Abstract
Purpose
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health problems have been reported, and parents of young children may be more vulnerable to psychological distress due to increased caregiving responsibilities. However, research on the heterogeneity of the longitudinal course of psychological symptoms during the pandemic and the predispositions linked with these courses is still scarce. This study aimed to identify differential trajectories of depressive symptoms among the parents of young children and investigate the role of temperament traits, alexithymia, and coping styles in the heterogeneity of the symptom trajectories.
Methods
The sample consists of 844 parents from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study. Latent growth mixture modeling was utilized to identify trajectories of depressive symptoms from pre-pandemic between 2014 and 2019 (T0, the closest available measurement was used) to May/June 2020 (T1) and December 2020 (T2) during the pandemic. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine temperament, alexithymia, and coping as predictors of symptom trajectories, controlling for various background factors.
Results
Four trajectories of depressive symptoms were identified. Most parents experienced low and stable depressive symptoms. Negative affect, effortful control, alexithymia, emotion-diverting coping (self-distraction and venting), and avoidant coping (denial and behavioral disengagement) were predictors for subclinical stable depressive symptoms. Constructive coping (positive reframing, acceptance, and humor) protected the cohort parents from increasing or moderately high depressive symptoms.
Conclusions
The findings have implications for identifying vulnerable individuals with specific traits and strengthening of constructive coping strategies as possible foci in interventions for depression during global crises.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The rapid worldwide spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had a widespread impact on mental health [1, 2]. In addition to health-related factors, such as worries about personal physical health and fear of infecting family members, restriction-related factors, such as social isolation, economic burden, and decreases in the quality of personal relationships are reportedly significant stressors contributing to psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic [3,4,5].
In the context of COVID-19, general mental health is found to have deteriorated compared with pre-pandemic period [6, 7]. Specifically, there are several longitudinal studies comparing depressive symptoms, comprising feelings of low mood, sadness, hopelessness, helplessness, inappropriate guilt, and reduced energy or fatigue [8], in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. A study in Italy showed that pre-pandemic depressive symptoms increased during lockdown [9]. However, a study from China indicated that depression levels did not change significantly from the initial outbreak to the peak of the pandemic [10]. In a study with a German sample, no increases in psychopathological symptoms were either found, although rising symptoms were observed in a high-stress group [11]. Thus, the mixed results may be attributable to the sample characteristics. Recent meta-analysis of longitudinal studies suggested an overall small mental health influence of the pandemic but specific individuals such as females and younger adults at greater risk of mental health problems, highlighting a considerable degree of heterogeneity across populations [12,13,14,15,16].
Considering that the pandemic-related environmental change may be a challenge for specific populations with risk factors, it is relevant to identify heterogeneity of mental health trajectories during the pandemic. The heterogeneity refers to differential mental health outcomes, which may be caused by diverse conditions. For example, a prior study indicated that most of the participants experienced low-consistent depressive symptoms, whereas some experienced high-increasing symptoms due to differential caregiving burden and coping strategies [17].
However, to screen and prevent poor mental well-being in the long term, it is important to study on resilience and risk factors related to longitudinal response to the pandemic. Recent studies have reported certain demographics such as female gender and parenthood to be risk factors of heightened depression in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic [7, 18]. However, little is known about trait-like features that may be relevant to dealing with the pandemic longitudinally. Specific temperament or personality traits are related to psychological responses by influencing stress appraisal and coping strategies employed when facing stressful situations [19]. Traits such as depressive and cyclothymic temperament typically linked with high negative affect or neuroticism may be predictors for moderate-to-severe psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak [20]. In addition, alexithymia, a personality trait involving difficulties in identifying and expressing feelings, externally oriented style of thinking and a scarcity of imagination [21], may also contribute to pandemic-related psychological response [22, 23].
On the other hand, specific coping strategies are plausible contributors to emotional response to the pandemic. Coping processes refer to behavioral and cognitive efforts to reduce the internal and external demands that exceed personal resources [24]. Folkman et al. claimed that different types of coping may cause distinct emotional outcomes [25]. For instance, task-oriented coping methods such as acceptance and positive reframing are regarded as active or adaptive, which typically protect individuals from psychological distress under a stressful situation, whereas emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping as passive or maladaptive methods tend to be related to poorer outcome in mental health [26,27,28]. Active coping styles have been suggested as protectors and passive coping as risk factors for depression during the pandemic [29].
Investigating potential predisposition to pandemic-related mental health is especially relevant among parents with young children, as they may be more vulnerable to psychological distress during the pandemic due to increased caregiving responsibilities [7, 18] and weaker access to social support and resources [30, 31]. Moreover, parental well-being may have spillover effects on parenting and ultimately on child well-being and longitudinal development [32, 33]. Nevertheless, there is still little knowledge on how temperament, alexithymic traits, and coping strategies influence the longitudinal patterns of pandemic-related depressive symptoms.
