Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2021 Feb 5;10(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s40163-020-00137-2

Table 5.

Negative emotional wellbeing outcomes by worry group

	Dependent variable
	Emotion score
	(1)	(2)
Functional worry^a	0.913	0.936
	(0.026)	(0.031)
	p = 0.0005^***	p = 0.034^**
Dysfunctional worry^a	1.164	1.162
	(0.021)	(0.025)
	p = 0.000^***	p = 0.000^***
Had COVID-19		0.977
		(0.031)
		p = 0.443
Affected by COVID-19		1.061
		(0.016)
		p = 0.0002^***
Age 25–44^b		0.946
		(0.029)
		p = 0.057^*
Age 45–64^b		0.885
		(0.032)
		p = 0.0002^***
Age 65+^b		0.826
		(0.044)
		p = 0.00002^***
Female (ref: Male)		1.007
		(0.022)
		p = 0.761
White (ref: BAME)		1.097
		(0.039)
		p = 0.017^**
Is keyworker		1.010
		(0.004)
		p = 0.027^**
Cardiff^c		0.955
		(0.049)
		p = 0.355
Edinburgh^c		0.900
		(0.051)
		p = 0.039^**
Glasgow^c		0.985
		(0.049)
		p = 0.752
Leeds^c		1.003
		(0.049)
		p = 0.958
Liverpool^c		0.957 (0.051)
Liverpool^c		p = 0.393
London^c		0.997
		(0.050)
		p = 0.950
Manchester^c		1.018
		(0.050)
		p = 0.728
Newcastle^c		1.005
		(0.050)
		p = 0.917
Sheffield^c		0.910
		(0.052)
		p = 0.069^*
Constant	14.312	14.093
	(0.016)	(0.134)
	p = 0.000^***	p = 0.000^***
Observations	1058	780
Log Likelihood	− 2443.521	− 1619.934
theta	151.136^* (77.824)	114,651.800 (1,204,052.000)
Akaike Inf. Crit.	4893.042	3279.869

Negative binomial generalized linear model estimated using R (package MASS). Source: Wave 2 of Policing the pandemic. Total n = 1058

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

^aReference category: Unworried

^bReference category: Age 16–24

^cReference category: Birmingham