Cited by 106COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Association between Future Anxiety, Health Literacy and the Perception of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Open access

Abstract

Increased anxiety related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in society and specific professional groups has been reported by many authors. Most have applied tools enabling assessing the general traits of anxiety. Tools specifically designed for an assessment of anxiety or fear related to COVID-19 have also been developed. However, no study has assessed the future anxiety in relation to the pandemic. This concept was defined by Zaleski in the end of the 20th century as the state of apprehension, fear, worry, and concern regarding unfavourable changes in the more remote personal future. The aim of this study was an analysis to establish the level and the determinants of future anxiety in Polish society related to the COVID-19 pandemic three months after the introduction of the state of epidemic. The analysis reported in the paper is based on the data obtained through a web-based survey carried out on a representative sample of 1002 Polish adults aged 18–74 years. The hierarchical linear regression model was developed for the analysis of the determinants of future anxiety from the responses to a questionnaire consisting of five items. The independent variables selected for inclusion in the model, apart from sociodemographic characteristics, encompassed health literacy (HL) and ehealth literacy (eHL), perceived health threat related to COVID-19 (PHTC19), and a COVID-19-related conspiracy belief score (CCBS) derived from three items asking about the most popular conspiracy theories. The regression model developed in the final step showed that the future anxiety scale score (FASS) was significantly associated with gender, vocational status, HL, PHTC19, and CCBS. The FASS was lower among men than women (regression coefficient (B) (standard error, SE) = −1.28 (0.39), p = 0.001), among entrepreneurs or farmers rather than among employees of the public or private sector (B(SE) = −1.55, p = 0.010), in persons with a higher HL (B(SE) = −0.43 (0.06), p < 0.001). A higher FASS was observed in respondents with higher rather than lower PHTC19 (B(SE) = 1.49 (0.17), p < 0.001) and in those with a higher CCBS (B(SE) = 0.33 (0.07), p < 0.001). The model accounted for 15.2% of the variance of the FASS. In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic is not only a cause of increased mental symptoms, but also of increased future anxiety. Health-related measures are significantly associated with the FASS.

Overview

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 · 10.3390/healthcare9010043

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scatterplots with marginal histograms for FASS and selected independent variables (abbreviations: FASS—future anxiety scale score, HL—health literacy, eHL—ehealth literacy, PHTC19—the perceived health threat related to the COVID-19 pandemic; CCBS—COVID-19-related conspiracy belief scale.
Figure 1 Scatterplots with marginal histograms for FASS and selected independent variables (abbreviations: FASS—future anxiety scale score, HL—health literacy, eHL—ehealth literacy, PHTC19—the perceived health threat related to the COVID-19 pandemic; CCBS—COVID-19-related conspiracy belief scale.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 105 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Feldman, M.D., Christensen, J.F., Satterfield, J.M., and Laponis, R. (2020). Anxiety. Behavioral Medicine: A Guide for Clinical Practice, McGraw-Hill Education.
  2. Spielberger, 1971, Development of the Spanish edition of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Rev. Interam. Psicol., 5, 145
  3. Zaleski, 1997, Influence strategies used by military and civil supervisors: Empirical research, Pol. Psychol. Bull., 28, 325
  4. Pelikan, J.M., Röthlin, F., and Ganahl, K. (2014, January 3–4). Measuring Comprehensive Health Literacy in General Populations: Validation of Instrument, Indices and Scales of the HLS-EU Study. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Health Literacy Research Conference, Hyat Regency, Bethesda, MD, USA.
  5. Stickley, A., Matsubayashi, T., Sueki, H., Ueda, M., and Faculty, M.U. (2020). COVID-19 preventive behaviors among people with anxiety and depression: Findings from Japan. medRxiv. · DOI
  6. Isautier, J., Ayre, J., Cvejic, E., Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Batcup, C., Bonner, C., Dodd, R., Nickel, B., Pickles, K., and Cornell, S. (2020). Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic: People’s experiences and satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. medRxiv. · DOI
  7. Gritsenko, V., Skugarevsky, O., Konstantinov, V., Khamenka, N., Marinova, T., Reznik, A., and Isralowitz, R. (2020). COVID 19 Fear, Stress, Anxiety, and Substance Use Among Russian and Belarusian University Students. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict., 1. · DOI
  8. Chen, X., Zhang, S.X., Jahanshahi, A.A., Alvarez-Risco, A., Dai, H., Li, J., and Ibarra, V.G. (2020). Belief in Conspiracy Theory about COVID-19 Predicts Mental Health and Well-being-A Study of Healthcare Staff in Ecuador. medRxiv. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Duplaga, M., & Grysztar, M.
Affiliations
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Corresponding author
Duplaga, Mariusz
Venue
Healthcare
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-01-05
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
43
ISSN
2227-9032 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120587867
Cited by
106
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 17
FWCI
14.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Healthcare (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Uniwersytet Jagielloński Collegium Medicum (N43/DBS/000050)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
future anxiety, COVID-19 pandemic, health literacy, digital health literacy, perceived health threat, conspiracy beliefs, COVID-19 conspiracy theories, gender differences, occupational status, Polish adults, public health communication, health education, health policy, health care costs

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