COVID-19 and Psychological Distress: Racial Differences Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted older adults and Black individuals. Research has focused on physical outcomes, with less attention to the psychological effects of COVID-19. The objective of this study was to examine the interplay between perceptions of the COVID-19 outbreak as a threat to one's day-to-day life, race, and psychological distress among middle-aged and older men and women. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Analyses were conducted on a subsample of self-identified non-Latino Whites and Black individuals aged 50 and older (N = 3,834) from the American Trends Panel. Psychological distress was assessed with 5 items adapted from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7. Perceived COVID-19 day-to-day threat was assessed with a single question. Negative binomial regressions tested the study aim. RESULTS: Perceptions of COVID-19 day-to-day threat were positively associated with psychological distress. Black individuals reported lower distress than Whites. Regardless of gender, greater perceptions of COVID-19 day-to-day threats were associated with greater distress among both White respondents and Black respondents. However, this association was weaker among Black respondents than White respondents. Among men only, the association between COVID-19 day-to-day threat and distress varied by race, patterned similarly to the race differences identified in the total sample. This association did not vary by race among women. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study contributes to the emerging literature focused on older adults and COVID-19 related stressors and psychological distress. An intersectional lens shows how structural oppression may shape perceptions of the pandemic. Future work should consider coexisting intersections in marginalized identities and mental health during COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".