Cited by 829COVID-19 and Mental HealthEmployment and Welfare StudiesSocial impacts of COVID-19

Unprecedented disruption of lives and work: health, distress and life satisfaction of working adults in China one month into the COVID-19 outbreak

Open access
Zhang, Stephen X., Wang, Yifei, Rauch, Andreas, Wei, Feng·2020·Psychiatry Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We assess the health and wellbeing of normal adults living and working after one month of confinement to contain the COVID-19 outbreak in China. On Feb 20-21, 2020, we surveyed 369 adults in 64 cities in China that varied in their rates of confirmed coronavirus cases on their health conditions, distress and life satisfaction. 27% of the participants worked at the office, 38% resorted to working from home, and 25% stopped working due to the outbreak. Those who stopped working reported worse mental and physical health conditions as well as distress. The severity of COVID-19 in an individual's home city predicts their life satisfaction, and this relationship is contingent upon individuals' existing chronic health issues and their hours of exercise. Our evidence supports the need to pay attention to the health of people who were not infected by the virus, especially for people who stopped working during the outbreak. Our results highlight that physically active people might be more susceptible to wellbeing issues during the lockdown. Policymakers who are considering introducing restrictive measures to contain COVID-19 may benefit from understanding such health and wellbeing implications.

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 · 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112958

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • In early Chinese studies, remaining active during lockdown was associated with better health and well-being than not being infected or ceasing work.

    “In the first studies developed in China, the effects of confinement (Brooks et al., 2020) were analysed and people who had remained active during this period showed better health and well-being outcomes, as compared to those who had not become infected or stopped working during confinement (Zhang et al., 2020).”
  • People in or after quarantine experienced emotional distress including annoyance, anxiety, boredom, disappointment, life dissatisfaction, fear of infection, isolation, loneliness and mistrust.

    “Among people in or after quarantine, some experienced emotional distress, including: annoyance,32 anxiety,25,29 boredom,23,25,32 disappointment and life dissatisfaction,24,32,35 fear of infection,23,25,30,34 isolation,23,25,32 loneliness25,32 and mistrust.31”
  • In Zhang et al.'s study, those who stopped working had poorer mental health conditions than those still employed (decrease of 2.60 points in Mental Composite Scale; 95% CI = −0.05 to −5.16).

    “in Zhang et al.’s35 study of the well-being of individuals during the COVID-19 lockdown, there was strong evidence that those who stopped working had poorer mental health conditions than those still employed [a decrease of 2.60 points in Mental Composite Scale; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.05 to −5.16].”
  • The review found negative psychological impacts of mass quarantine, such as low life satisfaction, emotional isolation and fear of infection.

    “Consistent with previous studies,10,36,37 our review presents a range of negative psychological impacts of mass quarantine, such as low life satisfaction, emotional isolation and fear of infection.23–25,30,32,34,35”

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

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, S. X., Wang, Y., Rauch, A., & Wei, F.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Stephen X.
  • Wei, Feng
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
288
Pages
112958
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3014135422
Cited by
828
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 165 · 2021: 263 · 2020: 172
FWCI
70.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Chinese National Funding of Social Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Social impacts of COVID-19
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown, mental health, life satisfaction, distress, working from home, job loss, physical activity, chronic disease, well-being, China
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disease Outbreaks, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Pneumonia, Viral, Surveys and Questionnaires, Coronavirus Infections, 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