Depression trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic: a secondary analysis of the impact of cognitive-appraisal processes

Disabled from work and depressed: cognitive factors associated with exacerbated or attenuated depression over the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

People who were disabled from working reported substantially worse depression in recent research [1] despite adjustment for demographic covariates, cognitive-appraisal processes, and COVID-specific stressors, thus motivating the present work.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to "drill down" to understand employment-group differences (employed, retired, unemployed, disabled) in cognitive factors, and how these factors played into paths to depression during COVID early in the pandemic and depression trajectories over 15.5 months of follow-up.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study (n = 771) included chronically ill and general-population samples in the United States, characterized into the same depression-trajectory groups as the earlier study [1]. The Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profilev2 Short-Form assessed cognitive-appraisal processes. COVID-specific scales assessed hardship, worry, and social support. Chi-square, Analysis of Variance, classification and regression tree, and random effects modeling investigated factors associated with reported depression over time specifically by employment group, rather than in the whole sample which was the focus of the earlier study.

RESULTS

Disabled participants were disproportionately represented in the stably depressed trajectory group, reporting more hardship and worry, and lower social support than employed and retired participants (p < 0.0001). They were more likely to focus on health goals, problem goals, and emphasizing the negative (p < 0.001). They had different paths and cut-points to depression than employed/unemployed/retired participants. Even mild endorsement of emphasizing the negative and recent changes predicted higher depression. COVID-specific stressors and cognitive-appraisal processes were less implicated in depression among disabled participants compared to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Disabled participants were at greater risk of stable depression during the COVID pandemic. Small increases in emphasizing the negative were a path to worse depression, and disabled participants' depression may be less reactive to external circumstances or ways of thinking.

Mental health after lumbar spine surgery: cognitive appraisal processes and outcome in a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

A not uncommon finding following spine surgery is that many patients do not achieve mental health improvement up to population norms for their age cohort, despite improvement in pain and functioning.

PURPOSE

This study examined how patients who were categorized as depressed versus not depressed think about health-related quality of life as assessed by cognitive-appraisal processes. It examined cross-sectional and longitudinal differences over 12 months postsurgery.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal cohort study with data collected at presurgery and at ∼3- and ∼12-months postsurgery from August 2013 to August 2023.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We included 173 adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spinal conditions at an academic medical center. The study sample was 47% female, with a mean age of 61 (SD=15.0), and a median level of education of college graduate.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Depression was defined as a Mental Component Score (MCS)≤38 on the Rand-36, building on studies that equated MCS scores with significant depression as assessed by clinically validated depression scales. The Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profile assessed the cognitive-appraisal domains of Experience Sampling and Standards of Comparison.

METHODS

The analysis focused on two comparisons: cross-sectionally comparing those who were not depressed (n=82) to those who were depressed (n=77) at baseline; and comparing longitudinal trajectories among those depressed before surgery and improved (n=54) versus did not improve (n=23). T-tests characterized group differences in appraisal endorsement; analysis of variance evaluated appraisal items in terms of explained variance; and Pearson correlation coefficients assessed direction of association in predicting mental health.

RESULTS

There were presurgical and longitudinal differences in both cognitive appraisal domains. Before surgery, depressed patients were less likely than nondepressed patients to endorse emphasizing the positive; more likely to focus on worst moments, recent flare-ups, their spinal condition, and the future; and more likely to compare themselves to high aspirations (eg, perfect health). Over time, among those who were depressed before surgery, those who improved focused decreasingly on worst moments and on the time before their spinal condition, and increasingly on emphasizing the positive and balancing the positives/negatives. Appraisal explained more variance in mental health among those who did not improve as compared to those who did, at all timepoints. All appraisal items were more highly correlated with mental health among those who remained depressed as compared to those who improved, particularly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Endorsement of cognitive appraisal processes was different for depressed versus nondepressed spine-surgery patients before surgery and distinguished those who were depressed before surgery and improved versus those who did not improve. These findings suggest that targeted interventions could be beneficial for addressing mental health concerns during the spine surgery recovery trajectory. These interventions might use appraisal measures to identify patients likely to remain depressed after surgery, and then focus on helping these patients shift their focus and standards of comparison.

