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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Studies from the general population have found lower levels of mental health problems during the COVID-19 outbreak in Norway compared with other countries.
“studies from the general population have found lower levels of mental health problems during the COVID-19 outbreak in Norway compared with other countries.27”
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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Mental Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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