Next Article in Journal
Use of Haemostatic Devices for the Control of Junctional and Abdominal Traumatic Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of a Cervical Collar on Intracranial Pressure in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Trauma Care
Volume 2
Issue 1
10.3390/traumacare2010002
traumacare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Gender Identity on Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Levels in Canada

by
Chidi Chima
1,2,
Reham Shalaby
1,*,
Mobolaji A. Lawal
1,2,
Wesley Vuong
2,
Marianne Hrabok
1,3,
April Gusnowski
2,
Shireen Surood
2,
Andrew J. Greenshaw
1,
Kristopher Wells
4 and
Vincent I. O. Agyapong
1,5
1
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada
2
Addiction and Mental Health, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB T5K 2J5, Canada
3
Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
4
Faculty of Health and Community Studies, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB T5J 4S2, Canada
5
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, 5909 Veterans Memorial Lane, 8th Floor, Abbie J. Lane Memorial Building, QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS B3H 2E2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trauma Care 2022, 2(1), 11-22; https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2010002
Submission received: 24 November 2021 / Revised: 25 December 2021 / Accepted: 30 December 2021 / Published: 9 January 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This cross-sectional study explored variation of the prevalence of perceived stress, depression and anxiety among different self-identified gender identity groups in the Canadian population during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Anxiety, depression, and stress were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) respectively. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. Results: There were 8267 respondents to the online survey; 982 (12.0%) were male-identified, 7120 (86.9%) female-identified, and 92 (1.1%) identified as a diverse gender group. Prevalence rates for clinically meaningful anxiety (333 (41.7%), 2882 (47.6%), 47 (61.0%)), depression (330 (40.2%), 2736 (44.3%), 46 (59.7%)), and stress (702 (79.6%), 5711 (86.4%), 74 (90.2%)) were highest among respondents who self-identified as “other gender” followed by female-identified and then male-identified, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between gender groups for mean scores on GAD-7 (F (2, 6929) = 18.02, p < 0.001), PHQ-9 (F (2, 191.4) = 11.17, p < 0.001), and PSS (F (2, 204.6) = 21.13, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Gender identity differences exist in terms of the prevalence and severity of anxiety, depressive, and stress symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding highlights the importance of incorporating self-identified gender identity in medical research, clinical practice, and policy.

1. Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was initially detected in Wuhan China in late 2019. The virus rapidly spread across the globe with detrimental pandemic impacts on human life: its impact is reflected in morbidity and mortality rates, economic losses, and overwhelming changes in ways of living and other usual daily activities [1]. All of these factors, together with the uncertainties associated with the pandemic, have unsettled the world and exposed vulnerabilities in leadership and the effectiveness of different healthcare systems [2]. The spread of COVID-19 in Canada prompted quick enactment of policies and strategies to both contain and limit its impact on the population. To 23 December 2021, there had been 276,436,619 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 5,374,744 deaths, while in Canada estimates accounted for 1,907,771 cases of COVID-19 and 30,085 deaths (WHO 2020).
Much remains to be learned about this illness, which presents with a combination of symptoms including cough, difficulty in breathing, fever/chills, fatigue, muscle aches, loss of sense of smell, and gastrointestinal symptoms, among others [3].
Initially, COVID-19 was thought to be transmitted through respiratory droplets, contaminated surfaces, and human contact [4,5]. These preliminary observations informed the first wave of prevention strategies (i.e., regular hand washing/sanitizing, wearing of personal protection equipment, and physical distancing
There are now concerted efforts by governments and pharmaceutical organizations worldwide towards the development of new vaccines and treatment protocols to combat the pandemic. Meanwhile, as the development of vaccines for COVID-19 progresses, various approaches have been adopted by healthcare professionals in treating infected individuals with some degree of success, but the mortality rate remains alarmingly high so far as reflected by the global COVID-19 associated death rate, especially as it pertains to the Delta variant (WHO 2020).
With the course of the COVID-19 pandemic yet to be determined and new waves of infection now occurring, it is important to keep in mind that emotional and behavioral responses influence the course of pandemics [6]. Worth acknowledging also is the fact that pandemics confer associated impacts (e.g., preventive measures which include activity restrictions, unclear or excessive information from the media, uncertainty about the illness, and economic consequences) that lead to disparate and negative psychological effects in the population [7]. Some of these psychological impacts could present as stress, depression, and anxiety [8]. These psychological consequences have been identified during the COVID-19 pandemic in various world populations [9,10,11]. Like any other mental health difficulties, stress, depression, and anxiety all have the potential to run a chronic course and affect functioning in the social and occupational domains [12,13,14].
Research has suggested there may be biological sex differences in terms of COVID-19 prevalence and expressions. Preliminary evidence from Wuhan, China, and Italy [15,16] suggests that cisgender males are most infected by COVID-19 and also have increased COVID-related deaths. Similar patterns were seen during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic of 2003 [17] and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 [18] pandemic, when there were higher fatality rates in cisgender males compared to cisgender females. There is however limited data on the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in diverse gender identity groups during the current COVID-19 pandemic. We already know that the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in the general population is higher in cisgender females [19,20] but how this potentially could vary, particularly in the Canadian population in the era of COVID-19, is largely unknown. Evidence from studies focused on past pandemics might be a guide in understanding COVID-19 and its psychological impacts among diverse gender identity groups. This study was designed to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19, focusing on anxiety, depression, and stress in different demographics of the Canadian population with particular emphasis on its variation among diverse gender identities.

