Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study explores psychological distress outcomes related to COVID-19 exposure in adults, suggesting family-centered interventions.
This study explores the association between both individuals' and their partners' COVID-19 exposure and individuals' psychological distress among U.S. adults. This cross-sectional study used data from the 2021 cohort of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. adults. Psychological distress was measured using the validated Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-6), with scores ≥ 13 indicating clinically significant distress. COVID-19 exposure was defined as either a positive test result or a diagnosis (definite or probable) from a healthcare provider. Multivariate logistic regression examined associations between COVID-19 exposure patterns (self, spousal, both, or neither) and psychological distress, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related confounders. Among 13,809 respondents, 3.87% (n = 534) reported clinically significant psychological distress. Individuals whose spouses had COVID-19 exposure (but they themselves did not) had 1.68 times higher odds of psychological distress compared to those with no self or spousal exposure (95% CI: 1.26–2.23, p < 0.001). Those with both self and spousal exposure had 1.59 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.27–1.99, p < 0.001). However, self-exposure alone without spousal exposure showed no significant association with distress (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86–1.45, p = 0.39). Spousal COVID-19 exposure is more strongly associated with psychological distress than one's own exposure alone, highlighting the interpersonal nature of pandemic-related mental health burdens. This pattern may reflect the unique psychological challenges of caregiving, including uncertainty about outcomes, a limited sense of control, anticipatory grief, and social isolation. These findings underscore the importance of family-centered approaches to mental health assessment and intervention during global health crises, with mental health services proactively offered to family members of affected individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: