49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Reflections, Resilience, and Recovery: A qualitative study of the COVID-19 impact on an international general population’s mental health and priorities for support'

    EDITOR
    Bookmark
    5
    Reflections, Resilience, and Recovery: A qualitative study of the COVID-19 impact on an international general population’s mental health and priorities for supportCrossref
    An important study with a detailed description of analytic steps.
    Average rating:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Reflections, Resilience, and Recovery: A qualitative study of the COVID-19 impact on an international general population’s mental health and priorities for support

    The impact of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on different countries and populations is well documented in quantitative studies, with some studies showing stable mental health symptoms and others showing fluctuating symptoms. However, the reasons behind why some symptoms are stable and others change are under-explored, which in turn makes identifying the types of support needed by participants themselves challenging. To address these gaps, this study thematically analysed 925 qualitative responses from five open-ended responses collected in the UCL-Penn Global COVID Study between 17 April to 31 July 2021 (wave 3). Three key themes comprised of 13 codes were reported by participants across countries and ages regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their health, both mental and physical, and livelihoods. These include: 1) Outlook on self/life , 2) Self-improvement , and 3) Loved ones (friends and family) . In terms of support, while 2.91% did not require additional support, 91% wanted support beyond financial. Other unexpected new themes were also discussed regarding vulnerable populations suffering disproportionately. The pandemic has brought into sharp focus various changes in people’s mental health, physical health, and relationships. Greater policy considerations should be given to supporting citizens’ continued access to mental health when considering pandemic recovery.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.A9FZQO.v1.RCRQWT
      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Psychology
      Support,COVID-19,Mental Health,Health,Behavioural Change,Financial Burden,Pandemic Recovery,Qualitative
      ScienceOpen disciplines:
      Keywords:

      Review text

      Dear Editors,

      Thank you for the opportunity to review ‘Reflections, resilience, and recovery: A qualitative study of the COVID-19 impact on an international general population’s mental health and priorities for support’. 

      In this article the authors thematically analysed qualitative responses from a large-scale survey to explore why some mental health stayed stable and others fluctuated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This is an important study.  As the authors state, there have been several large-scale surveys etc but there is a need to have more descriptive studies. 

      I have some comments below – I hope the authors and editors find them helpful in any revisions.

      Presentation of analysis/ findings

      • There was quite a quantitative ‘feel’ to what is a qualitative study.  For example, the attention to the proportional overlap of codes/ combinations of codes.  This is not necessarily something I would recommend changing.  I think, in some sense, it meant that the authors laid out the analytic steps well and it was easy to see their chain of reasoning – something that can potentially be glossed over.  In terms of presentation of results, I think it potentially could be useful to place pages 13 -18 (the description of coding and grouping of themes under method/ analysis.  This section feels quite descriptive and the codes are not so much finding as step towards identifying themes. (I wonder given the nature of the study (qualitative) is it necessary to test hypotheses – doesn’t quite seem to fit with the design.
      • Group Differences: The treatment of group differences was rather short, and I was expecting some more descriptive analysis rather than the T tests.  Given the information on employment/ income/ country etc I expected some more analysis here.  I also think it might have been a more useful or insightful way to discuss the unexpected theme (see comment below).
      • Unexpected theme – were the ruminations an unexpected theme or an unexpected way of responding?  I think this might be more usefully integrated into an expanded section on group differences. Overall, given the questions, I think the findings are not unexpected (in general).

      Conclusion:

      I think the conclusion could be strengthened in some way with recommendations for future studies. One of the identified gaps was the number of quantitative studies which do not explore reasons/ solutions in terms for stability and change in mental in the context of the pandemic.  Given the author’s study where next from a research perspective?

      Comments

      Comment on this review