2. Methods

A cross-sectional survey was used to explore the impact of gender identity on the perceived stress, depression, and anxiety symptom scores among the individuals who subscribed to the Text4Hope program.

2.1. Recruitment and Sample Size

The recruitment procedures and sample size calculation have been described in our related papers [21,22,23]. In summary, Text4Hope is a daily supportive texting service provided by Alberta Health Services to Albertans during the COVID-19 crisis. The content was developed and reviewed by a group of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health therapists, including the study authors. Over a period of six weeks, Text4Hope subscribers received an online survey at registration with the program, collecting demographic data including gender, age, ethnicity, education, relationship status, employment, type of employment, and housing status. Subscribers were also asked for other related clinical characteristics, using validated scales for self-reported symptoms, including the Perceived Stress Scale [24] (for moderate to high stress; PSS ≥ 14), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Scale [25] (for likely generalized anxiety disorder; GAD-7 ≥ 10), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [26] (for likely depressive symptoms; PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Sample size was calculated in reference to the total population in Alberta, which is approximately 4.3 million, and with a confidence level of 99% and a 2% margin of error; it was estimated to be 4200 individuals. The expected response rate was 20% [27]. Participant consent was implied by submission of subscribers’ survey responses.

2.2. Outcome Measures

  • Primary outcomes are:
Estimated overall prevalence of anxiety, stress, and depressive symptoms in Alberta, Canada during the time of COVID-19.
  • Secondary outcomes are:
Relationship of self-identified gender to the proposed symptomatology of anxiety, stress, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.3. Statistical Methods

The IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows, version 26(IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) [28], was used for analysis. Results of the general and demographic data were reported as frequencies and percentages against gender distribution data.
Distribution of prevalence rates and mean scores on the clinical measures, Perceived Stress Scale, the GAD-7, and the PHQ-9 by gender category distribution was studied using the chi-square test and one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA), respectively, with two-tailed significance (p-value < 0.05). Tukey’s post hoc test was used to examine the statistical differences in the mean scores of the various clinical measures between the different age groupings. The Welch F test was used instead of one-way ANOVA when the homogeneity of variance assumption was not met, and the Games–Howell post hoc test was run for paired comparisons.

3. Results

A total of 44,992 individuals subscribed to Text4Hope in the first 6 weeks, and 8267 of them responded to the online survey invitation, yielding a response rate of 19.4%. Of the 8267 respondents, 982 (12.0%) identified as male, 7120 (86.9%) identified as female, and 92 (1.1%) identified as belonging to “other” gender identities.
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents by gender identity categories. The table depicts that the age group 40–60 y constituted the majority with 3424 (42.6%). Similarly, Caucasian (6685, 82.0%), individuals with post-secondary education (6950, 85.0%), employed (5983, 73.2%), married/cohabiting/partnered (5791, 70.8%), and owning homes (5276, 65.7%) were the most represented groups within our sample.
The data displayed in Table 2 illustrate the prevalence rates for clinically meaningful stress, anxiety, and depression. The data suggest that the prevalence of high/moderate stress, likely GAD and likely MDD, were highest in respondents who identified as other than male or female.
Table 3 illustrates the means and standard deviations for the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and PSS by gender identity categories. The mean score for the respondents on the GAD-7 scale (n = 6932) was 9.68 (SD = 5.87). For the PHQ-9 scale, the mean score for all respondents (n = 7070) was 9.44 (SD = 6.29) and for the Perceived Stress Scale (n = 7577) it was 20.79 (SD = 6.83).
The data displayed in this table indicate that male-identified participants exhibited consistently lower means on the three scales compared to their female-identified and counterparts with other or diverse gender identities.
Table 4 summarizes the one-way ANOVA results comparing sums of squares between and within the groups of gender identity distribution for the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and PSS scales. Although the Levene statistic did not reflect a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of error variances s for the GAD-7 scale data (p > 0.05), this was not the case for the PHQ-9 and PSS scale data (p < 0.05). The data displayed in Table 4 indicate statistically significant differences between and within the gender identity groups for scores on the GAD-7 scale (F (2, 6929) = 18.02, p > 0.001).
Table 5 displays the results for post hoc analyses of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and PSS scales results. Regarding the GAD-7 scale, the three gender identity groups surveyed exhibited significant differences in average scores relative to each other. Male-identified participants expressed significantly lower mean scores on the anxiety scale compared to female-identified participants and other participants with diverse gender identities (mean difference = 1.17, 95% CI = (−1.69)–(−0.66), and mean difference = 2.9, 95% CI = (−4.53)–(−1.26)), respectively. In contrast, those who identified with diverse gender identities expressed the highest mean compared to the female-identified group (mean difference = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.15–3.29), respectively.
Consequently, we ran Welch F tests for PHQ-9 and PSS scales. That analysis revealed statistically significant differences between and within the gender groups for scores on the PHQ-9 scale (F (2, 191.4) = 11.17, p = 0.00) and the PSS (F (2, 204.6) = 21.13, p = 0.00).
Table 5 illustrates how the three gender identity groups expressed significant differences in their PHQ-9 scores in relation to each other. For example, male-identified participants had significantly lower mean scores on the PHQ-9 scale compared to female-identified participants (mean difference = 0.739, 95% CI = (−1.3)–(−0.18), p = 0.006)) and those who identified as having diverse gender identities (mean difference = 3.77, 95% CI = (−5.9)–(−1.64), p < 0.001)). On the other hand, the gender diverse group had significantly higher mean scores on the PHQ-9 scale compared to respondents who identified as female (mean difference = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96–5.11, p = 0.002).
As with data from the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales, PSS scores yielded significant differences among the three gender identity groups in relation to each other. As illustrated by the data of Table 5 the gender diverse group scored the highest (mean difference = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.61–5.72, p < 0.001) and (mean difference = 2.18, 95% CI = 0.19–4.17, p = 0.03), compared to the male and female-identified groups respectively. Additionally, male-identified participants scored significantly lower than the female-identified participants (mean difference = 1.49, 95% CI = (−2.08)–(−0.89), p < 0.001)).

