Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Early Interv Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 11;18(2):165–169. doi: 10.1111/eip.13451

RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTENUATED PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Sydney H James 1, Gregory P Strauss 1,*
PMCID: PMC10782813  NIHMSID: NIHMS1915888  PMID: 37434396

Abstract

Introduction:

Rates of attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is unclear whether this is most evident among individuals from marginalized racial groups.

Methods:

The current study evaluated APS screening data across a six-year period in the state of Georgia in the United States, spanning several years prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate interactions between time and race. Participants included 435 clinical help-seeking individuals.

Results:

The rate of individuals scoring above the APS screening cut-off was higher during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic (41% vs 23%). This pandemic-related increase in APS was significant for Black, but not White or Asian participants.

Conclusions:

Findings indicate APS are increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic among clinical help-seeking populations. Black individuals may be at greater risk for developing a psychotic disorder during the pandemic, suggesting increased need for screening, mental health monitoring, and treatment.

Keywords: Ultra high-risk, Clinical high-risk, Prodrome, Schizophrenia, Hallucinations

Introduction

The coronavirus has led to millions of infections and deaths worldwide (World Health Organization, 2022), produced widespread economic disruption (Maital & Barzani, 2020), and had a detrimental impact on mental health (e.g., mood and anxiety disorders) (Cullen et al., 2020; Winkler et al., 2020). The negative physical and mental health effects of the coronavirus and its associated pandemic may be greater among individuals from marginalized ethnic and racial groups, potentially due to exacerbation of pre-existing health disparities and discrimination (Maleku et al., 2022; Salerno et al., 2020).

Among persons with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, those with psychotic disorders are at high risk for negative outcomes from the coronavirus, including greater rates of hospitalization, mortality, relapse, and symptom severity (Fonseca et al., 2020; Pardamean et al., 2022; Tzur Bitan et al., 2021; Iasevoli et al., 2021; Hamada & Fan, 2020; Strauss et al., 2022; Valdes-Florido et al., 2020; Parra et al., 2020; Correa-Palacio et al., 2020; Noone et al., 2020). Studies from the general population also indicate increasing rates of attenuated psychosis in countries throughout the world (O’Donoghue et al., 2022; Loch et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021; Tso & Park, 2020; Dean et al., 2021; Gizdic et al., 2022). Although individuals from marginalized communities have greater rates of psychotic disorder diagnoses (Schwartz & Blankenship, 2014; Olbert et al., 2018), it is unclear whether they are systematically experiencing greater increases in attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Considering that marginalized communities are systemically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of other mental health (Smith et al., 2020), it is possible that individuals from these communities are also experiencing greater increases in APS. The current study examined whether the proportion of individuals with levels of APS in the at-risk range differed during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic in a clinical help-seeking sample. It was hypothesized that the proportion of individuals exceeding the threshold for APS would be: (1) greater during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic; (2) systemically higher for individuals from marginalized groups (Asian, Black) during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic.

Methods

Participants

Participants included 435 clinical help-seeking individuals who were referred by a clinician or advertisement to the Georgia Psychiatric Risk Evaluation Program from October 2017 to July 2022. Recruitment occurred in the state of Georgia in the United States of America and spanned approximately 2.5 years pre-pandemic (n = 169) and 2.5 years during the pandemic (n = 266). During the pandemic, recruitment was conducted completely online as opposed to pre-pandemic times when both online and in-person methods were used. Participants were recruited for studies examining mechanisms of psychosis risk and negative symptoms (Strauss & Chapman, 2018; Strauss et al., 2021, 2023; Bartolomeo et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2021; Gold et al., 2020). Pre- and during pandemic cases did not differ in age or sex; however, there were slightly fewer Asian and more White participants during the pandemic (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

Pre-Pandemic (N = 169) During-Pandemic (N = 266) Test Statistic, P-Value
Age 22.37 (3.96) 23.23 (6.57) F = 2.39, p = .123
Education 14.35 (2.06) 14.34 (2.61) F = 0.0, p = .979
Parental Education 15.07 (2.66) 14.74 (5.10) F = 0.55, p = .458
Female; N (%) 119 (71.7%) 186 (69.9%) χ2= 0.08, p = .778
Race; N (%) χ2= 29.97, p < .01
 American Indian 0 5 (1.9%)
 Asian 30 (17.8%) 26 (9.8%)
 Black 22 (13.0%) 51 (19.2%)
 Hispanic/LatinX 15 (8.9%) 10 (3.8%)
 Multiracial 7 (4.1%) 16 (6.0%)
 Other 10 (5.9%) 1 (0.4%)
 White 85 (50.3%) 157 (59.0%)
Open in a new tab

Note. All values represent means with standard deviations in parentheses unless otherwise stated.

