Relating mental health, health-related quality of life and well-being in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional comparison in 14 European countries in early 2023

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Zhuxin Mao , Koen Pepermans , Philippe Beutels
{"title":"Relating mental health, health-related quality of life and well-being in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional comparison in 14 European countries in early 2023","authors":"Zhuxin Mao ,&nbsp;Koen Pepermans ,&nbsp;Philippe Beutels","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.11.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To understand country-level differences in the population's health and well-being in Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, while also investigating the internal relationships among health and well-being outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We collected representative panel-based samples of 1000 adult respondents per country across 14 Western European countries in early 2023. The survey used standardised instruments to assess health and well-being, including EQ-5D-5L, GHQ-12, PHQ-9, general satisfaction, the Brief Resilience Scale and the ULS-6 (Loneliness) Scale. Summary statistics of the aggregate scores for each country were calculated and ranked. Multidimensional unfolding was used to visualize the rank relationships across countries and the indices, whereby a closer distance between a country and an index indicated a higher/better rank. Additionally, two key objective country-level indices (GDP growth rate and excess mortality rates) were integrated into the analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Austria was found to report better status on most of the indices, while Sweden and the UK ranked consistently worse than the other countries. The loneliness, EQ-VAS and satisfaction scores were plotted further from the mental well-being scores and EQ-5D utility scores. Countries that did well in controlling excess mortality and maintaining economic growth tended to exhibit lower performance in self-reported well-being.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study presents the variability in health and well-being across 14 West-European countries. Discrepancies between countries in self-reported outcomes reveal the complex interrelationship among different aspects of well-being. The study also highlights the complexities and challenges in optimising policies to maximize the overall well-being of society.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"238 ","pages":"Pages 16-22"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624004682","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To understand country-level differences in the population's health and well-being in Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, while also investigating the internal relationships among health and well-being outcomes.

Study design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

We collected representative panel-based samples of 1000 adult respondents per country across 14 Western European countries in early 2023. The survey used standardised instruments to assess health and well-being, including EQ-5D-5L, GHQ-12, PHQ-9, general satisfaction, the Brief Resilience Scale and the ULS-6 (Loneliness) Scale. Summary statistics of the aggregate scores for each country were calculated and ranked. Multidimensional unfolding was used to visualize the rank relationships across countries and the indices, whereby a closer distance between a country and an index indicated a higher/better rank. Additionally, two key objective country-level indices (GDP growth rate and excess mortality rates) were integrated into the analysis.

Results

Austria was found to report better status on most of the indices, while Sweden and the UK ranked consistently worse than the other countries. The loneliness, EQ-VAS and satisfaction scores were plotted further from the mental well-being scores and EQ-5D utility scores. Countries that did well in controlling excess mortality and maintaining economic growth tended to exhibit lower performance in self-reported well-being.

Conclusion

This study presents the variability in health and well-being across 14 West-European countries. Discrepancies between countries in self-reported outcomes reveal the complex interrelationship among different aspects of well-being. The study also highlights the complexities and challenges in optimising policies to maximize the overall well-being of society.
COVID-19 大流行后心理健康、与健康相关的生活质量和幸福感的关系:2023 年初 14 个欧洲国家的横向比较。
研究目标:了解 COVID-19 大流行后欧洲人口健康和福祉的国家级差异:研究设计:横断面研究:研究设计:横断面研究:我们于 2023 年初在 14 个西欧国家收集了每个国家 1000 名成年受访者的代表性面板样本。调查使用标准化工具评估健康和幸福感,包括 EQ-5D-5L、GHQ-12、PHQ-9、总体满意度、简易复原力量表和 ULS-6(孤独感)量表。对每个国家的总分进行了汇总统计和排名。多维展开法用于直观显示各国与各指数之间的等级关系,即国家与指数之间的距离越近,表示等级越高/越好。此外,分析中还纳入了两个关键的国家级客观指数(国内生产总值增长率和超额死亡率):结果发现,奥地利在大多数指数上的排名都较好,而瑞典和英国的排名一直比其他国家差。孤独感、EQ-VAS 和满意度得分是根据精神健康得分和 EQ-5D 实用性得分进一步绘制的。在控制过高死亡率和保持经济增长方面表现出色的国家往往在自我报告的幸福感方面表现较差:本研究介绍了 14 个西欧国家在健康和福祉方面的差异。各国在自我报告结果方面的差异揭示了福祉不同方面之间复杂的相互关系。这项研究还强调了优化政策以最大限度地提高社会整体福祉的复杂性和挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信