Social support and mental well-being among people with and without chronic illness during the Covid-19 pandemic: evidence from the longitudinal UCL covid survey.

PURPOSE: An immediate research priority recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic is well-being among some of our most vulnerable-people with chronic illness. We studied how mental health changed among people with and without chronic illness throughout the pandemic and the mediating role of social support. METHODS: We used the 3-waves of COVID-19 survey within the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS, age 19, N = 5522) and MCS Parent (MCSP, age > > 19, N = 7479) samples, with additional pre-pandemic measures of some outcomes and exposure. Using Structural Equation Panel Models with Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation to address missing data, we studied differences between respondents with a chronic illness and without, regarding depressive symptoms and mental well-being, with social provision, social support, and loneliness as potential mediators. RESULTS: Mental well-being (SWEMWBS) and psychological distress (Kessler-6) worsened significantly during the pandemic relative to baseline for people with and without chronic illness, while the latter group had substantially better well-being at all waves and the baseline regarding both outcomes. When the lockdown was lifted during wave-2, mental well-being temporarily rebounded, and distress waned among people without chronic illness but continued to worsen among people with chronic illness. Social support partially mediated the link between chronic illness and mental well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The large mental well-being gap between people with and without chronic illness persisted during the pandemic. However, social support and provision can partially narrow this gap, hence should be employed in future pandemic management.

Within-family influences on compliance with social-distancing measures during COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom.

The compliance of adolescents, who are often unfairly portrayed as spreaders of COVID-19, with public health measures is essential for containing diseases. But does adolescents' compliance develop independently from their parents? Using nationally representative longitudinal data and cross-lagged structural equation panel models, here I study compliance with social-distancing measures of 6,752 triplets that comprise the adolescent child (age 19), their mother and their father during two national lockdowns in the United Kingdom. The results show that adolescents have the lowest and their mothers have the highest levels of compliance, and compliance generally drops over time. Moreover, mothers, whether the child lives at home or not, and fathers, when the child lives at home, have significant influence on their adolescent child's compliance. The child also influences their fathers' compliance. The parental influence on adolescents' compliance documented here suggests that family dynamics play a role in compliance with social-distancing guidelines, which may be useful for informing future health policy.

Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic to Improve the Health, Social Care, and Well-being of Minoritized Ethnic Groups With Chronic Conditions or Impairments: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has inequitably impacted the experiences of people living with ill health/impairments or from minoritized ethnic groups across all areas of life. Given possible parallels in inequities for disabled people and people from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, their existence before the pandemic and increase since, and the discriminations that each group faces, our interest is in understanding the interplay between being disabled AND being from a minoritized ethnic group. OBJECTIVE: The overarching aim of the Coronavirus Chronic Conditions and Disabilities Awareness (CICADA) project, building on this understanding, is to improve pandemic and longer-term support networks, and access to and experiences of care, services, and resources for these underserved groups, both during the pandemic and longer term, thereby reducing inequities and enhancing social, health, and well-being outcomes. METHODS: This mixed methods study involves three "sweeps" of a new UK survey; secondary analyses of existing cohort and panel surveys; a rapid scoping review; a more granular review; and qualitative insights from over 200 semistructured interviews, including social network/map/photo elicitation methods and two subsequent sets of remote participatory research workshops. Separate stakeholder cocreation meetings, running throughout the study, will develop analyses and outputs. Our longitudinal study design enables the exploration of significant relationships between variables in the survey data collected and to the assessment of changes in variables over time, including consideration of varying pandemic contexts. The qualitative data will provide more granular detail. We will take a strengths and assets-based approach, underpinned by the social model of disability and by intersectional considerations to challenge discrimination. Our exploration of the social determinants of health and well-being is framed by the social ecological model. RESULTS: The CICADA project was funded by the Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme of the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) in March 2021 and began in May 2021. Further work within the project (84 interviews) was commissioned in March 2022, a substudy focusing on mental health, specifically in Northeast England, Greater Manchester, and the Northwest Coast of the United Kingdom. Data collection began in August 2021, with the last participants due to be recruited in September 2022. As of January 2022, 5792 survey respondents and 227 interviewees had provided data. From April 2022, the time of article submission, we will recruit participants for the substudy and wave 2 of the surveys and qualitative work. We expect results to be published by winter 2022. CONCLUSIONS: In studying the experiences of disabled people with impairments and those living with chronic conditions who come from certain minoritized ethnic groups, we are aiming for transformative research to improve their health and well-being. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38361.