Procedures

All participants provided informed consent for screening procedures approved by the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board. Participants completed a demographic screening questionnaire and the PRIME Screen-Revised (PS-R; Miller et al., 2004). The PRIME screen is a 12-item self-report questionnaire assessing APS with items scored on a 0 (definitely disagree) to a 6 (definitely agree) scale. In this study, a positive result on the PRIME screen was indicated by three or more responses of a 6 (definitely agree) or a 5 (somewhat agree), indicating heightened risk for APS and further assessment is warranted. This scoring method has demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity (Kline et al., 2012).

Data analysis

A binary variable was created to indicate pandemic time: screens completed before March 15, 2020 were classified as “pre-pandemic,” whereas screens completed on and after March 15, 2020 were classified as “during pandemic.” This timeframe was based on when the state of Georgia issued lockdown orders. Pre- and during-pandemic samples were compared on demographic variables using One-Way ANOVAs and chi-square tests. A chi-square test was used to compare positive screening results between pre- and during-pandemic time periods. Cochran-mantel-haenszel tests were conducted to determine whether the rate of APS differed across the three most highly powered racial groups (Asian, Black, White) from pre-pandemic to during-pandemic timepoints; other racial groups were not included in these analyses due to insufficient sample size.

Results

In the full sample, the chi-square test was significant, such that APS (three or more responses of a 6 (definitely agree) or 5 (somewhat agree) on the PRIME) were higher during the pandemic (41%) compared to pre-pandemic (23%), χ2= 14.53, p < .001. In the reduced sample (n = 371), the rate of participants exceeding the APS cut-off differed among the three racial groups from pre-pandemic to during-pandemic timepoints, M2(1) = 11.27, p = .001. Within each race, posthoc tests indicated that Black participants had significantly higher rates of APS during the pandemic than pre-pandemic; however, although rates also increased substantially for Asian and White participants during the pandemic, the difference between pre- and during-pandemic did not significantly differ for these groups (see Table 2).1

Table 2.

Differences in APS rates Per Pandemic Time Period and Race

Asian (N = 56) Black (N = 73) White (N = 242) All (N = 371)
Pre-Pandemic 13.3% 13.6% 28.2% 22.6%
During Pandemic 38.5% 49.0% 39.5% 41.4%
 χ2, p-value χ2= 3.45, p = .095 χ2= 6.71, p = .029 χ2= 2.58, p = .108 M 2= 11.27, p = .001
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentage = number of positive APS screens (i.e., positive result on the PRIME: three or more responses of a 6 (definitely agree) or a 5 (somewhat agree)) in the sample.

Discussion

Consistent with past studies on the general population (Loch et al., 2022; Mengin et al., 2022; Tso & Park, 2020; Gizdic et al., 2022), rates of APS were higher during the pandemic than pre-pandemic. The extension of this finding to clinical help-seeking samples is important because risk for conversion is ~3.5x higher among help-seeking samples which necessitate extensive clinical services (Kaymaz et al., 2012; Staines et al., 2022). Given the complexities of providing mental health services during the pandemic, knowing which clinical populations are of greatest need can allow available resources to be utilized most efficiently.

Second, Black individuals experienced increased rates of exceeding the APS cut-off during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic compared to Asian and White individuals (Byrne et al., 2021). There are several plausible explanations for why Black individuals experienced greater increases in APS during the pandemic, including greater exposure to discrimination, structural racism, and reduced access to mental health services (Wu et al., 2021; Lee & Waters, 2021; Laurencin & Walker, 2020; Abedi et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2022). However, the differential effect of the pandemic on APS for Black compared to Asian participants was surprising given both are marginalized racial groups that experienced increased race-related stressors during the pandemic (Ruiz et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). One possible explanation is that Black individuals experienced a greater increase in stressors than other races. For example, sociopolitical events during the early stages of the pandemic resulted in high rates of racial trauma for members of the Black community (Eichstaedt et al., 2021). When coupled with pre-existing chronic stressors, which worsened during the pandemic (e.g., structural racism, health disparities reducing access to healthcare), Black individuals may have experienced a compounding of acute and chronic race-related-stressors that were less prevalent among other marginalized racial groups (Thomeer et al., 2022).

