Global and risk-group stratified well-being and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in adults: Results from the international COH-FIT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, penalized cubic splines, linear regression, correlation analyses were conducted. Analyzing 121,066/142,364 initiated surveys, WHO-5/P-score worsened intra-pandemic by 11.1±21.1/13.2±17.9 points (effect size d=0.50/0.60) (comparable results in representative/weighted non-probability samples). Persons with WHO-5 scores indicative of depression screening (<50, 13% to 32%) and major depression (<29, 3% to 12%) significantly increased. WHO-5 worsened from those with mental disorders, female sex, COVID-19-related loss, low-income country location, physical disorders, healthcare worker occupations, large city location, COVID-19 infection, unemployment, first-generation immigration, to age=18-29 with a cumulative effect. Similar findings emerged for P-score. Changes were significantly but minimally related to COVID-19 deaths, returning to near-pre-pandemic values after >2 years. The most subjectively effective coping strategies were exercise and walking, internet use, social contacts. Identified risk groups, coping strategies and outcome trajectories can inform global public health strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".