4. Discussion

Previous studies that investigated psychological consequences of past respiratory pandemics and even COVID-19 have focused mainly on stress, anxiety, and depression prevalence but not potential differences in relation to self-reported gender identity. This study is one of the first to investigate gender identity differences among clinical psychological consequences of COVID-19. The levels of the psychological impacts of interest in this study with regard to gender identity may help in determining appropriate services in relation to reducing the mental health burden of COVID-19 and developing more targeting and effective interventions. This is especially important given the unique vulnerabilities of sexual and gender minorities, who have received minimal attention in COVID-19 related research, despite well-documented mental health and healthcare disparities relative to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts [29]. These concerns may be significantly amplified for sexual and gender minority youth who are forced to isolate in unsafe family environments and are cut off from important social support networks in schools and communities. Many K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions are important access points for inclusive mental health services and identity-related support. Sexual and gender minority seniors may also face increased vulnerability as they are more likely to be single and living alone. They may also experience estrangement from their biological families due to experiences of prejudice and discrimination. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, such as stay in place orders or mandatory isolation requirements, may enhance vulnerability, isolation, alienation, and depressive symptoms.
The rating scales used for our study (i.e., Perceived Stress Scale, GAD-7, and PHQ-9), are all standardized scales. It is important to highlight that the variation of scales used for measuring these psychological consequences in previous studies [30,31] potentially could make formal comparison of the findings difficult. Regardless of the use of different scales for measuring stress, there seems to be consensus that pandemics are linked to psychological problems in the different populations studied [32,33,34,35].
About a quarter of all Text4Hope subscribers participated in the study, but there was overrepresentation of female-identified participants who accounted for 87% of our study population. Within the three gender identity categories included in our study, male-identified participants demonstrated consistently lowest prevalence rates for clinically meaningful symptoms and mean scores on all three rating scales used. These findings are further statistically significant between and within the gender identity groups by one-way ANOVA. Tukey’s post hoc analysis test for GAD-7 also confirmed a variation in anxiety levels among the three gender identity groups, with male-identified participants expressing significantly lower mean scores than the other two gender identity groups. The diverse gender identity group consistently had the highest mean scores for all the scales, possibly due to type 1 errors resulting from the small number of participants that fell into this grouping [35]. However, in our study, female-identified participants were more likely to develop or experience the three psychological consequences of COVID-19 compared to male-identified participants. A similar pattern of gender variation was observed in Wuhan and its surrounding cities with greater post-traumatic stress symptoms prevalent in the female-identified population [34]. It is worth highlighting at this point that intrusive memories linked to stress are experienced more in the female-identified population [36], which may contribute to this pattern. Furthermore, in a study that used the COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI), which includes anxiety and depression subscales among others, female-identified participants apparently experienced more psychological distress [31]. Another study which investigated gender-perception and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in a group of healthcare students reported similar findings to our study, as students who identified as female were more likely to meet the criteria for anxiety and depression. The study however found male students to be more at risk of developing stress. This finding among the students who identified as males might be due to chance, given the small number of male participants in the study [37]. The lower likelihood of anxiety and depression among male-identified participants found in our study also aligns with a previous study which further associated the finding to older cisgender males [38]. The latter study also found younger cisgender females to be at increased risk of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in a United Kingdom study focused on an adult population exposed to a traumatic incident, there were no gender differences in terms of stress [39]. By contrast, a study involving a combined population of sufferers of PTSD and complex PTSD reported a higher prevalence of stress in cisgender males [40]. It is unclear what led to this finding, which is considered an outlier, but it may possibly be attributable to exposure to information concerning COVID-19 related increased mortality in the cisgender male populations in Italy and China [15,16,41].
Other studies have highlighted how gender diverse populations have increased rates of adverse mental health when compared to cisgender individuals. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these health inequities may be amplified as access to gender-affirmative care has been reduced or limited as a “non-essential” medical service, coupled with increased experiences of isolation and seclusion and higher rates of discrimination [42].
Specific reasons underlying the causes for these reported gender identity differences remain to be determined, although various explanations have been offered. For example, cisgender women may overestimate pain from undesirable stimuli by adopting self-perspective theory when interpreting behavior [43]. Cisgender women may be more likely to seek professional help in the face of physical and psychological stress in comparison to cisgender men [44], who are likely to resort to maladaptive coping methods [45]. The latter could be responsible for the increase in the fatality rate among cisgender men in previous respiratory pandemics [17,18], as they may be presenting too late with the disease. Biological explanations have also been offered, such as that cisgender men may show less reactivity in neural networks linked to fear and excitement responses [46], which plays a role in stress.
Social explanations have also been offered. Cisgender women may experience more role strain due to adopting multiple roles [47]. For example, they may focus on their own health-related concerns as well as those of family members. As a result of multiple roles, the perceived economic consequences of the pandemic are higher [48,49]. As with other disasters or pandemics, COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in significant increases in interpersonal violence with cisgender women being at increased risk [50,51,52]. Decreased social support could further complicate the psychological impact of the pandemic. As has been highlighted in previous studies, most of the frontline workers in healthcare are female-identified [48], which implies they are more predisposed to contracting the infection and also witness the extent of problems associated with the pandemic, which could be more unsettling.
Our study raises concerns about potential gender-related health inequities and the need to have gender-identify specific health intervention strategies going forward. This must be reflected in policy development and implementation. By way of precedent evidence, consideration of gender-related needs has proven effective in improving care for individuals suffering cardiovascular disease and other health conditions when incorporated into research and clinical care [53].

