Back

Digital exclusion predicts worse mental health among adolescents during COVID-19

Metherell, T. E.; Ghai, S.; McCormick, E. M.; Ford, T. J.; Orben, A.

2021-12-02 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2021.11.25.21266853 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSocial isolation is strongly associated with poor mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing social restrictions disrupted young peoples social interactions and resulted in several periods during which school closures necessitated online learning. We hypothesise that digitally excluded young people would demonstrate greater deterioration in their mental health than their digitally connected peers during this time. MethodsWe analysed representative mental health data from a sample of UK 10-15-year-olds (N = 1387); Understanding Society collected the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in 2017-19 and thrice during the pandemic (July 2020, November 2020 and March 2021). We employed cross-sectional methods and longitudinal latent growth curve modelling to describe trajectories of adolescent mental health for participants with and without access to a computer or a good internet connection for schoolwork. OutcomesAdolescent mental health had a quadratic trajectory during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the highest mean Total Difficulties score around December 2020. The worsening and recovery of mental health during the pandemic was greatly pronounced among those without access to a computer, although we did not find evidence for a similar effect among those without a good internet connection. InterpretationDigital exclusion, as indicated by lack of access to a computer, is a tractable risk factor that likely compounds other adversities facing children and young people during periods of social isolation. FundingBritish Psychological Society; School of the Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge; NIHR Applied Research Centre; Medical Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council; and Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge.

Published in Scientific Reports (predicted rank #12) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.