PurposeThis paper proposes a biopsychosocial (BPS) analysis of COVID-19 experiences which enhances understanding of complex and interrelated factors and leads to the proposition of a BPS recovery framework.Design/methodology/approachOnline narrative research was used to explore people's experiences of COVID-19 and was conducted over a four-month period. The call was distributed via a short open-ended qualitative online survey advertised on social media platforms and 305 responses came from across England.FindingsThe findings illustrate people with a narrow range of BPS characteristics experienced over a wide range of BPS impacts which are nuanced, complex and dynamic. Left unaddressed these may create future adverse BPS characteristics. An integrated BPS framework for recovery is proposed to avoid such further negative outcomes from the pandemic.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample contained a bias in age, gender and living arrangements.Practical implicationsThe paper offers a clear framework to enable integrated holistic recovery/regrowth planning.Social implicationsUsing the framework would reduce social and health inequities which have been recently deepened by COVID-19 in the long-term.Originality/valueThe paper is original in its use of a BPS analytical framework.

Do w nlo a d e d fro m: h t t p://i n si g h t. c u m b ri a. a c. u k/i d/ e p ri n t/ 4 1 0 9/ U s a g e o f a n y i t e m s f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C u m b r i a' s i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p o s i t o r y 'I n s i g h t' m u s t c o n f o r m t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f a i r u s a g e g u i d e l i n e s .

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the health of individuals physically, mentally, and socially. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of this impact across the pandemic from a biopsychosocial stance. Methods: A survey created by the research team was employed between November 2020 and February 2021 across social media, relevant organizations, and networks. The survey incorporated 5-time points across the different stages of the pandemic, covering biological, psychological, and social. There were 5 items for each survey (Very Positive affect to Very Negative affect), and analysis was undertaken using SPSS version 16. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon Tests, as well as correlations between the three domains, were implemented. Results: This study included 164 participants (77.0% female and 35.0% male) across 24 out of 38 counties in the UK. The impact of COVID-19 on biological domain was significant across the five data points χ2(4) = 63.99, p < 0.001, psychological χ2(4) = 118.939, p <0.001 and socially χ2(4) = 186.43, p <0.001. Between the 5 data points, 4 out of 5 had a negative impact, however between the first stage of lockdown and the easing of restrictions, findings for biological (Z=-2.35, p <0.05), psychological (Z=-6.61, p < 0.001), and socially (Z = -8.61, p <0.001) were positive. Negative correlations between the three domains across the pandemic are apparent, but in later stages, the biological domain had a positive correlation r = 0.52, p < 0.001. Conclusion: The data shows a negative impact from the self-reported perception of wellbeing from a biopsychosocial stance over time, as well as perceiving the three domains to interact negatively. To address these biopsychosocial issues, the research implies a place-based integrated recovery effort is needed, addressing biological, psychological, and social issues simultaneously. Further research should investigate biopsychosocial health among a more generalizable population.