Impact of COVID-19 shocks, precarity and mediating resources on the mental health of residents of share housing in Victoria, Australia: an analysis of data from a two-wave survey. Issue 4 (13th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Raynor, Katrina; Panza, Laura; Bentley, Rebecca
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 12:Issue 4(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-04-13
• Subjects: MENTAL HEALTH -- COVID-19 -- SOCIAL MEDICINE -- Health policy; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058580
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: COVID-19 lockdown measures have challenged people's mental health, especially among economically vulnerable households. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of exposure to COVID-19 shocks (defined as job loss, living cost pressures and changing housing conditions throughout the lockdown period) and double precarity (defined as precarity in housing and employment) on mental health outcomes for members of share households as well as the mediating effects of a range of resources. Design: We conducted a two-wave survey of occupants of share housing in June and October 2020 during a prolonged period of population lockdown. Research design involved fixed effects ordered logit regression models to assess the mental health consequences of baseline precarity and COVID-related shocks. Setting: Victoria, Australia. Participants: We surveyed 293 occupants of share houses (mean age 34 SD 11.5, 56% female). Members of share houses (where individuals are unrelated adults and not in a romantic relationship) are more likely to be young, casually employed, visa-holders and low-income. Outcome measures: We measured household composition, housing and employment precarity, access to government support, household crowding, social networks and COVID-19 shocks. We used a self-reported measure of mental health. Results: Those exposed to COVID-19 shocks reported a 2.7 times higher odds of mental health deterioration (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.85). People exposed to double precarity (precarity in both housing and employment) reported 2.4 times higher odds of mental health deterioration (OR 2.4, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.69). Housing inadequacy and lack of access to sufficient government payments explained 14.7% and 7% of the total effect of double precarity on mental health, respectively. Conclusions: Results indicate that residents of group households characterised by pre-existing precarity were vulnerable to negative mental health effects during lockdown. Access to sufficient government payments and adequate housing buffered this negative effect.