5. Limitations

There are several limitations of our study. First, our sample is not representative of Alberta’s population in terms of age and gender [54], which reduces the generalizability of our findings. Second, there is a possibility of information bias as a result of the self-reporting nature of the scales used, and the overrepresentation of female-identified gender could impact the external validity of the study [35]. This indicates the need for a larger study with randomization to make the outcome of the study generalizable to the target population. Additionally, although the ANOVA analysis allowed for comparison of stress, anxiety, and depression levels between all three gender identity groups as a strength, it did not take into account potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, relationship, employment and education status, which is a limitation as gender identity is likely to be one of several key factors upon which vulnerability to mental health effects of COVID-19 would be based. Finally, the data used for the study did not include medical diagnoses or hospitalization status of participants. We understand that these could be useful in further exploring the impact of medical health conditions on the outcome obtained in our analysis. This will have to be considered in a future study.

6. Conclusions

This study’s results demonstrate variation among gender identity for the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, which aligns with findings from previous studies on past pandemics. This difference in the psychological impact of the pandemic in relation to different gender identity groups highlights the need for the careful consideration of potential factors that could be responsible for cisnormativity and related gender-bias while developing health policies and interventions for pandemics in order to address gender-identity related inequities more effectively in the future. Specifically, planning for and implementing more gender-inclusive virtual care programs such as supportive text message interventions which are relatively low-cost and easily scalable could be a means of supporting individuals with additional risk factors during public health crises [55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. Though our study population was large, a larger study with randomization could address potential selection bias, with resultant improvement in the generalizability of study findings. It would also be useful to include more gender identity options to account for a wider array of diverse gender identities and expressions, which may be important to ensure mental health interventions are more inclusive, responsive, and effective.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.I.O.A.; data curation, W.V., R.S., A.G., S.S., and V.I.O.A.; formal analysis, V.I.O.A. and R.S.; funding acquisition, V.I.O.A.; investigation, V.I.O.A.; methodology, A.J.G. and V.I.O.A.; project administration, V.I.O.A.; supervision, V.I.O.A. and S.S.; writing—original draft, C.C., V.I.O.A., and R.S.; writing—review and editing, C.C., M.A.L., W.V., R.S., M.H., A.G., S.S., A.J.G., and K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Mental Health Foundation, the Calgary Health Trust, the University Hospital Foundation, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation, the Royal Alexandra Hospital Foundation and the Alberta Cancer Foundation. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, the interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the results for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research protocol was approved by the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board (Pro00086163).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was implied, as per the approved ethics protocol, if responds assessed the study information leaflet, completed and returned the online survey questionnaire.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from the corresponding author R.S.

