Longitudinal Trends and Risk Factors for Depressed Mood Among Canadian Adults During the First Wave of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised serious concerns about the mental health impact of people directed and indirectly affected by the virus. Because this is a rapidly evolving situation, our goal was to explore potential risk factors and trends in feelings of anxiety and depression among the general population in Canada over the first 5 months of the pandemic. Methods: We completed on-line surveys of 3,127 unique individuals representative of the Canadian general population at 4 discreet periods every 6 weeks from April 15th to July 28th 2020. We assessed feelings of anxiety, depression and loss of interest with the interRAI self-reported mood scale using a multivariable generalized estimating equation model to examine factors associated with having a 5+ score on the scale (indicating potentially depressed mood). We also investigated potential longitudinal trends to examine temporal variation in mood scores. Results: More than 30% of participants felt highly anxious, depressed, and disinterested in everyday activities in the first survey (April), but this number decreased to about 20% over 4 months. Feeling lonely, younger age, feeling overwhelmed by one's health needs, having financial concerns, and living outside of Québec were significantly associated with depressed mood. Interpretation: The prevalence of depressed mood during the pandemic was between 2 and 3 times the pre-pandemic rate (especially among young people), but it can change rapidly in response to social changes. Thus, monitoring of psychological distress among vulnerable groups that may benefit from additional supports should be a priority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".