Individual differences in the long-term impact of the pandemic: moderators of COVID-related hardship, worry, and social support

PURPOSE

Understanding people's response to the pandemic needs to consider individual differences in priorities and concerns. The present study sought to understand how individual differences in cognitive-appraisal processes might moderate the impact of three COVID-specific factors-hardship, worry, and social support-on reported depression.

METHODS

This longitudinal study of the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic included 771 people with data at three timepoints over 15.5 months. Participants were recruited from panels of chronically ill or general population samples. Depression was measured by an item response theory validated depression index created using items from existing measures that reflected similar content to the Patient Health Questionnaire-8. COVID-specific factors of hardship, worry, and social support were assessed with items compiled by the National Institutes of Health. The Quality of Life Appraisal Profilev2 Short-Form assessed cognitive appraisal processes. A series of random effects models examined whether appraisal moderated the effects of hardship, worry, and social support on depression over time.

RESULTS

Over time the association between low social support and depression was greater (p = 0.0181). Emphasizing the negative was associated with exacerbated depression, in particular for those with low social support (p = 0.0007). Focusing on demands and habituation was associated with exacerbated depression unless one experienced greater hardship (p = 0.0074). There was a stronger positive connection between recent changes and depression for those people with higher worry scores early in the pandemic as compared to later, but a stronger positive correlation for those with lower worry scores later in the pandemic (p = 0.0015). Increased endorsement of standards of comparison, emphasizing the negative, problem goals, and health goals was associated with worse depression scores (all p < 0.0001). People who were younger, disabled, or had greater difficulty paying bills also reported worse depression (p < 0.0001, 0.0001, and 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

At the aggregate level, COVID-specific stressors changed over the course of the pandemic, whereas depression and social-support resources seemed stable. However, deeper analysis revealed substantial individual differences. Cognitive-appraisal processes showed considerable variability across individuals and moderated the impact of COVID-specific stressors and resources over time. Future work is needed to investigate whether coaching individuals away from maladaptive cognitive-appraisal processes can reduce depression and lead to better overall well-being.

Reserve-building as a buffer for depression among individuals living with disability: a longitudinal study of current activities related to brain health

Aims

This study examined whether reserve-building activities are associated with attenuated reported depression among people who were disabled from work due to a medical condition as compared to employed, retired, and unemployed participants.

Methods

This secondary analysis included 771 individuals who provided data at three time points: baseline (late Spring 2020), follow-up 1 (Spring 2021), and follow-up 2 (Fall 2021). The DeltaQuest Reserve-Building Measure assessed current activities related to brain health. An analysis of variance and Pearson correlation coefficients assessed group differences in reserve-building activity scores. Classification and regression tree (CART) modeling investigated factors associated with higher and lower reported depression by employment group. The random effects (RE) models tested two buffering hypotheses: (1) comparing all groups to the employed group and (2) examining within-group effects.

Results

Engaging in outdoor activities, exercise, and religious/spiritual activities was associated with reduced depression over time in the overall sample. While disabled participants endorsed lower levels of being Active in the World, Outdoor activities, and Exercise and higher levels of Inner Life and Passive Media Consumption than the other employment groups, more reserve-building activities distinguished depression levels in the disabled group's CART models compared to the others. Among the disabled, unemployed, and retired participants, engaging in any reserve-building activities was also associated with lower depression scores, which was distinct from the employed participants. In the RE models that used the employed group as the reference category, only the disabled group's level of depression was buffered by engaging in creative activities. In the within-group RE models, the disabled group's engagement in Religious/Spiritual, Outdoors, and Games was associated with substantially reduced within-group depression, which was different from the other employment groups. In contrast, reserve-building activities were not implicated at all as buffers for employed participants.

Conclusion

This study revealed a beneficial effect of reserve-building activities on buffering depression over time during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for disabled people. It documented that even if such individuals engaged in lesser amounts of such activities as compared to other employment groups, the buffering effect was substantial. Given the low-cost and accessible nature of reserve-building activities, it would be worthwhile to encourage such activities for disabled individuals.