What is the impact of successive COVID-19 lockdowns on population mental health? Findings from an Australian natural experiment using health service data
Ali Lakhani
A B * and Vijaya Sundararajan C
A
B
C
Abstract
The causal effect of successive population-wide lockdowns in response to increased COVID-19 cases on mental health has yet to be examined using robust methods. A natural experiment design underpinned by objective data can improve our understanding surrounding the definitive impact of social distancing restrictions.
The study employed a natural experiment design underpinned by objective data. Health service cost for visits to general practitioners and psychologists and medication dispensing costs served as objective measures of mental health. Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators, which in this study quantify differences in spending changes between groups over time, were produced based on three comparisons: Victoria 2020 lockdown comparison, Victoria 2021 lockdown comparison, and New South Wales (NSW) 2021 lockdown comparison. Specifically, differences in public health service spending during lockdown periods and the same timeframe in 2019 for Victoria and NSW, and control groups (remaining states and territories), were compared.
Positive estimator values indicate that public health service spending for Victoria and NSW increased more during lockdown periods compared to control states and territories. The Victorian lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, but not the NSW lockdown of 2021, resulted in increased public spending for general practitioner mental health consults (2020 DID estimator: $8498.96 [95% CI $4012.84, $12,373.57], 2021 DID estimator: $6630.06 [95% CI $41.27, $13,267.20], all monetary values in AUD$) and short visits to psychologists (2020 DID estimator: $628.82 [95% CI $466.25, $796.00], 2021 DID estimator: $230.11 [95% CI $47.52, $373.98]). The first Victorian lockdown in 2020 and the NSW lockdown in 2021 resulted in greater spending on short visits to clinical psychologists. Spending on long visits to psychologists and clinical psychologists and medication spending did not change.
Strict lockdowns can have an adverse impact on population mental health. The impact is particularly evident in those who have a history of previous mental health concerns but does not necessitate extra use of medications, suggesting that psychological care can address the adverse impact of the lockdowns.
Keywords: COVID-19, difference-in-difference, health policy, health services, infectious diseases, mental health, natural experiment, public health.
References
1 Snoswell CL, Caffery LJ, Haydon HM, Thomas EE, Smith AC. Telehealth uptake in general practice as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44(5): 737-740.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
2 Boyle LM, Mackay M, Bean N, Roughan M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on South Australia’s emergency departments: evidence from two lockdowns. Aust Health Rev 2021; 45(5): 533-539.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
3 Butterworth P, Schurer S, Trinh T-A, Vera-Toscano E, Wooden M. Effect of lockdown on mental health in Australia: evidence from a natural experiment analysing a longitudinal probability sample survey. Lancet Public Health 2022; 7(5): e427-e436.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
4 Mansfield KE, Mathur R, Tazare J, et al. Indirect acute effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK: a population-based study. Lancet Digit Health 2021; 3(4): e217-e230.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
5 Bakolis I, Stewart R, Baldwin D, et al. Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design. BMJ Open 2021; 11(5): e049721.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
6 Craig P, Katikireddi SV, Leyland A, Popham F. Natural Experiments: An Overview of Methods, Approaches, and Contributions to Public Health Intervention Research. Annu Rev Public Health 2017; 38(1): 39-56.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
7 Storen R, Corrigan N. COVID-19: a chronology of state and territory government announcements (up until 30 June 2020). Research Paper Series. 2020. Available at https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/7614514/upload_binary/7614514.pdf
8 Australian Government Department of Health. Coronavirus (COVID-19) at a glance infographic collection. 2022. Available at https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic-collection#collection-description
9 Victorian Government. Statement From The Premier: 30 June 2020. 2020. Available at https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/statement-premier-72
13 Premier of Victoria. News and updates from Dan Andrews and his team. Available at https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/statement-premier-92
14 Healthdirect Australia. Psychiatrists and Psychologists. 2024. Available at https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/psychiatrists-and-psychologists
15 Australian Government Services Australia. Medicare Item Reports. 2024. Available at http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.jsp
16 Australian Government Department of Health MBS Online. Medicare Benefits Schedule. 2024. Available at http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/search.cfm
17 Australian Government Services Australia. Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule Item Reports. 2024. Available at http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/pbs_item.jsp
18 Australian Bureau of Statistics. National, state and territory population. 2024. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release
19 Columbia Public Health. Population Health Methods: Difference-in-Difference Estimation. 2013. Available at https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/difference-difference-estimation
20 Torres‐Reyna O. Differences‐in‐Differences (using Stata). Princeton University: Data and Statistical Services. 2015. Available at https://www.princeton.edu/~otorres/DID101.pdf
21 Hu Y, Hoover DR. Simple Power and Sample Size Estimation for Non-Randomized Longitudinal Difference in Differences Studies. J Biom Biostat 2018; 9(5): 415.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
22 Wing C, Simon K, Bello-Gomez RA. Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research. Annu Rev Public Health 2018; 39: 453-469.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
23 Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL. Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Rev Econ Stat 2008; 90(3): 414-427.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
24 Hounkannounon B. Bootstrapping differences-in-differences estimates. 2011. Available at https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/events/feb2012/4682249.pdf
25 Australia National University. Lockdowns led to lower life satisfaction. 2022. Available at https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/lockdowns-led-to-lower-life-satisfaction [accessed 11 January 2023].
26 Australian Government. Medicare Benefits Schedule - Note MN.6.2. 2022. Available at http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/fullDisplay.cfm?type=note&q=MN.6.2&qt=noteID&criteria=psychologist [accessed 11 January 2023].
27 Serrano-Alarcón M, Kentikelenis A, McKee M, Stuckler D. Impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on mental health: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in England and Scotland. Health Econ 2022; 31(2): 284-296.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
28 Sun Y, Wu Y, Fan S, et al. Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts. BMJ 2023; 380: e074224.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