Acknowledgments

Support for the project was received from Alberta Health Services and the University of Alberta.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2020. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 31 August 2020).
  2. Forman, R.; Atun, R.; McKee, M.; Mossialos, E. 12 Lessons learned from the management of the coronavirus pandemic. Health Policy 2020, 124, 577–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Menni, C.; Valdes, A.M.; Freidin, M.B.; Sudre, C.H.; Nguyen, L.H.; Drew, D.A.; Ganesh, S.; Varsavsky, T.; Cardoso, M.J.; El-Sayed Moustafa, J.S.; et al. Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1037–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, J.; Liao, X.; Qian, S.; Yuan, J.; Wang, F.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, F.S.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Z. Community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, Shenzhen, China, 2020. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 1320–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Burke, R.M.; Midgley, C.M.; Dratch, A.; Fenstersheib, M.; Haupt, T.; Holshue, M.; Ghinai, I.; Jarashow, M.C.; Lo, J.; McPherson, T.D.; et al. Active monitoring of persons exposed to patients with confirmed COVID-19—United States, January–February 2020. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 245–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Funk, S.; Salathe, M.; Jansen, V.A. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: A review. J. R. Soc. Interface 2010, 7, 1247–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hawryluck, L.; Gold, W.L.; Robinson, S.; Pogorski, S.; Galea, S.; Styra, R. SARS control and psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1206–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wu, K.K.; Chan, S.K.; Ma, T.M. Posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). J. Trauma. Stress 2005, 18, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hyland, P.; Shevlin, M.; McBride, O.; Murphy, J.; Karatzias, T.; Bentall, R.P.; Martinez, A.; Vallieres, F. Anxiety and depression in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 2020, 142, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ozdin, S.; Bayrak Ozdin, S. Levels and predictors of anxiety, depression and health anxiety during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkish society: The importance of gender. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 66, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barzilay, R.; Moore, T.M.; Greenberg, D.M.; DiDomenico, G.E.; Brown, L.A.; White, L.K.; Gur, R.C.; Gur, R.E. Resilience, COVID-19-related stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic in a large population enriched for healthcare providers. Transl. Psychiatry 2020, 10, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Weintraub, M.J.; Van de Loo, M.M.; Gitlin, M.J.; Miklowitz, D.J. Self-harm, affective traits, and psychosocial functioning in adults with depressive and bipolar disorders. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2017, 205, 896–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. de Lijster, J.M.; Dieleman, G.C.; Utens, E.; Dierckx, B.; Wierenga, M.; Verhulst, F.C.; Legerstee, J.S. Social and academic functioning in adolescents with anxiety disorders: A systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 230, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ng, L.C.; Petruzzi, L.J.; Greene, M.C.; Mueser, K.T.; Borba, C.P.; Henderson, D.C. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and social and occupational functioning of people with schizophrenia. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2016, 204, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Mo, P.; Xing, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Deng, L.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, H.; Xiong, Y.; Cheng, Z.; Gao, S.; Liang, K.; et al. Clinical characteristics of refractory COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, e4208–e4213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Chen, N.; Zhou, M.; Dong, X.; Qu, J.; Gong, F.; Han, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Wei, Y.; et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: A descriptive study. Lancet 2020, 395, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Channappanavar, R.; Fett, C.; Mack, M.; Ten Eyck, P.P.; Meyerholz, D.K.; Perlman, S. Sex-based differences in susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J. Immunol. 2017, 198, 4046–4053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Matsuyama, R.; Nishiura, H.; Kutsuna, S.; Hayakawa, K.; Ohmagari, N. Clinical determinants of the severity of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Fung, A.W.; Chan, W.C.; Wong, C.S.; Chen, E.Y.; Ng, R.M.; Lee, E.H.; Chang, W.C.; Hung, S.F.; Cheung, E.F.; Sham, P.C.; et al. Prevalence of anxiety disorders in community dwelling older adults in Hong Kong. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2017, 29, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Strauss, R.; Kurdyak, P.; Glazier, R.H. Mood disorders in late life: A population-based analysis of prevalence, risk factors, and consequences in community-dwelling older adults in Ontario: Troubles de l’humeur en age avance: Une analyse dans la population de la prevalence, des facteurs de risque et des consequences chez des adultes ages vivant en milieu communautaire en Ontario. Can. J. Psychiatry 2020, 65, 630–640. [Google Scholar]