Religiosity and Mental Wellbeing Among Members of Majority and Minority Religions: Findings From Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

It is unclear whether links between religiosity and mental health are found in contexts outside the United States or are causal. We examined differences in mental wellbeing and associations between mental wellbeing and religiosity among the religiously unaffiliated, White and non-White Christians, Muslims of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and other ethnicities, and other minority ethnoreligious groups. We used 4 waves of Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2009-2013; n = 50,922). We adjusted for potential confounders (including socioeconomic factors and personality) and for household fixed effects to account for household-level unobserved confounding factors. Compared with those with no religious affiliation, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims and members of other minority religions had worse wellbeing (as measured using the Shortened Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and General Health Questionnaire). Higher subjective importance of religion was associated with lower wellbeing according to the General Health Questionnaire; associations were not found with the Shortened Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. More frequent religious service attendance was associated with higher wellbeing; effect sizes were larger for those with religious affiliations. These associations were only partially attenuated by adjustment for potential confounding factors, including household fixed effects. Religious service attendance and/or its secular alternatives may have a role in improving population-wide mental wellbeing.

Crosscutting circles in a social dilemma: Effects of social identity and inequality on cooperation.

I investigate experimentally the effects of heterogeneity in social identities and inequality in resources on cooperative behavior in a social dilemma. The experiment also varies the overlap between social identity and resources. The results show that both heterogeneity in social identities and inequality in resources reduce cooperation. When social identity and unequal resources are crossed orthogonally, the existence of composite group memberships mitigates the negative effects of inequality, but not of heterogeneity in social identities. When social identity and unequal resources overlap, cooperation decreases substantially among the participants with low resources, in both ingroup and outgroup interactions. My results also show that participants who are assigned to advantaged roles cooperate significantly less than those who are assigned to disadvantaged roles.

Cumulative advantage in collective action groups: How competition for group members alters the provision of public goods.

Research on collective action problems and the provision of public goods has yielded an array of important insights into why people sacrifice for their groups, but ignores the processes that bring people into those groups in the first place. The literature is also silent on the fact that groups providing similar public goods often compete with one another to attract new members. We extend the reach of theories of collective action problems to bring them to bear on these interrelated issues. Results from four experiments support our predictions about when group members compete to attract new adherents by sacrificing more for group goals. Further, we find that prospective members join more productive groups at much higher rates and then contribute to them at high levels. These processes give way to cumulative advantage, whereby initially productive groups continually attract new members. Thus competition for members can yield large inequalities in the size and success of collective action groups.

Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of outcome- and process-based social preferences and beliefs in Dictator Games and sequential Prisoner's Dilemmas.

In this paper, using a within-subjects design, we estimate the utility weights that subjects attach to the outcome of their interaction partners in four decision situations: (1) binary Dictator Games (DG), second player's role in the sequential Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) after the first player (2) cooperated and (3) defected, and (4) first player's role in the sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. We find that the average weights in these four decision situations have the following order: (1)>(2)>(4)>(3). Moreover, the average weight is positive in (1) but negative in (2), (3), and (4). Our findings indicate the existence of strong negative and small positive reciprocity for the average subject, but there is also high interpersonal variation in the weights in these four nodes. We conclude that the PD frame makes subjects more competitive than the DG frame. Using hierarchical Bayesian modeling, we simultaneously analyze beliefs of subjects about others' utility weights in the same four decision situations. We compare several alternative theoretical models on beliefs, e.g., rational beliefs (Bayesian-Nash equilibrium) and a consensus model. Our results on beliefs strongly support the consensus effect and refute rational beliefs: there is a strong relationship between own preferences and beliefs and this relationship is relatively stable across the four decision situations.