The present study aimed to explore unobserved subpopulations with distinct longitudinal trajectories of depressive symptoms from pre-pandemic to the first year of pandemic among Finnish parents and to investigate the potential predictors. As mental health may slightly change in general population with high heterogeneity across individuals [12,13,14,15,16], it was hypothesized that differential trajectories would be identified, with one trajectory being low and stable, and others characterizing larger changes in symptoms, but specific hypotheses were not set because of lacking evidence on this topic. Furthermore, based on previous research, individuals with specific traits such as high negative affect (a temperament trait linked with neuroticism) and high alexithymia were expected to have higher levels and/or more increases of depressive symptoms [34, 35]. In addition, prior research suggested active coping styles to be protective factors from and passive coping as risk factors for depression [28, 29, 36]. We, therefore, expected acceptance and positive reframing to protect the parents from depressive symptoms, and denial and behavioral disengagement to predict higher or increasing symptoms across follow-up.
Methods
Study participants and design
This study is based on the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study (N = 3808 families), a prospective cohort study exploring the impacts of prenatal and early life stress on child brain development and health [37]. The families were recruited in Finland between December 2011 and April 2015 from maternal welfare clinics in the South-Western Hospital District and the Åland Islands. All the participants in the cohort were invited to respond to the COVID-19 follow-up questionnaire between May and June 2020 (T1) and in December 2020 (T2); that is, around 3 months and 9 months after the first COVID-19 positive case was identified in Finland. Overall, 856 parents from the cohort responded to the current pandemic sub-study and the final study sample consists of 844 parents (see flow chart in Fig. 1, sample recruitment and attrition analyses in the Supplemental Material).
Procedures
Demographic information about age, gender, education divided into three classes (1 = Low: High school or lower, 2 = Mid: Vocational tertiary degree, 3 = High: University degree), economic satisfaction ranging from 0 to 10 (0 = low satisfaction, 10 = high satisfaction) was collected in the first trimester of pregnancy. Alexithymia was measured at 6 months after delivery (between 2012 and 2015). Temperament was measured when their child was 12 months (between 2013 and 2016). Baseline depressive symptoms were measured at 2 or 4 year postpartum between 2014 and 2019 (T0, the closest available measurement was used). During the pandemic, the participants responded to the follow-up questionnaires electronically through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform [38]. The T1 data included depressive symptoms, coping strategies, number of children at home (1 = one child, 2 = two children, 3 = more than two children), pandemic-related stressors, and negative life events during the past year. The T2 data included depressive symptoms, pandemic-related stressors, negative life events during the previous months, and information about remote work (1 = less than 50% time, 2 = 50% or more than 50% time).
Measures
Depressive symptoms
Depressive symptoms were measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) [39]. The EPDS is a widely used 10-item self-report questionnaire applied to screen postnatal depressive symptoms with high validity and sensitivity among both mothers and fathers [40]. In this study, the measure was used because of its wide validity in different populations, and since the cohort has longitudinally employed this measure, allowing the comparison between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Each question is scored from 0 to 3, so the total score ranges from 0 to 30 points with higher score indicating more depressive symptoms. The scores above cut-off points of 9/10 and 12/13 are suggested for “possible depression” and “probable depression”, respectively [39, 41]. The measure showed good internal consistency across the follow-up (Cronbach’s α at T0 = 0.84, at T1 = 0.85 and at T2 = 0.88).
Temperament traits and alexithymia
Temperament traits were assessed by a 77-item version of the Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ) with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely untrue of you) to 7 (extremely true of you) [42]. It is a self-report instrument developed to measure 4 temperamental dimensions including negative affect, effortful control, extraversion/surgency, and orienting sensitivity. Satisfactory internal consistency and test–retest reliability of ATQ are shown in previous research [43]. In this study, the four dimensions showed adequate to good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.86 for negative affect, 0.80 for effortful control, 0.74 for extraversion/surgency, and 0.79 for orienting sensitivity).
Alexithymic traits were measured using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), which is one of the most widely used self-report scales measuring alexithymia [44,45,46]. It consists of 20 items divided into 3 subscales: difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF) and externally oriented thinking (EOT). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), so a total score ranging from 20 to 100 is obtained. The TAS-20 total score was used in this study with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.81).
Coping factors
The situational coping strategies of the participants were measured using the Brief COPE, an inventory comprising 14 subscales with 2 items for each [47]. The participants were asked “How often have you been doing these things when pandemic-related problems and worries are concerned?”. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I have not been doing this at all) to 4 (I have been doing this a lot). Only 8 subscales were used in this study, including self-distraction, denial, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, acceptance, humor, and religion.
