The association of socio-psychological factors with depression and distress in Latvian population during the COVID-19 emergency state

There has been a widespread concern for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by the multiple different psychological challenges caused by the pandemic, and a call for urgent mental health research. The evidence suggests increases in psychological distress and a rise in the proportion of people experiencing clinically significant levels of mental illness, including depression. The aim of the study was to investigate the association of various socio-psychological factors with clinical depression and distress during the COVID-19 emergency state. The nationwide representative online study in the general population of Latvia was conducted in July 2020 during three week period. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was used to determine the presence of distress/depression; for psychological factors, Psychological Resilience Scale, Social Problem-Solving Inventory, one-item Loneliness scale and Fear of COVID-19, and Domestic Violence scale were used. Based on a weighted study sample (N = 2533, men 40.4%, aged from 18 – 75) a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to develop a model that included significant contributing variables for predicting the presence of depression or distress. In the final model socio-demographic factors were included in the first step, health-related factors – in the second step, social relationship factors – in the third step, and psychological factors were entered in the last step. The analysis revealed that socio-demographic factors (young age, being woman, unemployment, and financial problems) accounted for 24.0% of the variance, health factors (history of suicidality, poor health, mental health problems in general and depression in particular in the past) accounted for 12.6%, exposure to domestic violence added 4% and psychological factors (fear of COVID-19, low psychological resilience, negative problem orientation, and loneliness) explained additional 16.5%. All predictors together explained 40.2%. Based on this study, policy suggestions regarding risk factor prevention will be created.