Cited by 66COVID-19 and Mental HealthMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Cross-cultural comparisons of psychosocial distress in the USA, South Korea, France, and Hong Kong during the initial phase of COVID-19

Open access
Dean, Derek J., Tso, Ivy F., Giersch, Anne, Lee, Hyeon-Seung, Baxter, Tatiana, Griffith, Taylor, Song, Lijun, Park, Sohee·2021·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in disruption of everyday life worldwide but the impact and response to the pandemic have not been uniform. Many countries rapidly deployed physical-distancing mandates to curb the spread of the virus; others did not. Social distancing strategies are necessary to reduce the transmission of the virus but there may be unintended consequences. We examined psychological distress in four societies with distinct public health strategies (South Korea, Hong Kong, France and the United States) to identify common and region-specific factors that may contribute to mental health outcome during the pandemic. From March to July of 2020, a survey of demographics, general health, mental health, loneliness and social networks was conducted. Overall, younger age, greater concern for COVID, and more severe loneliness predicted worse psychological outcome but the magnitudes of these effects varied across the four regions. Objective measures of social isolation did not affect mental health. There were also notable differences in psychological outcome; Hong Kong, with very strict social distancing protocols plus ongoing political unrest, suffered the most drastic deterioration of mental health. To prepare for an impending mental health crisis, concerted efforts to reduce loneliness should be integrated into a comprehensive public health strategy.

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.2020.113593

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Single subjects are more likely to feel loneliness and isolation than married couples, which may explain their higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.

    “Single subjects are certainly more likely to feel the effects of loneliness and isolation than married couples, which may explain their consistently higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression [5,27].”

    From Depression, anxiety, and stress in Korean general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Discussion (page not provided) suggests that being married may be associated with better wellbeing and that being single and living alone may indicate social isolation; it also links loneliness to greater psychological distress. The Results (page not provided) find less distress among married or partnered people than singles living alone in the USA, but do not establish that singles consistently have higher stress, anxiety, and depression across all four regions or that they report more loneliness than married people. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A study assessing psychosocial distress in the United States, Korea, France, and Hong Kong suggested that being married is associated with better well-being than being single.

    “A study assessing psychosocial distress, conducted in the United States, Korea, France, and Hong Kong, suggested that being married is associated with better well-being than being single [27].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dean, D. J., Tso, I. F., Giersch, A., Lee, H.-S., Baxter, T., Griffith, T., Song, L., & Park, S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Park, Sohee
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
295
Pages
113593
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3106916689
Cited by
66
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 12
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vanderbilt University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, psychological distress, loneliness, social isolation, social networks, social distancing, public health policy, cross-cultural comparison, mental health, political unrest, Hong Kong, South Korea, France, United States
MeSH terms
Physical Distancing, COVID-19, Adult, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, France, Hong Kong, Humans, Loneliness, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Stress, Psychological, United States, Republic of Korea, Social Networking

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