Objective: Given the lack of information on the psychological impact of COVID-19 on people aged !60, we aimed to describe their psychological responses to this pandemic and lockdown situation and compare them with those under 60 years of age. Methods: Secondary analysis of a larger online cross-sectional study designed to determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown across Spain. We analyzed a total of 1690 respondents aged !60 years and compared them with 13,363 respondents under 60 years of age. We employed the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale and the Impact of Event Scale to evaluate psychological responses. Results: In all, 52.6% of women and 34.3% of men were found to be probable cases of any emotional distress (p < 0.001). In both sexes, the most common psychological response was avoidance behavior (34.7% and 23.8%, respectively), followed by depression (28.5 and 14.2%). Older women and men were considered probable cases of any emotional distress less often than younger ones (women: 52.6% vs. 72.3%, p < 0.001; men: 34.3% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001). Finally, the results of the binary logistic regression showed that only depressive and stress responses are psychological factors associated with age group [age ! 60 years, O.R. ¼ 0.617 (95% CI ¼ 0.501 À 0.759) and 0.437 (95% CI ¼ 0.334 À 0.573), respectively]. Conclusion: Contrary to our hypothesis and despite the high percentage of emotional distress we found in older adults, especially women, they are actually at lower risk of developing depressive and stress consequences from COVID-19 and lockdown than those under 60 years of age. That said, we believe our results highlight the need for expert guidance in this age group, especially older women living alone.

Background Epidemic outbreaks have significant impact on psychological well-being, increasing psychiatric morbidity among the population. We aimed to describe the early psychological impact of COVID-19 and its contributing factors in a large Spanish sample, globally and according to mental status (never mental disorder NMD, past mental disorder PMD, current mental disorder CMD). Methods An online questionnaire was conducted between 19 and 26 March, five days after the official declaration of alarm and the lockdown order. Data included sociodemographic and clinical information and the DASS-21 and IES questionnaires. We analysed 21 207 responses using the appropriate descriptive and univariate tests as well as binary logistic regression to identify psychological risk and protective factors. Results We found a statistically significant gradient in the psychological impact experienced in five domains according to mental status, with the NMD group being the least affected and the CMD group being the most affected. In the three groups, the depressive response was the most prevalent (NMD = 40.9%, PMD = 51.9%, CMD = 74.4%, F = 1011.459, P < 0.001). Risk factors were female sex and classification as a case in any psychological domain. Protective factors were younger age and ability to enjoy free time. Variables related to COVID-19 had almost no impact except for having COVID-19 symptoms, which was a risk factor for anxiety in all three groups. Conclusions Our results can help develop coping strategies addressing modifiable risk and protective factors for each mental status for early implementation in future outbreaks.