  21. Agyapong, V.I.O.; Hrabok, M.; Vuong, W.; Gusnowski, A.; Shalaby, R.; Mrklas, K.; Li, D.; Urichuk, L.; Snaterse, M.; Surood, S.; et al. Closing the psychological treatment gap during the COVID-19 pandemic with a supportive text messaging program: Protocol for implementation and evaluation. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2020, 9, e19292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abba-Aji, A.; Li, D.; Hrabok, M.; Shalaby, R.; Gusnowski, A.; Vuong, W.; Surood, S.; Nkire, N.; Li, X.M.; Greenshaw, A.J.; et al. COVID-19 Pandemic and mental health: Prevalence and correlates of new-onset obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a canadian province. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mrklas, K.; Shalaby, R.; Hrabok, M.; Gusnowski, A.; Vuong, W.; Surood, S.; Urichuk, L.; Li, D.; Li, X.M.; Greenshaw, A.J.; et al. Prevalence of perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in health care workers and other workers in alberta during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional survey. JMIR Ment. Health 2020, 7, e22408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.; Lowe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001, 16, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Agyapong, V.I.; Mrklas, K.; Juhas, M.; Omeje, J.; Ohinmaa, A.; Dursun, S.M.; Greenshaw, A.J. Cross-sectional survey evaluating Text4Mood: Mobile health program to reduce psychological treatment gap in mental healthcare in Alberta through daily supportive text messages. BMC Psychiatry 2016, 16, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. (IBM Release Notes—IBM® SPSS® Statistics 26.0). 2019. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/release-notes-ibm%C2%AE-spss%C2%AE-statistics-260 (accessed on 23 April 2020).
  29. Salerno, J.P.; Williams, N.D.; Gattamorta, K.A. LGBTQ populations: Psychologically vulnerable communities in the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Trauma. 2020, 12, S239–S242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, Y.; Zhao, N. Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 288, 112954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qiu, J.; Shen, B.; Zhao, M.; Wang, Z.; Xie, B.; Xu, Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen. Psychiatr. 2020, 33, e100213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; McIntyre, R.S.; Choo, F.N.; Tran, B.; Ho, R.; Sharma, V.K.; et al. A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shevlin, M.; McBride, O.; Murphy, J.; Miller, J.G.; Hartman, T.K.; Levita, L.; Mason, L.; Martinez, A.P.; McKay, R.; Stocks, T.V.A.; et al. Anxiety, depression, traumatic stress and COVID-19-related anxiety in the UK general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. BJPsych Open 2020, 6, e125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, N.; Zhang, F.; Wei, C.; Jia, Y.; Shang, Z.; Sun, L.; Wu, L.; Sun, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Y.; et al. Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 287, 112921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Simundic, A.M. Bias in research. Biochem. Med. 2013, 23, 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McLean, C.P.; Anderson, E.R. Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 29, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rodríguez-Roca, B.; Subirón-Valera, A.B.; Gasch-Gallén, Á.; Calatayud, E.; Gómez-Soria, I.; Marcén-Román, Y. Gender self-perception and psychological distress in healthcare students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, W.; Tang, J.; Wei, F. Updated understanding of the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Karatzias, T.; Hyland, P.; Bradley, A.; Cloitre, M.; Roberts, N.P.; Bisson, J.I.; Shevlin, M. Risk factors and comorbidity of ICD-11 PTSD and complex PTSD: Findings from a trauma-exposed population based sample of adults in the United Kingdom. Depress. Anxiety 2019, 36, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Olff, M.; Langeland, W.; Draijer, N.; Gersons, B.P. Gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Remuzzi, A.; Remuzzi, G. COVID-19 and Italy: What next? Lancet 2020, 395, 1225–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kneale, D.; Becares, L. The mental health and experiences of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial findings from the queerantine study. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Luo, P.; Xu, D.; Huang, F.; Wei, F. Emotion intensity modulates perspective taking in men and women: An event-related potential study. Neuroreport 2018, 29, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thompson, A.E.; Anisimowicz, Y.; Miedema, B.; Hogg, W.; Wodchis, W.P.; Aubrey-Bassler, K. The influence of gender and other patient characteristics on health care-seeking behaviour: A QUALICOPC study. BMC Fam. Pract. 