To simplify the predictor variables, exploratory factor analyses were conducted thus yielding four factors defined as following: emotion-diverting coping (2 items: self-distraction, factor loadings: 0.83, and venting 0.81); avoidant coping (2 items: denial 0.80 and behavioral disengagement 0.77); constructive coping (3 items: positive reframing 0.61, acceptance 0.64, and humor 0.78); and religion (1 item, 0.93), which together accounted for 68.5% of total variance.
Pandemic-related stressors and negative life events
The COVID-19 pandemic stressors were assessed at T1 and T2 employing a questionnaire with a “yes” or “no” answer for each item based on experiences of the respondents, which is modified according to the measurement for SARS-related stressors in the study by Main et al. [27]. The questionnaire covered following events: health events related to self, family members, friends, and relatives or acquaintances, free time restrictions, and economic burden. The COVID-19 stressors used in this study were derived from averaging the sum of the stressors at T1 and T2.
In addition, 18 life events (e.g., a child starting school, moving into a new house, divorce, unemployment, and serious illness or death of a child’s grandparent) that had happened during the past year (T1) and previous months (T2) were assessed by a questionnaire with a 5-point scale on each item, of which 4 or 5 indicated a perceived negative life event. The negative life events used in this study were derived from averaging the sum of the life events at T1 and T2.
Analysis strategy
To identify unobserved subpopulations of the study sample with different linear growth patterns of depressive symptoms over 2020, latent growth mixture modeling (LGMM) was conducted using Robust Maximum Likelihood estimation with Mplus 8 software [48]. Detailed procedures for modeling are presented in the Supplementary Material.
Other statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 25.0. Missing values of all predictors and background factors were imputed by multiple imputation producing 20 imputation data sets [49] (more detail in the Supplementary Material).
To analyze the correlations between variables, the Chi-square test was used for categorical variables and Spearman’s ρ for continuous variables, Mann–Whitney U tests for continuous variables and binary variables, Kruskal–Wallis tests or one-way ANOVA followed by S–N–K post-hoc tests for continuous variables and polytomous variables. The multinomial logistic regression was conducted to examine the predictive factors for the trajectory groups of depressive symptoms, controlling for gender, education, economic satisfaction, number of children at home, remote work, as well as negative life events and pandemic stressors based on the preliminary analyses. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed conducting the logistic regression for the groups including the manually classified participants (N = 15) and the results between the sets of analyses were compared.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Of the whole sample consisting of 844 parents, 706 parents completed the measurement of depressive symptoms at T0 (83.5%, N = 120 at 2 year postpartum and 586 at 4 year postpartum), 822 at T1 (97.4%) and 532 at T2 (63.1%) (Fig. 1). There were no significant differences in the background factors among the respondents at T0, T1 and T2, suggesting similar characteristics of the sample across the timepoints (Table 1). Given the results of Little's missing completely at random test (p = 0.088) and background factors related to the missingness showed in attrition analysis (Supplementary Material), it is plausibly assumed that data on the follow-up symptoms were missing at random.
Trajectories of depressive symptoms
The model indices for selecting optimal model are presented in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material. In brief, the AIC and BIC improved up to 5-class model, while the VLMR–LRT index suggested no significant improvement after 4-class model. Thus, the 4-class solution was adopted. The first group with a paltry increase and overall low in symptom levels across three timepoints, was named as “Consistently low symptoms”. The second group was named as “Steeply increasing symptoms”. Likewise, the third group was named as “Subclinical stable symptoms”, and the fourth group “Decreasing symptoms”. Figure 2 illustrates the estimated trajectories for the four latent groups and the observed individual trajectories for each group. The Consistently low symptoms (Fig. 2a), Steeply increasing symptoms (Fig. 2b) and Subclinical stable symptoms (Fig. 2c) showed relatively wide variation according to the observed individual trajectories. However, the starting points of these estimated trajectories (T0) were distinct from each other, and the standard error was small (Table 2).
Correlations between background information and depressive symptoms
The Spearman’s correlation matrix for continuous variables is presented in Table 3. Follow-up symptoms at T1 and T2 were related to economic satisfaction, COVID-stressors, and negative life events. In addition, according to the bivariate associations, gender, economic satisfaction, number of children at home, remote work, COVID-stressors, and negative life events were included as confounders in the further regression analyses (detailed results are described in the Supplementary Material).
Associations between temperament traits, alexithymia, and coping factors and trajectories of depressive symptoms
Alexithymia and all temperament traits, except for extraversion/surgency, were related to follow-up symptoms at T1 and T2. All the coping factors were correlated with follow-up depressive symptoms at T1 (Table 3).
All the temperament traits and alexithymia differed across the latent groups. Significant differences were found between the symptom trajectories in terms of emotion-diverting coping, avoidant coping, and constructive coping, but not in terms of religion. The Consistently low symptoms group presented lower emotion-diverting coping than the other groups and higher constructive coping than the Steeply increasing symptoms group (Table S2 in the Supplementary Material).
