Effect of lockdown on mental health in Australia: evidence from a natural experiment analysing a longitudinal probability sample survey
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined population mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic but have been unable to isolate the direct effect of lockdowns. The aim of this study was to examine changes in the mental health of Australians aged 15 years and older during the COVID-19 pandemic using a quasi-experimental design to disentangle the lockdown effect. METHODS: We analysed data from ten annual waves (2011-20) of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to identify changes in the mental health of respondents from the pre-COVID-19 period (2011-19) to the COVID-19 period (2020). Difference-in-differences models were used to compare these changes between respondents in the state of Victoria who were exposed to lockdown at the time of the 2020 interviews (treatment group) and respondents living elsewhere in Australia (who were living relatively free of restrictions; control group). The models included state, year (survey wave), and person-specific fixed effects. Mental health was assessed using the five-item Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5), which was included in the self-complete questionnaire administered during the survey. FINDINGS: The analysis sample comprised 151 583 observations obtained from 20 839 individuals from 2011 to 2020. The treatment group included 3568 individuals with a total of 37 578 observations (34 010 in the pre-COVID-19 and 3568 in the COVID-19 period), and the control group included 17 271 individuals with 114 005 observations (102 867 in the pre-COVID-19 and 11 138 in the COVID-19 period). Mean MHI-5 scores did not differ between the treatment group (72·9 points [95% CI 72·8-73·2]) and control group (73·2 points [73·1-73·3]) in the pre-COVID-19 period. In the COVID-19 period, decreased mean scores were seen in both the treatment group (69·6 points [69·0-70·2]) and control group (70·8 points [70·5-71·2]). Difference-in-differences estimation showed a small but statistically significant effect of lockdown on MHI-5 scores, with greater decline for residents of Victoria in 2020 than for those in the rest of Australia (difference -1·4 points [95% CI -1·7 to -1·2]). Stratified analyses showed that this lockdown effect was larger for females (-2·2 points [-2·6 to -1·7]) than for males (-0·6 [-0·8 to -0·5]), and even larger for women in couples with children younger than 15 years (-4·4 points [-5·0 to -3·8]), and for females who lived in flats or apartments (-4·1 points [-5·4 to -2·8]) or semi-detached houses, terraced houses, or townhouses (-4·8 points [-6·4 to -3·2]). INTERPRETATION: The imposition of lockdowns was associated with a modest negative change in overall population mental health. The results suggest that the mental health effects of lockdowns differ by population subgroups and for some might have exaggerated existing inequalities in mental health. Although lockdowns have been an important public health tool in suppressing community transmission of COVID-19, more research is needed into the potential psychosocial impacts of such interventions to inform their future use. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Young people as a cohort have had a marked increase in distress and disproportionately poorer mental health outcomes since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially those living with social and economic disadvantage.
“young people as a cohort have had a marked increase in distress and disproportionately poorer mental health outcomes since the COVID-19 pandemic, 75-80 especially those living with social and economic disadvantage.”
From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [75]
The Discussion reports a substantial decline in mental health among youth and young adults in 2020 compared with 2011–19, supporting the claim of poorer outcomes during the pandemic. It does not establish that socially or economically disadvantaged young people were especially affected; for the lockdown effect specifically, the Discussion says people in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances were not disproportionately affected. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., Ballard, C., Christensen, H., Cohen Silver, R., Everall, I., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30168-1 · Cited by 5,715 · see citing works
Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp2008017 · Cited by 4,378 · see citing works
Taquet, M., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Luciano, S., & Harrison, P. J. (2021) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00084-5 · Cited by 2,189 · see citing works
Varma, P., Junge, M., Meaklim, H., & Jackson, M. L. (2021) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110236 · Cited by 719 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- [2]McGinty EE Presskreischer R Han H Barry CL Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020 JAMA 324 2020 93 94 32492088 PMC7270868
- [4]Chandola T Kumari M Booker CL Benzeval M The mental health impact of COVID-19 and lockdown-related stressors among adults in the UK Psychol Med 2020 published online Dec 7. 10.1017/s0033291720005048 PMC7783135 33280639 · DOI
- [6]Pierce M Hope H Ford T Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population Lancet Psychiatry 7 2020 883 892 32707037 PMC7373389