Certain limitations should be considered. First, within-subject comparisons were not possible because we did not have longitudinal data across the 6-year period. Use of between-subject comparisons may be impacted by cohort effects, although this seems unlikely given the short timeframe. Second, the PRIME screen, has been central to clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) screening and is an invaluable clinical and research tool; however, it does not afford the same sensitivity and specificity as clinical interview-based measures. Use of a self-report screener may be more likely to lead to a higher number of false positive CHR cases than structured interviews. Third, the PRIME Screen was the only APS screening measure used, and a prior study found that it significantly predicts risk status for White but not Black participants (Millman et al., 2019). However, this does not explain the greater increases in screened APS rates during the pandemic in Black participants. Fourth, online recruitment methods were utilized more during the pandemic, and may have resulted in a qualitatively different group of participants during the pandemic. However, participant demographics are generally similar in the pre- and during-pandemic samples. Lastly, post-pandemic period spanned 2.5 years, which encompasses a variety of COVID-related events (i.e., lockdown, re-opening, etc). It is unclear which of these events might drive effects.

Despite these limitations, findings have important implications. Our data provide additional evidence for how Black individuals are systemically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; these effects have been demonstrated in physical health outcomes and now in APS (Novacek et al., 2020; Travers et al., 2021). Following other health campaigns that proved successful, such as the HIV/AIDS campaign in the United States, attempts to reduce health disparities and increase equity could be enhanced by targeting those who are most likely to be experiencing poor psychiatric outcomes during the pandemic (Novacek et al., 2020). Systematic screening may be an important first step for engaging individuals in clinical services, followed by longitudinal symptom monitoring and culturally tailored interventions. Given limitations of the pandemic, telehealth and mobile applications may provide a promising means of reaching individuals at risk for developing psychosis.

Acknowledgements:

This study was supported by the NARSAD Young Investigator Grant to G.P.S. from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and R01-MH116039, R01-MH120092, and R21-MH119438 to G.P.S. from the National Institute of Mental Health.

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank members of the study team who collected and coded data, specifically Alysia Berglund, Ashley Zollicoffer, Gifty Ayawvi, Luyu Zhang, and Delaney Collins, and participants who generously devoted their time and effort to completing the study.

Funding statement:

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; NARSAD Young Investigator Grant; National Institute of Mental Health, Grant/Award Numbers: R01-MH116039, R01-MH120092, and R21-MH119438.

Footnotes

1

Due to the substantial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black and LatinX communities, additional analyses were conducted where individuals who identified as Black or LatinX were combined in a single group. This group was then compared to the Asian and White groups. It was found that the rate of participants exceeding the APS cut-off differed among the three racial groups from pre-pandemic to during pandemic timepoints, M2(1) = 12.03, p < .001. Within each group, posthoc tests indicated that Black/LatinX participants had significantly higher rates of APS during the pandemic than pre-pandemic. The rates for the Asian and White groups remained as reported in Table 2. Additionally, we combined all racially marginalized groups into one group to compare to the White group. Results indicated that the rate of participants exceeding the APS cut-off differed between the marginalized group and the White group from pre-pandemic to during pandemic timepoints, M2(1) = 14.18, p < .001, such that the racially marginalized participants had significantly higher rates of APS during the pandemic than pre-pandemic.

Conflict of Interest:

The authors do not have any relevant disclosures to report.

Data availability statement:

De-identified data will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, … & Zand R. (2021). Racial, economic, and health inequality and COVID-19 infection in the United States. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 8(3), 732–742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartolomeo LA, Chapman HC, Raugh IM, & Strauss GP (2021). Delay discounting in youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis and adults with schizophrenia. Psychological medicine, 51(11), 1898–1905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Byrne A, Barber R, & Lim CH (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic–a mental health service perspective. Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry, 25(2), 27–33b. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chang WC, Strauss GP, Ahmed AO, Wong SC, Chan JK, Lee EH, … & Chen EY (2021). The latent structure of negative symptoms in individuals with attenuated psychosis syndrome and early psychosis: support for the 5 consensus domains. Schizophrenia bulletin, 47(2), 386–394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Correa-Palacio AF, Hernandez-Huerta D, Gómez-Arnau J, Loeck C, & Caballero I. (2020). Affective psychosis after COVID-19 infection in a previously healthy patient: a case report. Psychiatry research, 290, 113115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cullen W, Gulati G, & Kelly BD (2020). Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 113(5), 311–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dean DJ, Tso IF, Giersch A, Lee HS, Baxter T, Griffith T, … & Park S. (2021). Cross-cultural comparisons of psychosocial distress in the USA, South Korea, France, and Hong Kong during the initial phase of COVID-19. Psychiatry research, 295, 113593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eichstaedt JC, Sherman GT, Giorgi S, Roberts SO, Reynolds ME, Ungar LH, & Guntuku SC (2021). The emotional and mental health impact of the murder of George Floyd on the US population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(39), e2109139118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fonseca L, Diniz E, Mendonca G, Malinowski F, Mari J, & Gadelha A. (2020). Schizophrenia and COVID-19: risks and recommendations. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 236–238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gizdic A, Baxter T, Barrantes-Vidal N, & Park S. (2022). Loneliness and psychosocial predictors of psychosis-proneness during COVID-19: Preliminary findings from Croatia. Psychiatry research, 317, 114900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gold JM, Corlett PR, Strauss GP, Schiffman J, Ellman LM, Walker EF, … & Mittal VA (2020). Enhancing psychosis risk prediction through computational cognitive neuroscience. Schizophrenia bulletin, 46(6), 1346–1352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamada K, & Fan X. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on individuals living with serious mental illness. Schizophrenia research, 222, 3–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Iasevoli F, Fornaro M, D’Urso G, Galletta D, Casella C, Paternoster M, … & COVID-19 in Psychiatry Study Group. (2021). Psychological distress in patients with serious mental illness during the COVID-19 outbreak and one-month mass quarantine in Italy. Psychological medicine, 51(6), 1054–1056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaymaz N, Drukker M, Lieb R, Wittchen HU, Werbeloff N, Weiser M, … & Van Os, J. (2012). Do subthreshold psychotic experiences predict clinical outcomes in unselected non-help-seeking population-based samples? A systematic review and meta-analysis, enriched with new results. Psychological medicine, 42(11), 2239–2253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kline E, Wilson C, Ereshefsky S, Denenny D, Thompson E, Pitts SC, … & Schiffman J. (2012). Psychosis risk screening in youth: a validation study of three self-report measures of attenuated psychosis symptoms. Schizophrenia research, 141(1), 72–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Laurencin CT, & Walker JM (2020). A pandemic on a pandemic: Racism and COVID-19 in Blacks. Cell systems, 11(1), 9–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee HS, Dean D, Baxter T, Griffith T, & Park S. (2021). Deterioration of mental health despite successful control of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea. Psychiatry research, 295, 113570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee S, & Waters SF (2021). Asians and Asian Americans’ experiences of racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on health outcomes and the buffering role of social support. Stigma and Health, 6(1), 70. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu Y, Finch BK, Brenneke SG, Thomas K, & Le PD (2020). Perceived discrimination and mental distress amid the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the understanding America study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 59(4), 481–492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Loch AA, Mota NB, Rössler W, & Gattaz WF (2022). Exacerbation of psychosis risk during the COVID-19 pandemic: The disproportionate impact on the lower income population. Psychiatry Research, 307, 114319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Maital S, & Barzani E. (2020). The global economic impact of COVID-19: A summary of research. Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research, 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  22. Maleku A, Kim YK, Kirsch J, Um MY, Haran H, Yu M, & Moon SS (2022). The hidden minority: Discrimination and mental health among international students in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(5), e2419–e2432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mengin AC, Allé MC, Koning E, Pham B, Park S, Berna F, & Giersch A. (2022). Facing the pandemic and lockdown: an insight on mental health from a longitudinal study using diaries. Schizophrenia, 8(1), 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller T. (2004). The SIPS-Screen: a brief self-report screen to detect the schizophrenia prodrome. Schizophr Res, 78. [Google Scholar]
  25. Millman ZB, Rakhshan Rouhakhtar PJ, DeVylder JE, Smith ME, Phalen PL, Woods SW, … & Schiffman J (2019). Evidence for differential predictive performance of the prime screen between black and white help-seeking youths. Psychiatric Services, 70(10), 907–914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Noone R, Cabassa JA, Gardner L, Schwartz B, Alpert JE, & Gabbay V. (2020). New onset psychosis and mania following COVID-19 infection. Journal of psychiatric research, 130, 177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Novacek DM, Hampton-Anderson JN, Ebor MT, Loeb TB, & Wyatt GE (2020). Mental health ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Black Americans: Clinical and research recommendations. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(5), 449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. O’Donoghue B, Collett H, Boyd S, Zhou Y, Castagnini E, Brown E, … & McGorry P. (2022). The incidence and admission rate for first-episode psychosis in young people before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Melbourne, Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 56(7), 811–817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Olbert CM, Nagendra A, & Buck B. (2018). Meta-analysis of Black vs. White racial disparity in schizophrenia diagnosis in the United States: Do structured assessments attenuate racial disparities?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(1), 104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Parra A, Juanes A, Losada CP, Álvarez-Sesmero S, Santana VD, Martí I, … & Rentero, D. (2020). Psychotic symptoms in COVID-19 patients. A retrospective descriptive study. Psychiatry research, 291, 113254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pardamean E, Roan W, Iskandar KTA, Prayangga R, & Hariyanto TI (2022). Mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. General hospital psychiatry. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruiz NG, Horowitz J, & Tami C. (2020). Many Black and Asian Americans say they have experienced discrimination amid the COVID-19 outbreak. [Google Scholar]
  33. Salerno JP, Devadas J, Pease M, Nketia B, & Fish JN (2020). Sexual and gender minority stress amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for LGBTQ young persons’ mental health and well-being. Public Health Reports, 135(6), 721–727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwartz RC, & Blankenship DM (2014). Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis: A review of empirical literature. World journal of psychiatry, 4(4), 133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith K, Bhui K, & Cipriani A. (2020). COVID-19, mental health and ethnic minorities. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 23(3), 89–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Staines L, Healy C, Coughlan H, Clarke M, Kelleher I, Cotter D, & Cannon M. (2022). Psychotic experiences in the general population, a review; definition, risk factors, outcomes and interventions. Psychological Medicine, 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Strauss GP, Bartolomeo LA, & Luther L. (2023). Reduced willingness to expend effort for rewards is associated with risk for conversion and negative symptom severity in youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Strauss GP, & Chapman HC (2018). Preliminary psychometric properties of the brief negative symptom scale in youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis. Schizophrenia research, 193, 435–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Strauss GP, Datta R, Armstrong W, Raugh IM, Kraguljac NV, & Lahti AC (2021). Reinforcement learning abnormalities in the attenuated psychosis syndrome and first episode psychosis. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 47, 11–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Strauss GP, Macdonald KI, Ruiz I, Raugh IM, Bartolomeo LA, & James SH (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on negative symptoms in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis and outpatients with chronic schizophrenia. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 272(1), 17–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tan SB, DeSouza P, & Raifman M. (2022). Structural racism and COVID-19 in the USA: a county-level empirical analysis. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 9(1), 236–246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomeer Mieke Beth, Moody Myles D., and Yahirun Jenjira. “Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and mental health care during the CoViD-19 pandemic.” Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities (2022): 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Travers JL, Agarwal M, Estrada LV, Dick AW, Gracner T, Wu B, & Stone PW (2021). Assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality rates among nursing homes with different proportions of Black residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 22(4), 893–898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tso IF, & Park S. (2020). Alarming levels of psychiatric symptoms and the role of loneliness during the COVID-19 epidemic: A case study of Hong Kong. Psychiatry research, 293, 113423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tzur Bitan D, Krieger I, Kridin K, Komantscher D, Scheinman Y, Weinstein O, … & Feingold D. (2021). COVID-19 prevalence and mortality among schizophrenia patients: a large-scale retrospective cohort study. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 47(5), 1211–1217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Valdés-Florido MJ, López-Díaz Á, Palermo-Zeballos FJ, Martínez-Molina I, Martín-Gil VE, Crespo-Facorro B, & Ruiz-Veguilla M. (2020). Reactive psychoses in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical perspectives from a case series. Revista de psiquiatria y salud mental, 13(2), 90–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. World Health Organization. (2022). Coronavirus disease (covid-19) situation reports. World Health Organization. Retrieved January 6, 2023, from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports [Google Scholar]
  48. Winkler P, Formanek T, Mlada K, Kagstrom A, Mohrova Z, Mohr P, & Csemy L. (2020). Increase in prevalence of current mental disorders in the context of COVID-19: analysis of repeated nationwide cross-sectional surveys. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wu C, Qian Y, & Wilkes R. (2021). Anti-Asian discrimination and the Asian-white mental health gap during COVID-19. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 819–835. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

De-identified data will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

RESOURCES