Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Stress Health. 2022 Dec;38(5):950-960. doi: 10.1002/smi.3147. Epub 2022 Apr 2.
In addition to COVID-19 being a health threat, its longevity and restrictions act as significant stressors and risk for mental health. In the current study, we take a look at how psychological response, both its positive aspects, for example, mental well-being and life satisfaction, and its negative aspects, for example, anxiety and COVID-19 anxiety, have changed as the pandemic has continued (first three waves in Slovenia). Additionally, we are interested in whether the psychological response is associated with the perception of stress level in waves 2 and 3 as less, equally or more stressful when compared to the stress level in wave 1 and what shapes these perceptions. An online questionnaire battery (COVID-19 stress level comparison, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; LAOM Anxiety Scale; Global Life Satisfaction scale; COVID-19 anxiety), with ANOVA and qualitative analysis of the open-ended question on reasons for perceiving wave 2 and wave 3 as more stressful when compared to wave 1, was used on a Slovene convenience adult sample (wave 1: N = 364, 83.5% female; wave 2: N = 987, 85.5% female; wave 3: N = 467, 78.5% female). The findings show (a) a significant increase in COVID-19 anxiety from wave 1 to wave 3, with a peak in wave 2, and a significant decrease in mental well-being from wave 1 to wave 3; (b) the level of anxiety, mental well-being, and life satisfaction differs significantly between individuals who perceive wave 2 and 3 as more stressful compared to individuals who perceive wave 2 and wave 3 as equally or less stressful when compared to wave 1; (c) reasons for perceiving the succeeding waves of the pandemic as more stressful compared to wave 1 are diverse, with some being reported in both succeeding waves (e.g., negative emotional response to the pandemic, negative perceptions of measures). The findings highlight the important role of stress analysis in identifying the support mechanisms for dealing with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
除了 COVID-19 对健康构成威胁外，其持续时间和限制也是重大的压力源，对心理健康构成风险。在本研究中，我们研究了随着大流行的持续（斯洛文尼亚的前三波），人们的心理反应（包括积极方面，例如心理健康和生活满意度，以及消极方面，例如焦虑和 COVID-19 焦虑）发生了怎样的变化。此外，我们还关注心理反应是否与第二波和第三波的压力感知水平有关，与第一波相比，人们认为第二波和第三波的压力水平更小、相等或更大，以及这些感知是如何形成的。我们使用在线问卷电池（COVID-19 压力水平比较、华威-爱丁堡心理健康量表；LAOM 焦虑量表；全球生活满意度量表；COVID-19 焦虑量表），对斯洛文尼亚便利的成人样本进行了方差分析和对将第二波和第三波与第一波相比感知为压力更大的原因的开放式问题的定性分析（第一波：N=364，83.5%为女性；第二波：N=987，85.5%为女性；第三波：N=467，78.5%为女性）。研究结果表明：（a）从第一波到第三波，COVID-19 焦虑显著增加，第二波达到峰值，从第一波到第三波，心理健康显著下降；（b）与将第二波和第三波与第一波相比感知为压力相等或更小的个体相比，将第二波和第三波感知为压力更大的个体之间的焦虑、心理健康和生活满意度水平存在显著差异；（c）与第一波相比，将后续波的大流行感知为压力更大的原因多种多样，其中一些原因在随后的波中都有报道（例如，对大流行的负面情绪反应，对措施的负面看法）。研究结果强调了压力分析在确定应对 COVID-19 大流行挑战的支持机制方面的重要作用。
