MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220904975 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.835857

A Year Through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Deleterious Impact of Hormonal Contraception on Psychological Distress in Women

2022· article· en· W4220904975 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Brouillard, Lisa Marie Davignon, Justine Fortin, Marie France Marin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAnxietyMedicineDistressPandemicDepression (economics)Mental healthClinical psychologyDASSPsychological interventionDiseasePsychological distressPsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Women are more at risk than men of suffering from psychological distress during disease outbreaks. Interestingly, no biological factors have been studied to explain this disparity in such contexts. Sex hormone variations induced by hormonal contraceptives (HC) have been associated with mental health vulnerabilities. However, most studies have examined current effects of HC without considering whether a chronic modulation of sex hormone levels could induce long-lasting effects that persist after HC cessation. Objectives To date, the role of HC on psychological health in women during a disease outbreak is still unknown. We aimed to investigate both current and long-term effects of HC on psychological distress throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Method At four time points during the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020, September 2020, December 2020, March 2021), we collected self-reported data on psychological distress, assessing symptoms of post-traumatic stress [ via the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R)], symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress [ via the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21)]. Linear mixed models were first used to compare men ( n = 49), naturally cycling women ( n = 73), and women using HC ( n = 32) across time. To examine long-lasting effects of HC, exploratory analyses were restricted to women, comparing current HC users ( n = 32), past users ( n = 56), and never users ( n = 17). Results The first model revealed that women taking HC reported stable post-traumatic stress symptoms across time, compared to naturally cycling women and men who showed a significant decrease from T1 to T2. HC users also reported greater DASS-21 total scores over time. Moreover, HC users reported higher stress and anxiety symptoms than men. In the second model, results showed that past HC users had similar anxiety levels as current HC users. These two groups reported significantly more anxiety symptoms than never users. Conclusion HC users report increased distress during the pandemic relative to naturally cycling women and men. Our results also suggest a long-lasting effect of HC intake, highlighting the importance of considering both the current use of HC and its history. This could provide some insight into potential avenues for explaining why some women are prone to higher psychological distress than men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207