2016, 17, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Liddon, L.; Kingerlee, R.; Barry, J.A. Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help-seeking. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 57, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Felmingham, K.; Williams, L.M.; Kemp, A.H.; Liddell, B.; Falconer, E.; Peduto, A.; Bryant, R. Neural responses to masked fear faces: Sex differences and trauma exposure in posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2010, 119, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Connor, J.; Madhavan, S.; Mokashi, M.; Amanuel, H.; Johnson, N.R.; Pace, L.E.; Bartz, D. Health risks and outcomes that disproportionately affect women during the Covid-19 pandemic: A review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 266, 113364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wenham, C.; Smith, J.; Morgan, R.; Gender and COVID-19 Working Group. COVID-19: The gendered impacts of the outbreak. Lancet 2020, 395, 846–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Churchill, B. COVID-19 and the immediate impact on young people and employment in Australia: A gendered analysis. Gend. Work Organ. 2020, 28, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Bradbury-Jones, C.; Isham, L. The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 2047–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Gulati, G.; Kelly, B.D. Domestic violence against women and the COVID-19 pandemic: What is the role of psychiatry? Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2020, 71, 101594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vora, M.; Malathesh, B.C.; Das, S.; Chatterjee, S.S. COVID-19 and domestic violence against women. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020, 53, 102227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dana, P.K.; Sadoughi, F.; Hallajzadeh, J.; Asemi, Z.; Mansourina, M.A.; Yousefi, B.; Momen-Heravi, M. An insight into the sex differences in COVID-19 patients: What are the possible causes? Prehosp. Disaster. Med. 2020, 35, 438–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Statistica, Population Estimate of Alberta, Canada in 2020, by Age and Sex. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/605969/population-of-alberta-by-age-and-sex/ (accessed on 27 July 2020).
  55. Agyapong VI, O.; Milnes, J.; McLoughlin, D.M.; Farren, C.K. Perception of patients with alcohol use disorder and comorbid depression about the usefulness of supportive text messages. Technol. Health Care 2013, 21, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Agyapong, V. Mobile phone text message interventions in psychiatry—What are the possibilities? Curr. Psychiatry Rev. 2011, 7, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Agyapong, V.I.; McLoughlin, D.M.; Farren, C.K. Six-months outcomes of a randomised trial of supportive text messaging for depression and comorbid alcohol use disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 2013, 151, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pappa, S.; Ntella, V.; Giannakas, T.; Giannakoulis, V.G.; Papoutsi, E.; Katsaounou, P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 88, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Agyapong, V.I.O.; Juhas, M.; Ohinmaa, A.; Omeje, J.; Mrklas, K.; Suen, V.Y.M.; Dursun, S.M.; Greenshaw, A.J. Randomized controlled pilot trial of supportive text messages for patients with depression. BMC Psychiatry 2017, 17, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Agyapong, V.I.; Ahern, S.; McLoughlin, D.M.; Farren, C.K. Supportive text messaging for depression and comorbid alcohol use disorder: Single-blind randomised trial. J. Affect. Disord. 2012, 141, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Agyapong, V.I.O.; Juhas, M.; Mrklas, K.; Hrabok, M.; Omeje, J.; Gladue, I.; Kozak, J.; Leslie, M.; Chue, P.; Greenshaw, A.J. Randomized controlled pilot trial of supportive text messaging for alcohol use disorder patients. J. Subst. Abus. Treat. 2018, 94, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Gender identity distribution of demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Gender identity distribution of demographic characteristics of respondents.
VariablesMaleFemaleOther GenderOverall
N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Age (Years)
≤25108 (11.3)776 (11.1)23 (29.1)907 (11.3)
26–40336 (35.0)2568 (36.7)33 (41.8)2937 (36.6)
41–60396 (41.3)3009 (43.0)19 (24.1)3424 (42.6)
60119 (12.4)638 (9.1)4 (5.1)761 (9.5)
Ethnicity
Caucasian751 (76.6)5884 (83.1)50 (55.6)6685 (82.0)
Indigenous32 (3.3)263 (3.7)7 (7.8)302 (3.7)
Asian93 (9.5)312 (4.4)2 (2.2)407 (5.0)
Other105 (10.7)620 (8.8)31 (34.4)756 (9.3)
Education
Less than High School Diploma56 (5.7)258 (3.6)12 (13.0)326 (4.0)
High School Diploma125 (12.8)674 (9.5)10 (10.9)809 (9.9)
Post-Secondary Education792 (80.9)6100 (85.9)58 (63.0)6950 (85.0)
Other Education6 (0.6)72 (1.0)12 (13.0)90 (1.1)
Employment status
Employed713 (72.9)5219 (73.4)51 (55.4)5983 (73.2)
Unemployed124 (12.7)818 (11.5)12 (13.0)954 (11.7)
Retired78 (8.0)475 (6.7)3 (3.3)556 (6.8)