The results of multinomial logistic regression after controlling for the covariates are shown as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in Table 4. There were no significant differences in the study variables between the groups of Steeply increasing symptoms, Subclinical stable symptoms and Decreasing symptoms. Instead, compared to the parents in the Consistently low symptoms group, the parents with higher negative affect were associated with higher odds for being in the group of Subclinical stable symptoms. Individuals with higher effortful control had lower odds of belonging to the groups of Subclinical stable symptoms and Decreasing symptoms. In addition, there was a relation between orienting sensitivity and the parents with Decreasing symptoms. Individuals with higher levels of alexithymia were more likely to be in the group of Subclinical stable symptoms. The parents using more constructive coping had lower odds for being in the groups of Steeply increasing symptoms and Subclinical stable symptoms, but those using more emotion-diverting coping and avoidant coping had higher odds of belonging to the groups of Subclinical stable symptoms and Decreasing symptoms.
Sensitivity analysis: manually classified outliers
We observed no large differences in descriptive statistics and the results of the associations between the main study variables and the symptom trajectories when the outliers were manually classified into or excluded from the latent groups (Tables S3–S5 in the Supplemental Material).
Discussion
In this study, four trajectories of depressive symptoms were identified: “Consistently low symptoms” group (N = 515, 61.4%), “Steeply increasing symptoms” group (N = 22, 2.6%), “Subclinical stable symptoms” group (N = 229, 27.3%), and “Decreasing symptoms” group (N = 73, 8.7%). Relative to Consistently low symptoms, lower effortful control and higher negative affect, higher alexithymia, more use of emotion-diverting coping and avoidant coping during the pandemic had stronger associations with Subclinical stable symptoms. Less use of constructive coping was found to be related to Steeply increasing symptoms and Subclinical stable symptoms. Interestingly, lower effortful control and more use of emotion-diverting and avoidant coping appeared to be associated with Decreasing symptoms during the pandemic.
Most of the parents (61.4%) experienced Consistently low symptoms, similar to the findings from a previous study by Joshi et al. in which two latent groups of depressive symptoms were identified and around two-thirds of participants had low and consistent depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic [17]. A study in UK general population by Pierce et al. identified five mental health trajectories, and most of the participants had consistently good mental health during the pandemic [50]. Contextual factors such as positive attitudes towards restriction [51], and more trust in medical care and the national Government in Finland [52] may play a role in increasing the proportion of individuals with low and stable levels of symptoms.
Temperament traits were found to partially explain the heterogeneity in depressive symptoms during the pandemic. The parents with high negative affect did not experience dramatic changes in the symptoms, but they were more likely to have subclinical depressive symptoms over time. The facets of negative affect include tendency to experience and display discomfort, frustration, and sadness, which shares commonalities with the features of depressive symptoms [8, 42]. Effortful control, in turn, is a facet of top-down self-regulation defined as efficiency of executive attention, that is, the ability to activate or inhibit behavior to resolve conflicts among different responses [53, 54]. It is suggested to be a protective factor from internalizing symptoms [55, 56], which supports our finding that the higher effortful control predicted low and stable depressive symptoms in comparison with subclinical depressive symptoms. In this study, orienting sensitivity showed a link to decreasing depressive symptoms. Orienting sensitivity refers to automatic attention to both external and internal sensory events and includes general perceptual sensitivity involving the awareness of slight intensity stimulation [42, 57]. Although highly sensitive people might experience more depression related to negative stimulation [58], it was not found to be a risk trait in terms of depression during the pandemic. This may have to do with the pandemic leading to decreased external and social stimulation and consequently less stress-inducing situations for people with high orienting sensitivity.
Alexithymia has long been found to be associated with depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms [59,60,61]. In our study, however, neither increasing nor decreasing depressive symptoms was predicted by alexithymia, indicating that the parents with high alexithymia levels seemed not to have significant emotional responses to the pandemic. This may be to a certain degree explained by the low attention to feelings in alexithymic individuals [62]. In addition, it has been suggested that alexithymia has not directly contributed to the pandemic-related depressive symptoms but instead increased the symptom levels via interacting with perceived stress [23].
There may be item-content overlap involved in the association of specific facets of temperament and alexithymia with depressive symptoms which is likely due to the nature of personality traits being strong precursors of mental health outcomes. However, clinically, depressive symptoms (but not personality) are considered as medical outcomes, and theoretically, temperament is a core of personality, whereas depressive symptoms reflect an affective state. According to previous studies, they have been strongly suggested to be distinct constructs [63,64,65,66,67].
In terms of coping factors, the parents with Subclinical stable symptoms tended to use more emotion-diverting coping (self-distraction and venting) and avoidant coping (denial and behavioral disengagement). Individuals with high depressive symptoms may most often use dysfunctional coping strategies [68]. In line with our set of findings, these coping strategies are linked to higher depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic [69]. Neither emotion-diverting nor avoidant coping was observed to predict increasing symptoms, in contrast to the previous study [17]. The discrepant results may be due to the relatively small sample size of the group of Steeply increasing symptoms with high heterogeneity.
Although preexisting depressive symptoms may bring about less use of adaptive coping strategies [70], accounting for the differences between consistently low and subclinical stable depressive symptoms, the parents with Decreasing symptoms used constructive coping (positive reframing, acceptance, and humor) as much as those with Consistently low symptoms. Constructive coping was found to be the only one factor that reduced the likelihood of suffering from increasing depressive symptoms, suggesting the important protective role of constructive coping for mental health during the pandemic. This finding highlights some possible clinical implications for psychotherapeutic interventions. For instance, positive reframing is a technique involving shifting mindset and reconsidering challenging situation in a positive way, which can be trained in the traditional cognitive–behavioral therapies (CBTs). In addition, acceptance is one key technique in the third-wave CBTs, such as acceptance and commitment therapy. The findings are supported by strong clinical evidence showing that these therapies among other therapy orientations are effective in the treatment and prevention of relapse or recurrence of depression [71,72,73].
Interestingly, individuals lower in effortful control and using more emotion-diverting and avoidant coping were more likely to have decreasing depressive symptoms. Although the symptoms in these parents decreased from the pre-pandemic to the pandemic, their overall levels of depressive symptoms remained substantially high at the end of the follow-up. Possible explanations for the Decreasing symptoms are that these parents with high levels of general depressive symptoms had been poorer self-regulators and at risk in “normal lives” prior to the pandemic, and that there are unknown factors affecting the decreasing levels of depression in response to pandemic. For instance, pandemic measures may have structurally eased the distress of this group regardless of the poor coping strategies these individuals applied in response to pandemic. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms behind Decreasing symptoms.
In the current study, depressive symptoms were measured up to December 2020, which is not the final outcome for the current pandemic. The relevance of traits and coping styles may depend on the stressor and the flexibility of the use of each strategy. For instance, avoidance can be useful with short-term uncontrollable stressors [74], and thus different association patterns may be found over time based on a more long-term observation. Therefore, further longitudinal research is needed to illustrate the role of these factors related to the long-term outcome of the pandemic.
Strengths and limitations
To our best knowledge, this is among the first studies using longitudinal within-subject design to investigate temperament traits, alexithymia, and coping styles as potential predictors for the depressive symptom trajectories from the pre-pandemic to pandemic periods in the larger birth cohort setting.
Notwithstanding, some limitations in this study should be acknowledged. First, it is important to note that LGMM assumes continuous development over time, which may not fully capture the data characteristics in this study (e.g., the mid-measurement point indicating nonlinear trajectories). However, to a certain extent, the use of LGMM may be justified by similar trajectory patterns and superior model fit compared to alternative models like the longitudinal latent class analysis (see the Supplementary Material). Nevertheless, comparing alternative models is highly recommended for a more comprehensive understanding of symptom development and potential predictors in future research. Second, the sample size of the latent group Steeply increasing symptoms was relatively small compared to the other trajectory groups, for which drop-outs and the heterogeneity within the group may be the reasons. This is unfortunate as this group likely showed most clinically meaningful symptoms in the sample of the current study. Third, the majority of the participants are females, and thus the generalizability of the findings is mostly relevant to mothers of young children. To keep the sample size of each model-identified class and utilize the longitudinal cohort most effectively and ethically, all the available parents were included in the study sample that may be more representative of our initial cohort sample. In addition, considering statistical power and a parsimonious way in analyses, the sample was not split by gender. It would benefit from further studies with aims at gender differences in this regard. Fourth, temperament traits and alexithymia were measured several years earlier than the pandemic; however, they have been suggested to be highly stable traits in adult population [75, 76]. Fifth, baseline depressive symptoms (T0) were measured between 2014 and 2019, and thus the assessment of past-year negative life events did not cover the whole interval between the T0 and T1, which limits interpreting the attribution of the identified symptom trajectories to the pandemic. However, in the previous analyses of the data [2], the timepoint in which the pre-pandemic assessment was taken did not affect the results of the analyses, indicating that these timepoints can be reliably collapsed to increase the statistical power of the analysis. Sixth, the relatively high socioeconomic status of the participants indicated a low-risk population in the current study, which may limit generalizing the findings to other populations. However, as this apparently underscores the findings on the associations between predictors and the symptom trajectories, it is probable that more significant associations would be observed in high-risk populations.
