Perceived Preparedness and Mental Health in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK Population
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Objective Preparedness levels have been shown to improve the outcomes for people who find themselves in an emergency. However, uptake of preparedness behaviors by the public prior to a major disaster is limited. This 2-part study examined perceived preparedness in the UK during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1), and 2 years later (Study 2). Methods Both studies investigated the effect of individual demographics (gender, age, perceived socioeconomic and health status) on perceived preparedness. Next, the studies examined the extent to which perceived preparedness was associated with mental health outcomes (anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms). Participants (Study 1, N = 409) completed an online survey in May to June 2020 during a national lockdown, with another sample (Study 2, N = 87) completing the same survey from March to July 2022. Results Across both studies, participants completed 2 to 3 different preparedness activities. Greater subjective perceptions of socioeconomic status were associated with perceived preparedness. Preparedness levels were related with better mental health, and unrelated to age and gender. Conclusions Encouraging the public to engage with preparedness behaviors may not only have practical benefits but also help to protect mental well-being during a disaster.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Perceived Preparedness and Mental Health in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK Population
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2025
- Éditeur
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.