连续的 COVID-19 封锁对人口心理健康有何影响?澳大利亚利用医疗服务数据进行自然实验的结果。

Ali Lakhani, Vijaya Sundararajan
{"title":"连续的 COVID-19 封锁对人口心理健康有何影响?澳大利亚利用医疗服务数据进行自然实验的结果。","authors":"Ali Lakhani, Vijaya Sundararajan","doi":"10.1071/AH24137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveThe causal effect of successive population-wide lockdowns in response to increased COVID-19 cases on mental health has yet to be examined using robust methods. A natural experiment design underpinned by objective data can improve our understanding surrounding the definitive impact of social distancing restrictions.MethodsThe study employed a natural experiment design underpinned by objective data. Health service cost for visits to general practitioners and psychologists and medication dispensing costs served as objective measures of mental health. Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators, which in this study quantify differences in spending changes between groups over time, were produced based on three comparisons: Victoria 2020 lockdown comparison, Victoria 2021 lockdown comparison, and New South Wales (NSW) 2021 lockdown comparison. Specifically, differences in public health service spending during lockdown periods and the same timeframe in 2019 for Victoria and NSW, and control groups (remaining states and territories), were compared.ResultsPositive estimator values indicate that public health service spending for Victoria and NSW increased more during lockdown periods compared to control states and territories. The Victorian lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, but not the NSW lockdown of 2021, resulted in increased public spending for general practitioner mental health consults (2020 DID estimator: $8498.96 [95% CI $4012.84, $12,373.57], 2021 DID estimator: $6630.06 [95% CI $41.27, $13,267.20], all monetary values in AUD$) and short visits to psychologists (2020 DID estimator: $628.82 [95% CI $466.25, $796.00], 2021 DID estimator: $230.11 [95% CI $47.52, $373.98]). The first Victorian lockdown in 2020 and the NSW lockdown in 2021 resulted in greater spending on short visits to clinical psychologists. Spending on long visits to psychologists and clinical psychologists and medication spending did not change.ConclusionsStrict lockdowns can have an adverse impact on population mental health. The impact is particularly evident in those who have a history of previous mental health concerns but does not necessitate extra use of medications, suggesting that psychological care can address the adverse impact of the lockdowns.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is the impact of successive COVID-19 lockdowns on population mental health? Findings from an Australian natural experiment using health service data.\",\"authors\":\"Ali Lakhani, Vijaya Sundararajan\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/AH24137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveThe causal effect of successive population-wide lockdowns in response to increased COVID-19 cases on mental health has yet to be examined using robust methods. A natural experiment design underpinned by objective data can improve our understanding surrounding the definitive impact of social distancing restrictions.MethodsThe study employed a natural experiment design underpinned by objective data. Health service cost for visits to general practitioners and psychologists and medication dispensing costs served as objective measures of mental health. Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators, which in this study quantify differences in spending changes between groups over time, were produced based on three comparisons: Victoria 2020 lockdown comparison, Victoria 2021 lockdown comparison, and New South Wales (NSW) 2021 lockdown comparison. Specifically, differences in public health service spending during lockdown periods and the same timeframe in 2019 for Victoria and NSW, and control groups (remaining states and territories), were compared.ResultsPositive estimator values indicate that public health service spending for Victoria and NSW increased more during lockdown periods compared to control states and territories. The Victorian lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, but not the NSW lockdown of 2021, resulted in increased public spending for general practitioner mental health consults (2020 DID estimator: $8498.96 [95% CI $4012.84, $12,373.57], 2021 DID estimator: $6630.06 [95% CI $41.27, $13,267.20], all monetary values in AUD$) and short visits to psychologists (2020 DID estimator: $628.82 [95% CI $466.25, $796.00], 2021 DID estimator: $230.11 [95% CI $47.52, $373.98]). The first Victorian lockdown in 2020 and the NSW lockdown in 2021 resulted in greater spending on short visits to clinical psychologists. Spending on long visits to psychologists and clinical psychologists and medication spending did not change.ConclusionsStrict lockdowns can have an adverse impact on population mental health. The impact is particularly evident in those who have a history of previous mental health concerns but does not necessitate extra use of medications, suggesting that psychological care can address the adverse impact of the lockdowns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:针对 COVID-19 病例增加而连续实施的全人口封锁对心理健康的因果影响尚未使用可靠的方法进行研究。以客观数据为基础的自然实验设计可以提高我们对社会隔离限制的明确影响的认识。方法本研究采用了以客观数据为基础的自然实验设计。看全科医生和心理医生的医疗服务成本以及配药成本是衡量心理健康的客观指标。在本研究中,差分估算器(DID)量化了不同组别在不同时期的支出变化差异:维多利亚州 2020 年封锁比较、维多利亚州 2021 年封锁比较和新南威尔士州(NSW)2021 年封锁比较。具体而言,比较了维多利亚州和新南威尔士州与对照组(其余各州和地区)在封锁期间和 2019 年相同时间段的公共卫生服务支出差异。结果正估计值表明,与对照州和地区相比,维多利亚州和新南威尔士州在封锁期间的公共卫生服务支出增加更多。维多利亚州 2020 年和 2021 年的封锁,而新南威尔士州 2021 年的封锁,导致全科医生心理健康咨询的公共开支增加(2020 年的 DID 估计值:8498.96 美元 [95% CI 4012.84 美元,12373.57 美元],2021 年的 DID 估计值:12,373.57 美元[95% CI 4012.84 美元,12,373.57 美元])。57],2021 年 DID 估算值:6630.06 澳元[95% CI 41.27 澳元,13267.20 澳元],所有货币价值均以澳元为单位)以及心理学家的短期访问(2020 年 DID 估算值:628.82 澳元[95% CI 466.25 澳元,796.00 澳元],2021 年 DID 估算值:230.11 澳元[95% CI 47.52 澳元,373.98 澳元])。2020 年维多利亚州的首次封锁和 2021 年新南威尔士州的封锁导致临床心理学家的短期访问支出增加。结论严格的封锁会对人们的心理健康产生不利影响。这种影响在以前有过心理健康问题的人群中尤为明显,但并不需要额外使用药物,这表明心理治疗可以消除封锁带来的不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is the impact of successive COVID-19 lockdowns on population mental health? Findings from an Australian natural experiment using health service data.

ObjectiveThe causal effect of successive population-wide lockdowns in response to increased COVID-19 cases on mental health has yet to be examined using robust methods. A natural experiment design underpinned by objective data can improve our understanding surrounding the definitive impact of social distancing restrictions.MethodsThe study employed a natural experiment design underpinned by objective data. Health service cost for visits to general practitioners and psychologists and medication dispensing costs served as objective measures of mental health. Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators, which in this study quantify differences in spending changes between groups over time, were produced based on three comparisons: Victoria 2020 lockdown comparison, Victoria 2021 lockdown comparison, and New South Wales (NSW) 2021 lockdown comparison. Specifically, differences in public health service spending during lockdown periods and the same timeframe in 2019 for Victoria and NSW, and control groups (remaining states and territories), were compared.ResultsPositive estimator values indicate that public health service spending for Victoria and NSW increased more during lockdown periods compared to control states and territories. The Victorian lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, but not the NSW lockdown of 2021, resulted in increased public spending for general practitioner mental health consults (2020 DID estimator: $8498.96 [95% CI $4012.84, $12,373.57], 2021 DID estimator: $6630.06 [95% CI $41.27, $13,267.20], all monetary values in AUD$) and short visits to psychologists (2020 DID estimator: $628.82 [95% CI $466.25, $796.00], 2021 DID estimator: $230.11 [95% CI $47.52, $373.98]). The first Victorian lockdown in 2020 and the NSW lockdown in 2021 resulted in greater spending on short visits to clinical psychologists. Spending on long visits to psychologists and clinical psychologists and medication spending did not change.ConclusionsStrict lockdowns can have an adverse impact on population mental health. The impact is particularly evident in those who have a history of previous mental health concerns but does not necessitate extra use of medications, suggesting that psychological care can address the adverse impact of the lockdowns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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