- [7]Pierce M McManus S Jessop C Says who? The significance of sampling in mental health surveys during COVID-19 Lancet Psychiatry 7 2020 567 568 32502467 PMC7266586
- [8]Robinson E Sutin AR Daly M Jones A A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 J Affect Disord 296 2022 567 576 34600966 PMC8578001
- [9]Adams-Prassl A Boneva T Golin M Rauh C The impact of the coronavirus lockdown on mental health: evidence from the United States Econ Policy 2022 published online Jan 9. 10.1093/epolic/eiac002 · DOI
- [11]Serrano-Alarcón M Kentikelenis A Mckee M Stuckler D Impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on mental health: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in England and Scotland Health Econ 31 2022 284 296 34773325 PMC8646947
- [13]Bennett CM Learning to live with COVID-19 in Australia: time for a new approach Public Health Res Pract 31 2021 e3132110 34494070
- [14]Heriot GS Jamrozik E Not in my backyard: COVID-19 vaccine development requires someone to be infected somewhere Med J Aust 214 2021 150 152.e1 33550606 PMC8014116
- [15]Czeisler MÉ Wiley JF Facer-Childs ER Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during a prolonged COVID-19-related lockdown in a region with low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence J Psychiatr Res 140 2021 533 544 34174556 PMC8177437
- [16]Fisher J Tran T Hammarberg K Quantifying the mental health burden of the most severe covid-19 restrictions: a natural experiment J Affect Disord 293 2021 406 414 34246949 PMC8264352
- [17]Daly M Sutin AR Robinson E Depression reported by US adults in 2017–2018 and March and April 2020 J Affect Disord 278 2021 131 135 32956962 PMC7490280
- [18]Zaninotto P Iob E Demakakos P Steptoe A Immediate and longer-term changes in the mental health and well-being of older adults in England during the COVID-19 pandemic JAMA Psychiatry 79 2022 151 159 34935862 PMC8696687
- [19]Rutland-Lawes J Wallinheimo AS Evans SL Risk factors for depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study in middle-aged and older adults BJPsych Open 7 2021 e161 34470694 PMC8438514
- [20]Fancourt D Steptoe A Bu F Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England: a longitudinal observational study Lancet Psychiatry 8 2021 141 149 33308420 PMC7820109
- [21]Hubbard G Daas CD Johnston M Murchie P Thompson CW Dixon D Are rurality, area deprivation, access to outside space, and green space associated with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic? A cross sectional study (CHARIS-E) Int J Environ Res Public Health 18 2021 3869 PMC8067699 33917067
- [25]Rumpf HJ Meyer C Hapke U John U Screening for mental health: validity of the MHI-5 using DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric disorders as gold standard Psychiatry Res 105 2001 243 253 11814543
- [26]Hoeymans N Garssen AA Westert GP Verhaak PF Measuring mental health of the Dutch population: a comparison of the GHQ-12 and the MHI-5 Health Qual Life Outcomes 2 2004 23 15132745 PMC428585
- [27]Thorsen SV Rugulies R Hjarsbech PU Bjorner JB The predictive value of mental health for long-term sickness absence: the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) and the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) compared BMC Med Res Methodol 13 2013 115 24040899 PMC3848657
- [29]Bültmann U Rugulies R Lund T Christensen KB Labriola M Burr H Depressive symptoms and the risk of long-term sickness absence: a prospective study among 4747 employees in Denmark Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 41 2006 875 880 16951921
- [30]Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG Karvouni A Kouri I Ioannidis JP Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review BMJ 338 2009 a3006 PMC2628302 19139138
- [31]Butterworth P Watson N Wooden M Trends in the prevalence of psychological distress over time: comparing results from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional surveys Front Psychiatry 11 2020 595696 PMC7725766 33324261
- [33]Sevilla A Smith S Baby steps: the gender division of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic Oxf Rev Econ Policy 36 suppl 1 2020 S169 S186 PMC7499756 40504206
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health
McGorry, P. D., Mei, C., Dalal, N., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Blakemore, S.-J., Browne, V., Dooley, B., Hickie, I. B., Jones, P. B., McDaid, D., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00163-9 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
- Authors
- Butterworth, P., Schurer, S., Trinh, T.-A., Vera-Toscano, E., & Wooden, M.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Wooden, Mark
- Venue
- The Lancet Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-05
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e427-e436
- ISSN
- 2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9023006
- OpenAlex
- W4224295233
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 17
- FWCI
- 25.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG071649)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- COVID-19 lockdown, mental health, COVID-19 pandemic, Victoria, Australia, HILDA survey, population mental health, lockdown effects, natural experiment, longitudinal survey data, quasi-experimental design, difference-in-differences, mental health policy evaluation
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Child, Communicable Disease Control, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Sampling Studies, United States, Victoria, 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