Abstract
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, older and clinically vulnerable people were instructed to shield or stay at home to save lives. Policies restricting social contact and human interaction pose a risk to mental health, but we know very little about the impact of shielding and stay at home orders on the mental health of older people.
Aims Understand the extent to which shielding contributes to poorer mental health.
Method Exploiting longitudinal data from Wave 9 (2018/19) and two COVID-19 sub-studies (June/July 2020; November/December 2020) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing we use logistic and linear regression models to investigate associations between patterns of shielding during the pandemic and mental health, controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, pre-pandemic physical and mental health, and social isolation measures.
Results By December 2020, 70% of older people were still shielding or staying at home, with 5% shielding throughout the first 9 months of the pandemic. Respondents who shielded experienced worse mental health. Although prior characteristics and lack of social interactions explain some of this association, even controlling for all covariates, those shielding throughout had higher odds of reporting elevated depressive symptoms (OR=1.87, 95%CI=1.22;2.87) and reported lower quality of life (B=-1.28, 95%CI=-2.04;-0.52) than those who neither shielded nor stayed at home. Shielding was also associated with increased anxiety.
Conclusions Shielding itself seems associated with worse mental health among older people, highlighting the need for policymakers to address the mental health needs of those who shielded, both in emerging from the current pandemic and for the future.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is supported by the National Institute on Aging (grant numbers: 2RO1AG7644 and 2RO1AG017644-01A1) and a consortium of the UK government departments coordinated by the National Institute for Health Research. The funding bodies had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 8688 and 5050). See for details https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=5050 and https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8688
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email: debora.price{at}manchester.ac.uk
Competing interests: None declared.
Sources of financial support: No financial support.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
