Increased time spent at home during COVID-19 exposed inequities in Australian housing quality and availability. Many Australians lack sufficient space to carry out activities shifted to their homes and the financial downturn rapidly increased stress around housing affordability. Research demonstrates living in unaffordable or poor-quality housing can negatively impact residents' mental health. This study explores the mechanisms through which housing moderates COVID-19's impact on mental health by analysing 2,065 Australians surveyed in mid-to-late 2020. Hierarchical linear regressions were used to examine associations between housing circumstances, neighbourhood belonging and mental-health outcomes (loneliness, depression, and anxiety), adjusted for demographics. Open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis and critical-realist epistemology. Feeling 'trapped' and 'helpless' because of insecure tenure or lack of money to improve housing conditions reduced participants' sense of control. Inadequate space and noise adversely impacted participants' well-being. Participants' housing contextincluding amenities, natural spaces, and social connectionsstrongly impacted their emotional experiences. Safe, secure, and suitable housing is a known determinant of safety and physical health; this study suggests it is also a critical factor for Australians' mental health. To improve mental health among the vulnerably-housed, future housing policy should not compromise on housing affordability, quality, space and access to nearby amenities.

BackgroundThe mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain a public health concern. High quality synthesis of extensive global literature is needed to quantify this impact and identify factors associated with adverse outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a rigorous umbrella review with meta-review and present (a) pooled prevalence of probable depression, anxiety, stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress, (b) standardised mean difference in probable depression and anxiety pre-versus-during the pandemic period, and (c) comprehensive narrative synthesis of factors associated with poorer outcomes. Databases searched included Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE dated to March 2022. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, published post-November 2019, reporting data in English on mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsThree hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included, 158 of which incorporated meta-analyses. Meta-review prevalence of anxiety symptoms ranged from 24.4% (95%CI: 18–31%, I2: 99.98%) for general populations to 41.1% (95%CI: 23–61%, I2: 99.65%) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of depressive symptoms ranged from 22.9% (95%CI: 17–30%, I2: 99.99%) for general populations to 32.5% (95%CI: 17–52%, I2: 99.35) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of stress, psychological distress and PTSD/PTSS symptoms were 39.1% (95%CI: 34–44%; I2: 99.91%), 44.2% (95%CI: 32–58%; I2: 99.95%), and 18.8% (95%CI: 15–23%; I2: 99.87%), respectively. Meta-review comparing pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 prevalence of probable depression and probable anxiety revealed standard mean differences of 0.20 (95%CI = 0.07–0.33) and 0.29 (95%CI = 0.12–0.45), respectively.ConclusionThis is the first meta-review to synthesise the longitudinal mental health impacts of the pandemic. Findings show that probable depression and anxiety were significantly higher than pre-COVID-19, and provide some evidence that that adolescents, pregnant and postpartum people, and those hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced heightened adverse mental health. Policymakers can modify future pandemic responses accordingly to mitigate the impact of such measures on public mental health.

Introduction: Vast available international evidence has investigated the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to synthesise evidence, identifying populations and characteristics associated with poor mental health.Methods: A meta-review of pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression, with subgroup analyses for the general population, healthcare workers (HCW) and COVID-19 patients; and a meta-synthesis of systematic reviews to collate evidence on associated factors and further mental disorders. Databases searched included Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE dated to May 2021. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, published post-November 2019, reporting data in English on mental health outcomes during the pandemic.Results: Eighty-one systematic reviews were included, 51 of which incorporated meta-analysis. Meta-review overall anxiety prevalence was 29% (95%CI: 27–31%, I2: 99.83%), with subgroup prevalence as 35% (95%CI: 23–47%, I2: 97.4%) in COVID-19 patients, 29% in HCW (95%CI: 25– 32, I2: 99.8%) and 28% in the general population (95%CI: 25–31%, I2: 99.9%). Meta-review overall depression prevalence was 28% (95%CI: 26–30%, I2: 99.7), with subgroup prevalence as 30% (95%CI: 7–60%, I2: 99.8%) in COVID-19 patients, 28% (95%CI: 25–31%, I2: 99.7%) in HCW and 27% (95%CI: 25–30, I2: 99.8%) in the general population. Meta-synthesis found many experienced psychological distress and PTSD/PTSS during COVID-19, but pooled prevalence ranged substantially. Fear of, proximity to, or confirmed COVID-19 infection; undergoing quarantine; and COVID-19-related news exposure were associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Amongst other factors, people who are younger, female, LGBTIQ, pregnant, parents or experiencing low social support, financial issues or socio-economic disadvantage, tended to have poorer mental health during the pandemic period.Conclusions: Despite high volumes of reviews, the diversity of findings and dearth of longitudinal studies within reviews means clear links between COVID-19 and mental health are not available, although existing evidence indicates probable associations.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic dramatically altered social determinants of health including work, education, social connections, movement, and perceived control; and loneliness was commonly experienced. This longitudinal study examined how social determinants at the personal (micro), community (meso), and societal (macro) levels predicted loneliness during the pandemic.MethodsParticipants were 2056 Australian adults surveyed up to three times over 18 months in 2020 and 2021. Multi-level mixed-effect regressions were conducted predicting loneliness from social determinants at baseline and two follow-ups.ResultsLoneliness was associated with numerous micro determinants: male gender, lifetime diagnosis of a mental health disorder, experience of recent stressful event(s), low income, living alone or couples with children, living in housing with low natural light, noise, and major building defects. Lower resilience and perceived control over health and life were also associated with greater loneliness. At the meso level, reduced engagement with social groups, living in inner regional areas, and living in neighbourhoods with low levels of belongingness and collective resilience was associated with increased loneliness. At the macro level, increased loneliness was associated with State/Territory of residence.ConclusionsTherapeutic initiatives must go beyond psychological intervention, and must recognise the social determinants of loneliness at the meso and macro levels.

The COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the recent bushfires and flash floods, have resulted in significant and unprecedented mental health impacts in Australia. Despite the known impacts, there is a paucity of research directly asking Australian community members about their mental health experiences and what they perceive to be the most important mental health issues in the context of the pandemic. This study utilises qualitative data from Alone Together, a longitudinal mixed-methods study investigating the effects of COVID-19 on mental health in an Australian community sample (N = 2,056). Of the 1,350 participants who completed the first follow-up survey, a total of 1,037 participants, who ranged in sex (69.9% female), age (M = 40-49 years), state/territory of residence, and socioeconomic status, shared responses to two open-ended questions regarding the most important issues for mental health in Australia and the impact of COVID-19 on their individual mental health. Responses were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants described COVID-19 as primarily impacting their mental health through the disruption it posed to their social world and financial stability. A key concern for participants who reported having poor mental health was the existence of multiple competing barriers to accessing good mental health care. According to participant responses, the pandemic had pressurized an already over-burdened mental health service system, leaving many without timely, appropriate support. Further absent or stigmatising rhetoric around mental health, at both a political and community level, also prevented participants from seeking help. Insights gained from the present research provide opportunities for policymakers and health practitioners to draw on the expertise of Australians’ lived experience and address priority issues through targeted policy planning. This could ultimately support a more responsive, integrated and effective mental health system, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.