Gender, work-family conflict and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic among Quebec graduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing mental health inequalities between women and men following the COVID-19 crisis represent a major public health concern. Public health measures to mitigate the pandemic could severely impact populations with high prevalence of mental health problems such as graduate students. We aimed to document the gendered experience of the lockdown and its association with depressive symptoms among graduate students in Quebec. We contrast two hypotheses: whether inequalities in depressive symptoms between women and men could be linked to their differential exposure or vulnerability to work, family and study conditions, with the mediating role of work-to-family interference (WIF) and family-to-work interference (FIW). This observational study used path analysis to test our hypotheses using a cross-sectional data collected from 1,790 graduate students from three universities in Quebec. The exposure hypothesis received more support. Women reported more stress regarding new teaching methods, which was associated directly with more depressive symptoms, and indirectly through WIF. Women were more worried about COVID-19, which was associated with more depressive symptoms, and indirectly through WIF and FIW. However, women reported less FIW and more emotional support, both respectively associated with less depressive symptoms. The policy measures taken after the COVID-19 were not gender-neutral. This study demonstrates the importance of taking the potentially gendered effects of policies into consideration, and points to mitigating actions that can forestall the exacerbation of gendered inequalities in mental health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".