Cited by 978COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealth disparities and outcomesMental Health Treatment and Access

Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020

Open access
McGinty, Emma E., Presskreischer, Rachel, Han, Hahrie, Barry, Colleen L.·2020·JAMA

Abstract

This study used national survey data to compare the prevalence symptoms of psychological distress and loneliness among US adults during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in April 2020 vs those reported in the National Health Interview Survey in 2018.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2020.9740

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rates of psychosocial distress have increased most in the Latino community compared to any other group.

    “rates of psychosocial distress have increased most in the Latino community compared to any other group [17].”

    From Technology enabled clinical care (TECC): Protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of smartphone-augmented mental health treatment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

    The subgroup results (listed under Methods; page not provided) show serious psychological distress rising among Hispanic adults from 4.4% in 2018 to 18.3% in April 2020. Among adults aged 18–29, it rose from 3.7% to 24.0%—a larger increase both in percentage points and proportionally. The paper therefore does not support the claim that the increase was greatest in the Latino community compared with any other group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • During the COVID-19 pandemic, young adults face elevated risk for depression and anxiety.

    “Young adults particularly are at high risk for mental health problems including depression and anxiety during the pandemic [1,2]”

    From Increases in loneliness among young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and association with increases in mental health problems (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results passage reports that serious psychological distress in April 2020 was highest among adults aged 18–29 (24.0%), supporting the elevated-risk claim for young adults. The Methods passage says the study measured psychological distress with the Kessler 6 scale, not depression and anxiety separately, so those specific conditions are not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Loneliness prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported as either roughly unchanged or modestly higher.

    “Some studies suggest the prevalence of loneliness has stayed relatively stable, or increased slightly, during the COVID-19 pandemic [2,4]”
  • Young adults report the highest levels of loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “with young adults reporting the highest levels.”

    From Increases in loneliness among young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and association with increases in mental health problems (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

    The results passage (indexed as Methods |, page unavailable) reports that psychological distress was highest among adults aged 18–29, but gives only an overall loneliness estimate of 13.8%. The paper does not report loneliness by age in the passages found when searching for young adults and age-group loneliness, so the claimed ranking cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Longitudinal studies that include assessments of mental health before, during, and after COVID-19 restrictions are scarce.

    “Longitudinal studies that include assessments of mental health before, during, and after COVID‐19 restrictions are scarce (McGinty et al., 2020)”

    From Adolescents' longitudinal trajectories of mental health and loneliness: The impact of COVID‐19 school closures (2022) · cites this paper as McGinty et al., 2020

    The Abstract and Methods describe an April 2020 survey compared with separate national data from 2018; they do not assess mental health after restrictions. Searches for longitudinal follow-up and the scarcity of studies covering before, during, and after restrictions found no passage addressing how common such studies are. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Per- sonal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 respirators (N95s), is essential for preven- tion of COVID-19. The Cen- ters for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that health care workers dispose of N95s after a single patient encounter. However, it recom- mends N95 extended use (wearing the same N95 for multiple patient encounters) and limited reuse (storing an N95 be- tween encounters for use over multiple encounters) during critical PPE shortages. 2,3 There are limited data regarding N95 reuse and extended use. Existing studies were conducted in laboratories, not clinical environments. 4,5 Inadequate sup- plies of N95s have forced many emergency departments to implement various N95 reuse and extended use policies but without empirical evidence of their effectiveness. We exam- ined the prevalence of N95 fit test failure while reusing 2 com- mon types of N95 masks. Methods | We performed a cross-sectional study of N95 fit at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) emergency department from April 4 to April 6, 2020. We enrolled a con- venience sample of health care workers (physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and patient care technicians) on their clinical shifts when the researchers Audio · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGinty, E. E., Presskreischer, R., Han, H., & Barry, C. L.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
McGinty, Emma E.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2020-07-07
Volume
324
Issue
1
Pages
93
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W3029122621
Cited by
978
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 225 · 2021: 293 · 2020: 101
FWCI
80.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH109436, P50MH115842)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
psychological distress, loneliness, COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, symptom prevalence, United States adults, pre-pandemic comparison
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, Psychological Distress, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors, United States, Prevalence, Coronavirus Infections, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review