IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0005944.html

Comparing the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 in seven low- and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Sandila Tanveer
  • Philip J Schluter
  • Richard J Porter
  • Joseph M Boden
  • Ben Beaglehole
  • Ruqayya Sulaiman-Hill
  • Shaystah Dean
  • Wafaa N Al-Hussainni
  • Muthana A Majid Al-Masoodi
  • Maliheh Arshi
  • Jacob A Bentley
  • Mehmet Dinç
  • Norah Feeny
  • Hamse Jibriil Ibrahim
  • Ahmed Muse Ismail
  • Ahmed Said Ismail
  • Mussarat Jabeen Khan
  • Mohammad Sabzi Khoshnami
  • Mohamed Ahmed Kunle
  • Daniella Levine
  • Amir Moghanibashi-Mansourieh
  • Aaron Moratz
  • Amer Siddiq Amer Nordin
  • Sara Noruzi
  • Saadet Öztürk
  • Anggi Rahajeng
  • Shaista Shaikh
  • Nisa Tanveer
  • Feyza Topçu
  • Irfan Yunianto
  • Lori A Zoellner
  • Caroline Bell

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic inflicted widespread and prolonged stress, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Similar events are likely in the future, and understanding moderators of the effects in LMICs may be helpful. An observational study of adults aged ≥18 years in Türkiye, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Somaliland, and Iran was conducted using an online survey between 2021 and 2023. Data were collected on sociodemographic and pandemic-related variables along with standardized measures of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale 10, K10; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5, PCL5), wellbeing (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index, WHO-5), post-traumatic growth (Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, PTGI), and pandemic-related distress (COVID-19 Psychosocial Impacts Scale, CPIS). Modified Poisson multilevel mixed-effect models were used to explore associations. Cumulative distribution function plots were used to visually compare sites, followed by ANCOVA to assess statistical differences while controlling for covariates. Overall, 2,574 adults aged 18–73 years (M = 28.0 years, SD = 10.6) participated. They were predominantly female (64.6%), single (58.0%), and Muslim (92.2%), with 81.2% having at least a tertiary qualification. The CPIS score range was 5–144 (M = 47.7, SD = 24.0). Psychological outcomes revealed substantial distress on K10 (32.2%), PCL5 (37.8%), and WHO-5 (45.0%) measures. Being female, married, studying full-time, and unemployed were consistently linked to higher psychological distress. The PTGI scores ranged from 0-105 (M = 53.3, SD = 23.3), showing a wide spectrum of posttraumatic growth in responses to COVID-19. Country-wise comparisons indicated variations in distress, well-being, and post-traumatic growth in response to COVID-19. The variation in distress scores appeared to be influenced by individual (e.g., gender, marital status, education, employment) and contextual (e.g., lockdown) factors. These findings suggest that strategies aimed at mitigating long-term psychosocial impacts of pandemics in resource-constrained settings may have population-health beneficial. Registration details: The study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry (NCT05052333).

Suggested Citation

  • Sandila Tanveer & Philip J Schluter & Richard J Porter & Joseph M Boden & Ben Beaglehole & Ruqayya Sulaiman-Hill & Shaystah Dean & Wafaa N Al-Hussainni & Muthana A Majid Al-Masoodi & Maliheh Arshi & J, 2026. "Comparing the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 in seven low- and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005944
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005944
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005944&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005944?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005944. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.