Cited by 217COVID-19 and Mental HealthImpact of Technology on AdolescentsCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Mental health, quality of life, wellbeing, loneliness and use of social media in a time of social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak. A cross-country comparative study

Open access
Geirdal, Amy Østertun, Ruffolo, Mary, Leung, Janni, Thygesen, Hilde, Price, Daicia, Bonsaksen, Tore, Schoultz, Mariyana·2021·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 outbreak raised questions about how people experience their mental health, quality of life (QoL), wellbeing and loneliness in the context of social distancing, and the use of social media during this time. Aims To examine the experience of mental health, QoL, wellbeing and loneliness and use of social media among people living in Norway, USA, UK and Australia. Methods A cross-country comparative survey of people living in Norway, USA, UK and Australia. Relevant statistical analyses were used to examine differences between the countries and to explore associations between demographic, mental health and psychosocial variables and use of social media. Results There were 3810 respondents from four countries, of which 50 - 74% showed a high level of emotional distress. The Norwegian population reported significantly better mental health, QoL and wellbeing and lower levels of loneliness compared to the other countries. High-frequent use of social media after the COVID-19 outbreak was associated with poorer mental- and psychosocial health. Conclusions The results suggest that the COVID-19 outbreak took a toll on people's experience of mental health, QoL, wellbeing and experienced loneliness, and high-frequent use of social media was associated with these factors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638237.2021.1875413

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 52 · Cited by 217

Authors
Geirdal, A. Ø., Ruffolo, M., Leung, J., Thygesen, H., Price, D., Bonsaksen, T., & Schoultz, M.
Affiliations
  • OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Salford (GB)
Corresponding author
Geirdal, Amy Østertun
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2021-03-04
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
148-155
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W3135441244
Cited by
217
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 29
FWCI
30.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Salford Institutional Repository (University of Salford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing, mental health, quality of life, well-being, loneliness, social media use, emotional distress, cross-national comparison, psychosocial health
MeSH terms
Physical Distancing, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Norway, Quality of Life, United States, Young Adult, Social Media

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