Abstract PURPOSE Mental health problems increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the interaction between pandemic stress, early-life adversity, and social support in predicting mental health is not well understood. This study examined independent and interactive associations between pandemic stress, early-life adversity, and social support on psychiatric disorders in a nationally-representative sample of Canadian adults. METHODS Participants (n = 9,409) were from the Mental Health and Access to Care Survey, a cross-sectional survey of Canadian adults during the pandemic. Measures included pandemic stressors (Statistics Canada), early-life adversity (Childhood Experiences of Violence Questionnaire), social support (Social Provisions Scale), and past 12-month psychiatric problems (World Mental Health-Composite International Diagnostic Interview). Statistical analyses included two-step logistic regression models adjusted for covariates and weighted for complex survey design. RESULTS Early-life adversity (aOR = 1.24 [1.15–1.35]-aOR = 1.53 [1.39–1.69]) and pandemic stress (aOR = 1.18 [1.12–1.25]-aOR = 1.32 [1.26–1.39]) were associated with higher odds of psychiatric problems. Significant interactions between early-life adversity and pandemic stress for depression (aOR = 0.96 [0.93–0.98]) suggested an attenuated effect of pandemic stress at higher levels of early-life adversity. Social support was negatively associated with psychiatric problems (aOR = 0.88 [0.86–0.91]-aOR = 0.97 [0.94–0.99]), while pandemic stress was positively associated (aOR = 1.20 [1.15–1.26]-aOR = 1.33 [1.27–1.40]). An interaction between social support and pandemic stress for suicidality (aOR = 1.02 [1.01–1.03]) suggested higher odds of pandemic stress at higher levels of social support. CONCLUSION Early-life adversity and pandemic stress increased psychiatric disorder likelihood, while social support was protective. However, complex interactions indicate nuanced relationships in mental health risk during the pandemic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: