Covid-19, caused by the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first discovered in December 2019 in the Wuhan city of China. The World Health Organization (WHO) first declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020 [1] and, soon after, a pandemic on March 11, 2020 [1]. In addition to collective fear of the virus exacerbated by its high infectiousness and growing death rate, emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic also led to a worldwide socioeconomic crisis [2, 3]. Many countries were forced to implement movement restrictions and instantaneous lockdown measures to contain the virus and doing so has greatly crippled the global economy. Thus, Covid-19 has emerged as a common stressor to all, as it affected businesses, trades, and production of goods, which has consequently affected the income of a large number of individuals [4].
Covid-19 has been recognized as the worst pandemic of the century, in terms of scale and infection rate [5], and has profoundly impacted people’s mental health [6]. Given this, it is of great relevance to consider whether the social gradient in mental health would continue to be shown in a crisis of such magnitude. Defined as an inverse linear relationship between one’s socioeconomic status and/or conditions and mental health status, the social gradient in mental health theory posits that an individuals’ mental health follows a gradient that is in-line with his or her socioeconomic position in society, and such a relationship exists along a continuum [7]. Indeed, the relationship between SEC and mental health has been well-documented [e.g., 8–10], with studies reporting moderate-to-strong associations between socioeconomic standing and subjective well-being and/or mental health [e.g., 11–14]. However, few have investigated whether specific SEC indicators are more predictive of mental health conditions over others.
SEC Indicators
It has been suggested that SEC should be viewed as an umbrella concept that encompasses both actual (objective) and perceived (subjective) status of a person or a group in a given social context [15]. This should include different facets, such as economic, education, occupation [17], and subjective self-evaluation [18]. Economic here refers to traditional material metrics, such as income and assets; education typically refers to years of education attained by an individuals or their parents; occupation is used to reflect the complexity and the intellectual demands of jobs held [15]; and self-evaluated SEC, measured using tools such as the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (MSS) [17], relies on individuals’ self-assessment of their SEC in the context of their countries or communities.
However, even if SEC is defined as an overarching concept that includes multiple components, many SEC indicators (e.g., income, education, occupation etc.) do not seem to correlate strongly with one another [18]. Using the example provided in Farah [18], a plumber may not have attained as high an education level as an adjunct professor, but it is the plumber who could be earning a much higher income due to the shortage in this profession. A similar situation can be seen in traditional business owners who may not be highly educated, but could be earning much more than the average population. Thus, it is not surprising that past surveys have found a correlation of only between .2 and .7 (generally below .5) among SEC measures such as income, education, and occupation [19, 20].
In relation, studies have suggested that different SEC indicators are separate, standalone constructs that represent different dimensions of one’s socioeconomic position in society [21]. Relevant to our review, different SEC indicators exhibit differential effects on our emotional health. For instance, higher education (typically viewed as a proxy for good socioeconomic standing) has been linked to higher depressive symptoms, while the opposite was shown for income [22]. Hence, although SEC indicators may overlap, it is valuable for them to be investigated as separate variables to better elucidate their unique effects on emotional health. To-date, it is equivocal as to whether there is a specific SEC measure or cluster of measures that best predicts changes in emotional health, and hence this warrants further investigation, especially with the unique contextual opportunity brought about by Covid-19 as a natural global stressor.
Actual versus Perceived SEC Indicators
The basic tenet of social inequalities of mental health is the consequences of an uneven distribution of resources across social domains [23]. The fact that the social gradient in health is so robustly observed for a wide range of mental and physical health outcomes [24, 25] and has persisted since the early 19th century [26] across both developing and developed nations [27] suggests that the ‘fundamental’ cause of health inequalities is due to SEC disparities [28].
‘Resources’, referred to in the theory of fundamental causes, include tangible material possessions (e.g., wealth, income, assets, social capitals), and intangible ones (e.g., knowledge, power, prestige), which are disproportionately owned by the upper economic classes [e.g., 29–32]. More importantly, these resources are deemed to be ‘flexible” in that individuals can utilize them in “different ways and in different situations” [28 pS29]. For example, elite individuals have the privilege of choosing world-class treatment for psychiatric conditions, even if that means travelling overseas, and moreover high SEC individuals in positions of power can choose to reduce their workloads (or change jobs for the matter) if they feel that their mental health has been compromised by their work environment. All these privileges and flexibilities endowed by possession of key resources are posited to be the reason for the existence of the social gradient in mental health.
However, studies have shown that in addition to the ‘actual’ possession, the ‘perceived’ lack of such SEC resources could also play a role in the social inequalities in health [33, 34]. Numerous studies using various form of perceived SEC indicators, such as financial threat [35], debt stress [36], and money-management stress [37], perceived financial strain [38], have reported that such perceived financial well-being indicators could affect subjective well-being and mental health. More importantly, recent studies have provided evidence that such financial well-being indicators could potentially mediate the relationship between actual SEC indicators and emotional health [35, 37].
Although actual and perceived SEC indicators are interrelated, as individuals from low SEC backgrounds are more likely to have more concerns about their financial situations [39, 40], there are studies reporting otherwise. For example, individuals from objectively high-SEC backgrounds may still perceive themselves as ‘poor’ [41]. Additionally, there are individuals who do not consider themselves poor despite actually being objectively low in SEC as indicated by traditional income or asset-based measures [42]. In a study by Wang et al. [43] in rural China, 29% of households perceived and reported feeling poor even though they do not meet the objective criteria for poverty. Interestingly, a study by Chang et al. [44] which investigated 1,605 households in Hong Kong, showed that while only 29.06% of the respondents meet the criteria as living below the poverty line, more than 50% of them perceived themselves as poor.
Thus, in this review, we investigated how ‘actual’ and ‘perceived’ SEC categories may be differentially associated with emotional health symptoms in the context of Covid-19.
Static versus Fluid SEC Indicators
Aside from objectivity of one’s socioeconomic position, it may also be important to compare SEC indicators that are either stagnant or change over time. Past studies have showed that negative changes to one’s socioeconomic position could affect mental health [45, 46]. As a matter fact, the socioeconomic disruptions following disasters, be it man-made or natural, have been shown to be detrimental to mental well-being, as the financial disturbances would result in stress escalation, leading to various mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety [47]. More importantly, such negative consequences are usually more prominent in the low SEC population, as they are likely to lack resources that are needed to cope with the changes following crisis [47].
However, not all SEC indicators are capable to reflect such changes. For instance, education and occupation class are relatively time-invariant and may remain static even in a global health crisis while variables such as income are subject to change. More importantly, research typically compared low and high SEC between individuals, but few have explored how individual’s changes in SEC over time can impact mental well-being [48]. For the few studies which have investigated how changes in SEC influence mental health, the results were mixed.
First, Sareen et al. [45] showed that in addition to having a low income, a decline (i.e., change) in household income was significantly related to a higher risk of mood disorders. This was echoed in a systematic review and meta-analysis by Thomson et al. [46], and in a longitudinal study by Lorant et al. [48], where short-term fluid changes to one’s SEC was associated with greater depression symptoms - although the effects of SEC on mental health was more apparent between subjects instead of within. Conversely, another longitudinal study by Benzeval and Judge [49] in Britain found that a decline in income had only a minor effect on mental health. Similarly, Levesque et al. [50] reported a lack of evidence to support that changes in SEC has any unique effect on mental health separate from the effects of static or current SEC.
In this review, we aimed to investigate how different measurements of one’s SEC, be it static or fluid, are associated with emotional health symptoms (i.e., depression and anxiety), within the context of Covid-19.
Current Review
We conducted this systematic review with the aim of answering three pertinent research questions. First, in light of the socioeconomic disruptions brought about by the Covid-19 crisis, we sought to investigate how various classes of SEC indicators were associated with emotional health symptoms (i.e., anxiety and depression). Secondly, we aimed to compare SEC indicators to evaluate whether there were differences in how strongly specific indicators predicted mental health outcomes. Lastly, we assessed whether different groups of SEC indicators (static vs fluid, perceived vs actual) show dissociable effects on emotional health symptoms.