Conclusion
The present study identified four distinct longitudinal trajectories of depressive symptoms related to the pandemic. Negative affect, alexithymia, and emotion-diverting and avoidant coping were significant risk factors for subclinical depressive symptoms during the pandemic. The parents with high negative affect and alexithymic traits did not show considerable emotional responses to the pandemic. In addition, parents who had high pre-pandemic depressive symptoms with a low effortful control, high orienting sensitivity trait, and using more emotion-diverting or avoidant coping may experience Decreasing symptoms during the pandemic.
In contrast, effortful control and constructive coping protected individuals from increasing or moderately high levels of depressive symptoms during pandemic. These factors and especially the trainable constructive coping strategies could be possible targets for interventions focusing on adult mental health during pandemic. Furthermore, to explore long-term effects of the pandemic on the well-being of parents and children, future research on various dimensions of mental health among more diverse populations in the context of COVID-19 is warranted.
Data availability
The data sets generated for this study will not be made publicly available because of restriction imposed by the Finnish law, and the study’s ethical permissions do not allow sharing of the data used in this study. Requests to access the data sets should be directed to the Principal investigator of the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study (hasse.karlsson@utu.fi).
References
Xiang YT, Yang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Zhang Q, Cheung T, Ng CH (2020) Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry 7(3):228–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30046-8
Nolvi S, Karukivi M, Korja R, Lindblom J, Karlsson L, Karlsson H (2021) Vanhempien masennus-ja ahdistusoireet lisääntyivät COVID-19-pandemian alkuvaiheessa—FinnBrain-syntymäkohorttitutkimus [Symptoms of depression and anxiety among parents increased in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic—FinnBrain birth cohort study]. Duodecim: Lääketieteellinen Aikakauskirja 137:1
Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, Rubin GJ (2020) The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395(10227):912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8
Cai H, Tu B, Ma J, Chen L, Fu L, Jiang Y, Zhuang Q (2020) Psychological impact and coping strategies of frontline medical staff in Hunan between January and March 2020 during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) in Hubei, China. Med Sci Monit 26:e924171
Douglas M, Katikireddi SV, Taulbut M, McKee M, McCartney G (2020) Mitigating the wider health effects of covid-19 pandemic response. BMJ 369:m1557. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1557
McGinty EE, Presskreischer R, Han H, Barry CL (2020) Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA 324(1):93–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.9740
Pierce M, Hope H, Ford T et al (2020) Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry 7(10):883–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30308-4
Kennedy SH (2008) Core symptoms of major depressive disorder: relevance to diagnosis and treatment. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 10(3):271–277. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2008.10.3/shkennedy
Castellini G, Rossi E, Cassioli E et al (2020) A longitudinal observation of general psychopathology before the COVID-19 outbreak and during lockdown in Italy. J Psychosom Res 141:110328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110328
Wang C, Pan R, Wan X et al (2020) A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav Immun 87:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.028
Schäfer SK, Sopp MR, Schanz CG, Staginnus M, Göritz AS, Michael T (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on public mental health and the buffering effect of a sense of coherence. Psychother Psychosom 89(6):386–392. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510752
Prati G, Mancini AD (2021) The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol Med 51(2):201–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721000015
Di Gessa G, Maddock J, Green MJ et al (2022) Pre-pandemic mental health and disruptions to healthcare, economic and housing outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK longitudinal studies. Br J Psychiatry 220(1):21–30. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.132
Patel K, Robertson E, Kwong A et al (2022) Psychological distress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among adults in the United Kingdom based on coordinated analyses of 11 longitudinal studies. JAMA Netw Open 5(4):e227629. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7629
Robinson E, Sutin AR, Daly M, Jones A (2022) A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. J Affect Disord 296:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.098
Salanti G, Peter N, Tonia T et al (2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated control measures on the mental health of the general population: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 175(11):1560–1571. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-1507
Joshi D, Gonzalez A, Griffith L et al (2021) The trajectories of depressive symptoms among working adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of the InHamilton COVID-19 study. BMC Public Health 21(1):1895. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11900-8
Park CL, Russell BS, Fendrich M, Finkelstein-Fox L, Hutchison M, Becker J (2020) Americans’ COVID-19 stress, coping, and adherence to CDC guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 35(8):2296–2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05898-9
Suls J, Martin R (2005) The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. J Pers 73(6):1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00356.x
Moccia L, Janiri D, Pepe M et al (2020) Affective temperament, attachment style, and the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak: an early report on the Italian general population. Brain Behav Immun 87:75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.048
Sifneos PE (1973) The prevalence of ‘alexithymic’ characteristics in psychosomatic patients. Psychother Psychosom 22(2):255–262. https://doi.org/10.1159/000286529
Tang W, Hu T, Yang L, Xu J (2020) The role of alexithymia in the mental health problems of home-quarantined university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Pers Individ Dif 165:110131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110131