Student52 (5.3)386 (5.4)14 (15.2)452 (5.5)
Other11 (1.1)208 (2.9)12 (13.0)231 (2.8)
Relationship status
Married/Cohabiting/Partnered691 (70.6)5055 (71.2)45 (48.9)5791 (70.8)
Separated/Divorced52 (5.3)565 (8.0)1 (1.1)618 (7.6)
Widowed8 (0.8)125 (1.8)1 (1.1)134 (1.6)
Single222 (22.7)1287 (18.1)29 (31.5)1538 (18.8)
Other6 (0.6)72 (1.0)16 (17.4)94 (1.1)
Housing status
Own Home605 (63.5)4634 (66.4)37 (40.2)5276 (65.7)
Living With Family101 (10.6)667 (9.6)19 (20.7)787 (9.8)
Renting243 (25.5)1615 (23.1)27 (29.3)1885 (23.5)
Other4 (0.4)66 (0.9)9 (9.8)79 (1.0)
Table
Table 2. Chi-square test of association between gender identity categories and the prevalence of perceived stress, likely generalized anxiety disorder, and likely major depressive disorder.
Table 2. Chi-square test of association between gender identity categories and the prevalence of perceived stress, likely generalized anxiety disorder, and likely major depressive disorder.
Male
N (%)		Female
N (%)		Other Gender
N (%)		Total Prevalence
N (%)
Perceived Stress
Moderate or High Stress a702 (79.6)5711 (86.4)74 (90.2)6487 (85.6%)
Chi 230.38
p-value<0.001
Effect Size (Phi)0.06
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)
GAD likely b333 (41.7)2882 (47.6)47 (61.0)3262 (47.1)
Chi 216.01
p-value<0.001
Effect Size (Phi)0.05
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)
MDD likely c330 (40.2)2736 (44.3)46 (59.7)3112 (44.0)
Chi 212.84
p-value0.002
Effect Size (Phi)0.04
a Moderate or high stress defined as PSS-10 score ≥ 14. b Likely GAD defined as GAD-7 scale score ≥ 10. c Likely MDD defined as PHQ-9 scale score ≥ 10.
Table
Table 3. Mean scores on the GAD-7 Scale, PHQ-9 Scale, and PSS by gender identity.
Table 3. Mean scores on the GAD-7 Scale, PHQ-9 Scale, and PSS by gender identity.
NMeanSD aSE b95% Confidence Interval for MeanMinimumMaximum
Lower BoundUpper Bound
GAD-7 Total ScoreMale7998.635.9820.2128.219.04021
Female60569.805.8280.0759.659.95021
Other7711.526.2250.70910.1112.93021
Total69329.685.8650.0709.549.82021
PHQ-9 Total ScoreMale8218.756.4650.2268.319.19027
Female61729.496.2320.0799.339.64027
Other7712.527.5860.86410.8014.24027
Total70709.446.2880.0759.299.58027
PSS Total ScoreMale88219.467.0920.23918.9919.92040
Female661320.946.7610.08320.7821.10040
Other8223.127.5250.83121.4724.78840
Total757720.796.8290.07820.6420.95040
a Standard deviation. b Standard error.
Table
Table 4. One-way ANOVA comparing sums of squares between and within groups.
Table 4. One-way ANOVA comparing sums of squares between and within groups.
Sum of SquaresDfMean SquareFSig.
GAD-7 Total ScoreBetween Groups1233.3652616.68218.018<0.001
Within Groups237,147.154692934.225
Total238,380.5196931
PHQ-9 Total ScoreBetween Groups1136.2912568.14514.426<0.001
Within Groups278,323.669706739.384
Total279,459.9607069
PSS Total ScoreBetween Groups2168.30021084.15023.385<0.001
Within Groups351,144.142757446.362
Total353,312.4427576
Table
Table 5. Tukey HSD and Games–Howell post hoc multiple comparisons.
Table 5. Tukey HSD and Games–Howell post hoc multiple comparisons.
Dependent Variable(I) Gender(J) GenderMean Difference (I-J)Std. ErrorSig.95% Confidence Interval
Lower BoundUpper Bound
GAD-7 Total Score aMaleFemale−1.1730.220<0.001−1.69−0.66
Other−2.8940.698<0.001−4.53−1.26
FemaleMale1.1730.220<0.0010.661.69
Other−1.7210.6710.028−3.29−0.15
OtherMale2.8940.698<0.0011.264.53
Female1.7210.6710.0280.153.29
PHQ-9 Total Score bMaleFemale−0.7390.2390.006−1.30−0.18
Other−3.7700.893<0.001−5.90−1.64
FemaleMale0.7390.2390.0060.181.30
Other−3.0310.8680.002−5.11−0.96
OtherMale3.7700.893<0.0011.645.90
Female3.0310.8680.0020.965.11
PSS Total Score bMaleFemale−1.4860.253<0.001−2.08−0.89
Other−3.6660.865<0.001−5.72−1.61
FemaleMale1.4860.253<0.0010.892.08
Other−2.1800.8350.029−4.17−0.19
OtherMale3.6660.865<0.0011.615.72
Female2.1800.8350.0290.194.17
a Tukey HSD post hoc multiple comparison. b Games–Howell post hoc multiple comparison.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chima, C.; Shalaby, R.; Lawal, M.A.; Vuong, W.; Hrabok, M.; Gusnowski, A.; Surood, S.; Greenshaw, A.J.; Wells, K.; Agyapong, V.I.O. COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Gender Identity on Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Levels in Canada. Trauma Care 2022, 2, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2010002

AMA Style

Chima C, Shalaby R, Lawal MA, Vuong W, Hrabok M, Gusnowski A, Surood S, Greenshaw AJ, Wells K, Agyapong VIO. COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Gender Identity on Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Levels in Canada. Trauma Care. 2022; 2(1):11-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2010002

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chima, Chidi, Reham Shalaby, Mobolaji A. Lawal, Wesley Vuong, Marianne Hrabok, April Gusnowski, Shireen Surood, Andrew J. Greenshaw, Kristopher Wells, and Vincent I. O. Agyapong. 2022. "COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Gender Identity on Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Levels in Canada" Trauma Care 2, no. 1: 11-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2010002

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop