, M, Spitzer, C, Glaesmer, H, Wingenfeld, K, et al. A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2010;122(1–2):86–95. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, RL, Kroenke, K, Williams, JBW, Löwe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, KJ, Curran, PJ, Bauer, DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J Educ Behav Stat. 2006;31(4):437–48. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.2). [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2021. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Herman, JP. Neural control of chronic stress adaptation. Front Behav Neurosci. 2013;7:61. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tafet, GE, Nemeroff, CB. The links between stress and depression: psychoneuroendocrinological, genetic, and environmental interactions. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016;28(2):77–88. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.15030053.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, SL, Pearce, E, Ajnakina, O, Johnson, S, Lewis, G, Mann, F, et al. The association between loneliness and depressive symptoms among adults aged 50 years and older: a 12-year population-based cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(1):48–57. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30383-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joiner, TE. Depression’s vicious scree: self-propagating and erosive processes in depression chronicity. Clin Psychol. 2000;7(2):203–18. doi:10.1093/clipsy.7.2.203.Google Scholar
Santini, ZI, Jose, PE, York Cornwell, E, Koyanagi, A, Nielsen, L, Hinrichsen, C, et al. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among older Americans (NSHAP): a longitudinal mediation analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(1):e62–70. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30230-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieto, I, Navas, JF, Vázquez, C. The quality of research on mental health related to the COVID-19 pandemic: a note of caution after a systematic review. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020;7:100123. doi:10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, M, McManus, S, Jessop, C, John, A, Hotopf, M, Ford, T, et al. Says who? The significance of sampling in mental health surveys during COVID-19. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):567–8. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30237-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luhmann, M, Hawkley, LC. Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Dev Psychol. 2016;52(6):943–59. doi:10.1037/dev0000117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickin, N, Käll, A, Shafran, R, Sutcliffe, S, Manzotti, G, Langan, D. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for loneliness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;88:102066. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, CYK, Townson, AT, Kapur, M, Ferreira, AF, Nunn, R, Galante, J, et al. Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: a rapid systematic review. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0247139. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heckendorf, H, Lehr, D, Boß, L. Effectiveness of an Internet-based self-help intervention versus public mental health advice to reduce worry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2022:1–13. doi:10.1159/000521302.Google ScholarPubMed
Wahlund, T, Mataix-Cols, D, Olofsdotter Lauri, K, Schipper, E Ljótsson, B, Aspvall, K, et al. Brief online cognitive behavioural intervention for dysfunctional worry related to the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomised controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(3):191–9. doi:10.1159/000512843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleider, JL, Mullarkey, MC, Fox, KR, Dobias, ML, Shroff, A, Hart, EA, et al. A randomized trial of online single-session interventions for adolescent depression during COVID-19. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6(2):258–68. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01235-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hettich, N, Entringer, TM, Kroeger, H, Schmidt, P, Tibubos, AN, Braehler, E, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression, anxiety, loneliness, and satisfaction in the German general population: a longitudinal analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s00127-022-02311-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampogna, G, Giallonardo, V, Del Vecchio, V, Luciano, M, Albert, U, Carmassi, C, et al. Loneliness in young adults during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdown: results from the multicentric COMET study. Front Psych. 2021;12:788139. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.788139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinmetz, H, Batzdorfer, V, Bosnjak, M. The ZPID lockdown measures dataset for Germany. ZPID (Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information). 2020.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Course of new cases of COVID-19 (7-day rolling average, per million) and level of restrictions due to lockdown measures (indicated by the stringency index of the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (February 2020 to March 2021). The gray bars represent the time points and durations of the assessment phases (T1: first COVID-19 wave; T2: second COVID-19 wave).

Figure 1

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Figure 2

Table 2. Means (SD) and percentages of individuals above the cutoff scores for depression and anxiety as well as loneliness in 2019 (before the pandemic), 2020 (first COVID-19 wave), and 2021 (second COVID-19 wave) in the overall sample and individuals with versus without a pre-pandemic depression diagnosis or clinically relevant depressive symptoms in 2019.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Course of depressive (PHQ-2) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2) as well as loneliness (three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale) depending on the presence of a probable depressive disorder in 2019 (assessed by the PHQ-2; PHQ-2 scores of 3 and above indicate a probable depressive disorder; upper panel) or a diagnosed depressive disorder before the pandemic (lower panel). The lines represent conditional effects derived from simple slope analyses. Abbreviations: GAD-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2; PHQ-2, Patient Health Questionnaire-2.

Supplementary material: File

Benke et al. supplementary material

Benke et al. supplementary material

Download Benke et al. supplementary material(File)
File 55.7 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.