Li R, Kajanoja J, Lindblom J, Korja R, Karlsson L, Karlsson H, Nolvi S, Karukivi M (2022) The role of alexithymia and perceived stress in mental health responses to COVID-19: a conditional process model. J Affect Disord 306:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.024
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer, London
Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Gruen RJ, DeLongis A (1986) Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(3):571–579. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.3.571
Lin A, Wigman JT, Nelson B et al (2011) The relationship between coping and subclinical psychotic experiences in adolescents from the general population—a longitudinal study. Psychol Med 41(12):2535–2546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000560
Main A, Zhou Q, Ma Y, Luecken LJ, Liu X (2011) Relations of SARS-related stressors and coping to Chinese college students’ psychological adjustment during the 2003 Beijing SARS epidemic. J Couns Psychol 58(3):410–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023632
Mahmoud JS, Staten R, Hall LA, Lennie TA (2012) The relationship among young adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues Ment Health Nurs 33(3):149–156. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2011.632708
Huang Y, Su X, Si M et al (2021) The impacts of coping style and perceived social support on the mental health of undergraduate students during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in China: a multicenter survey. BMC Psychiatry 21(1):530. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03546-y
Gjerdingen DK, Froberg DG, Fontaine P (1991) The effects of social support on women’s health during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and the postpartum period. Fam Med 23(5):370–375
Gustafsson HC, Young AS, Doyle O, Nagel BJ, Mackiewicz Seghete K, Nigg JT, Sullivan EL, Graham AM (2021) Trajectories of perinatal depressive symptoms in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Child Dev 92(5):e749–e763. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13656
Krishnakumar A, Buehler C (2000) Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Fam Relat 49(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x
Pinquart M (2017) Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: an updated meta-analysis. Dev Psychol 53(5):873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
Li S, Zhang B, Guo Y, Zhang J (2015) The association between alexithymia as assessed by the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and depression: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res 227(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.02.006
Dolcini-Catania LG, Byrne ML, Whittle S, Schwartz O, Simmons JG, Allen NB (2020) Temperament and symptom pathways to the development of adolescent depression. J Abnorm Child Psychol 48(6):839–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00638-3
Kar N, Kar B, Kar S (2021) Stress and coping during COVID-19 pandemic: result of an online survey. Psychiatry Res 295:113598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113598
Karlsson L, Tolvanen M, Scheinin NM et al (2018) Cohort Profile: the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study (FinnBrain). Int J Epidemiol 47(1):15–16j. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx173
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R (1987) Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 150:782–786. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.150.6.782
Edmondson OJ, Psychogiou L, Vlachos H, Netsi E, Ramchandani PG (2010) Depression in fathers in the postnatal period: assessment of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as a screening measure. J Affect Disord 125(1–3):365–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.01.069
Gibson J, McKenzie-McHarg K, Shakespeare J, Price J, Gray R (2009) A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in antepartum and postpartum women. Acta Psychiatr Scand 119(5):350–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01363.x
Evans DE, Rothbart MK (2007) Developing a model for adult temperament. J Res Personal 41(4):868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002
Laverdière O, Diguer L, Gamache D, Evans DE (2010) The French adaptation of the short form of the adult temperament questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess Eur J Psychol Assess 26(3):212. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000028
Bagby RM, Parker JD, Taylor GJ (1994) The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. J Psychosom Res 38(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1
Joukamaa M, Miettunen J, Kokkonen P et al (2001) Psychometric properties of the Finnish 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Nord J Psychiatry 55(2):123–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480151108561
Taylor GJ, Bagby RM, Parker JD (2003) The 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. IV. Reliability and factorial validity in different languages and cultures. J Psychosom Res 55(3):277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00601-3
Carver CS (1997) You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 4(1):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
Muthen LK, Muthen BO (1998–2017) Mplus user's guide, 8th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles
Schafer JL (1999) Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 8(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800102
Pierce M, McManus S, Hope H et al (2021) Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: a latent class trajectory analysis using longitudinal UK data. Lancet Psychiatry 8(7):610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00151-6
Prati G (2021) Mental health and its psychosocial predictors during national quarantine in Italy against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anxiety Stress Coping 34(2):145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1861253
Georgieva I, Lantta T, Lickiewicz J et al (2021) Perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance with containment measures against the Covid-19 pandemic: an international comparative study in 11 countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073806
Posner MI, Rothbart MK (1998) Attention, self-regulation and consciousness. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 353(1377):1915–1927. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0344
Marchetti I, Shumake J, Grahek I, Koster E (2018) Temperamental factors in remitted depression: the role of effortful control and attentional mechanisms. J Affect Disord 235:499–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.064
Gulley LD, Hankin BL, Young JF (2016) Risk for depression and anxiety in youth: the interaction between negative affectivity, effortful control, and stressors. J Abnorm Child Psychol 44(2):207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9997-7
