IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has loneliness and poor resilient coping influenced the magnitude of psychological distress among apparently healthy Indian adults during the lockdown? Evidence from a rapid online nation-wide cross-sectional survey

Author

Listed:
  • Arista Lahiri
  • Sweety Suman Jha
  • Rudraprasad Acharya
  • Abhijit Dey
  • Arup Chakraborty

Abstract

Background: The burden of psychological distress is increasing with the spread of the pandemic and also with the enforcement of its containment measures. The aim of this research was to determine the proportion of self-reported psychological distress, loneliness and degrees of resilient coping, and to also investigate the relationship of loneliness, coping and other variables with psychological distress among apparently healthy Indians during nation-wide lockdown period. Methods: A cross-sectional, region-stratified survey using pre-designed pre-tested Google form disseminated via different social media platforms was conducted. A total of 1249 responses were analysed all over India. The form enquired about Socio-demographic profile, awareness on COVID pandemic and cases in the surroundings. UCLA Loneliness scale, Brief resilience and coping scale (BRCS) and Psychological distress scale (K6) assessed self-reported loneliness, coping and psychological distress, respectively. Special regressor technique adjusting for endogeneity and heteroskedasticity was used to extract the average marginal effects. Results: Majority of the respondents were 18–35 years old, male, single and urban residents. News media, social media mostly acted as sources of information regarding COVID related news. Overall, 54.47% (95% CI: 51.39–57.53%) and 38.39% (95% CI: 35.57–41.29%) were reported to be lonely and had low resilient coping ability respectively. Around 44.68% had high risk of developing psychological distress. Being a student (average marginal effect coefficient (AMECoef).: -0.07, 95% CI: [-0.12, -0.01]) and perceiving lockdown as an effective measure (AMECoef: -0.11, 95% CI: [-0.19, -0.03]) were protective against psychological distress. Psychological distress was associated with male respondents (AMECoef 0.07, 95% CI: [0.02, 0.11]), low or medium resilient copers (AMECoef 0.89, 95% CI: [0.17, 1.61]), and perceiving a serious impact of social distancing measures (AMECoef 0.17, 95% CI: [0.09, 0.26]). Conclusions: Psychological distress among Indian population during lockdown was prevalent. Poor coping ability and perceiving social distancing to have a serious impact was found to be significantly contributing to psychological distress. Appropriate measures to address these issues would be beneficial for the community mental health.

Suggested Citation

  • Arista Lahiri & Sweety Suman Jha & Rudraprasad Acharya & Abhijit Dey & Arup Chakraborty, 2021. "Has loneliness and poor resilient coping influenced the magnitude of psychological distress among apparently healthy Indian adults during the lockdown? Evidence from a rapid online nation-wide cross-s," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245509
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245509
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245509&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245509?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:pone00:0245509. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.