Hoffmann MS, Pan PM, Manfro GG, de Jesus MJ, Miguel EC, Bressan RA, Rohde LA, Salum GA (2019) Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of temperament and mental disorders in youth. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 50(3):374–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-018-0846-0
Evans DE, Rothbart MK (2008) Temperamental sensitivity: two constructs or one. Personal Ind Differ 44(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.016
Liss M, Timmel L, Baxley K, Killingsworth P (2005) Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to parental bonding, anxiety, and depression. Personal Ind Differ 39(8):1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.007
Honkalampi K, Hintikka J, Tanskanen A, Lehtonen J, Viinamäki H (2000) Depression is strongly associated with alexithymia in the general population. J Psychosom Res 48(1):99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00083-5
Frewen PA, Dozois DJ, Neufeld RW, Lanius RA (2008) Meta-analysis of alexithymia in posttraumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress 21(2):243–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20320
Li R, Kajanoja J, Karlsson L, Karlsson H, Karukivi M (2023) Sex-specific role of alexithymia in associations between parental bonding and mental health: a moderated mediation model. J Clin Psychol 79(1):126–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23372
Alkan Härtwig E, Crayen C, Heuser I, Eid M (2014) It’s in the mix: psychological distress differs between combinations of alexithymic facets. Front Psychol 5:1259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01259
Parker JD, Bagby RM, Taylor GJ (1991) Alexithymia and depression: distinct or overlapping constructs. Compr Psychiatry 32(5):387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-440x(91)90015-5
Marchesi C, Brusamonti E, Maggini C (2000) Are alexithymia, depression, and anxiety distinct constructs in affective disorders. J Psychosom Res 49(1):43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(00)00084-2
Lemery KS, Essex MJ, Smider NA (2002) Revealing the relation between temperament and behavior problem symptoms by eliminating measurement confounding: expert ratings and factor analyses. Child Dev 73(3):867–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00444
Klein DN, Kotov R, Bufferd SJ (2011) Personality and depression: explanatory models and review of the evidence. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 7:269–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104540
Zalewski M, Lengua LJ, Wilson AC, Trancik A, Bazinet A (2011) Emotion regulation profiles, temperament, and adjustment problems in preadolescents. Child Dev 82(3):951–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01575.x
McIntyre A, Mehta S, Janzen S, Rice D, Harnett A, MacKenzie HM, Vanderlaan D, Teasell R (2020) Coping strategies and personality traits among individuals with brain injury and depressive symptoms. NeuroRehabilitation 47(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-203081
Kozusznik MW, Puig-Perez S, Kożusznik B, Pulopulos MM (2021) The relationship between coping strategies and sleep problems: the role of depressive symptoms. Ann Behav Med 55(3):253–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa048
Aldwin CM, Revenson TA (1987) Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(2):337–348. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.2.337
Hayes SC, Masuda A, Bissett R, Luoma J, Guerrero LF (2004) DBT, FAP, and ACT: how empirically oriented are the new behavior therapy technologies. Behav Ther 35(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80003-0
Vittengl JR, Clark LA, Dunn TW, Jarrett RB (2007) Reducing relapse and recurrence in unipolar depression: a comparative meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral therapy’s effects. J Consult Clin Psychol 75(3):475–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.475
Williams JM, Russell I, Russell D (2008) Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: further issues in current evidence and future research. J Consult Clin Psychol 76(3):524–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.524
Taylor SE, Stanton AL (2007) Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 3:377–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520
Kawamura Y, Akiyama T, Shimada T et al (2010) Six-year stability of affective temperaments as measured by TEMPS-A. Psychopathology 43(4):240–247. https://doi.org/10.1159/000313522
Hiirola A, Pirkola S, Karukivi M et al (2017) An evaluation of the absolute and relative stability of alexithymia over 11 years in a Finnish general population. J Psychosom Res 95:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.02.007
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the FinnBrain Birth Cohort participants and the staff and assisting personnel for their work in managing the logistics in the study.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital. The work was supported by the Juho Vainio Foundation, Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, and Academy of Finland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RL: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. MK: conceptualization, supervision, methodology, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. JL: conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing. RK: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. LK: conceptualization, project administration, resources, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. HK: conceptualization, project administration, resources, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. SN: conceptualization, project administration, funding acquisition, methodology, data curation, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All the parents gave their informed consent when participating in the study. The Ethics Committee of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland has approved the study baseline protocol (14.6.2011 ETMK:57/180/2011 § 168) and the protocol for the COVID-19 follow-up (ETMK: 17/1802/2020). All procedures in this study comply with the ethical standards of the national and institutional research committee on human experimentation, and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki as well as its later amendments.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, R., Karukivi, M., Lindblom, J. et al. Trajectories of COVID-19 pandemic-related depressive symptoms and potential predictors: the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 59, 151–163 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-023-02559-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-023-02559-0