Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257304

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

Ahmed Suparno Bahar Moni 1,*, Shalimar Abdullah 2, Mohammad Farris Iman Leong Bin Abdullah 1, Mohammed Shahjahan Kabir 3, Sheikh M Alif 4, Farhana Sultana 5,6, Masudus Salehin 7, Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam 8, Wendy Cross 7, Muhammad Aziz Rahman 7,9,10,11,*
Editor: Alessio Gori12
PMCID: PMC8432783  PMID: 34506576

Abstract

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has enormously affected the psychological well-being, social and working life of millions of people across the world. This study aimed to investigate the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors among Malaysian residents.

Methods

Participants were invited to an online cross-sectional survey from Aug-Sep 2020. The study assessed psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, level of fear using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and coping strategies using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders.

Results

The mean age (±SD) of the participants (N = 720) was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them were females (67.1%). Half of the participants had an income source, while 216 (30%) identified themselves as frontline health or essential service workers. People whose financial situation was impacted due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54–3.03), people who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (3.43, 1.45–8.10), people who were a patient (2.02, 1.39–2.93), and had higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (2.55, 1.70–3.80) were more likely to have higher levels of psychological distress. Participants who self-isolated due to exposure to COVID-19 (3.12, 1.04–9.32) and who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (2.56, 1.71–3.83) had higher levels of fear. Participants who provided care to a family member/patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 were more likely to be moderately to highly resilient compared to those who did not.

Conclusion

Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period.

Introduction

The world is currently facing a pandemic due to the rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As of 23rd March 2021, an estimated 124,291,475 confirmed cases and around 2,735,205 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 affecting more than 219 countries and territories across the world [1]. Malaysia has reported 334,156 confirmed cases with 1,238 cumulative deaths with a case fatality rate of 0.4% [1]. Although the case fatality rate was low in Malaysia compared to other developed countries like USA or UK, people were anxious as the virus could spread rapidly from one person to another through direct or indirect contact [2].

In Malaysia, the first COVID-19 case was detected on 25 January 2020 [3]. With a surge in cases thereafter, physical distancing rules, restrictions on social gatherings, appropriate use of face masks, Movement Control Order (MCO), Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO), extended movement control order, and border closures were implemented by the Malaysian Government between mid-March to August-2020 to curb the spread of the disease [4]. However, Malaysia has seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and is currently facing a third wave of infection and is under the second CMCO from 9-November-2020 in all states except Perlis, Kelantan, Pahang and Sarawak. Malaysia has launched COVID-19 vaccination program on the 24th February 2021 [5]. The impact of all these spatial distancing policies and the uncertainty of returning to normalcy have direct and indirect impact on social life as well as mental wellbeing of the community people. Those interim actions such as MCOs or lockdowns, physical distancing and quarantine have reportedly led to heightened fears, stress and anxiety amongst individuals globally.

A recent review found women, younger individuals, those living in rural areas, those with lower socioeconomic status, those at higher-risk of COVID-19 infection and longer media exposure to be associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression [6]. Individual studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic affected people in different countries in different ways with some groups being more vulnerable than others. In Australia, pre-existing mental health conditions, increased smoking and alcohol during the lockdown and high levels of fear and being female were associated with higher levels of psychological distress [7]. Similarly, in the UK, females, younger age, lower annual income, smokers and co-morbidity were associated with poor mental health [8]. While in Italy, female gender, negative affect and detachment were associated with higher levels of stress [9]. In some studies in China, frequent and prolonged social media exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be strongly associated with anxiety and depression [10].

Previous studies have reported the negative influence of pandemics on psychological well-being, which can lead to acute depression and anxiety [7, 11]. Evidence suggests that frontline healthcare workers, who were directly involved in the collection of samples, diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients during an outbreak were at higher risk of developing psychological distress and mental health symptoms [12]. Previous evidence documented immediate psychological impacts amongst frontline healthcare workers with symptoms of anxiety, distress, depression, fear of spreading infection to family, friends and colleagues [7, 13]. Lower sleep quality due to anxiety and stress, which eventually reduced self-efficacy exponentially among the medical staff has also been reported [14].

Only recently studies have emerged to show the negative impact of the pandemic on children, older people, pregnant women, university students, people with weight issues and the general population as a whole. An Iranian study revealed effect of fear of COVID-19 was significantly associated with depression, anxiety, suicidal intention and mental quality of life among the pregnant women [15]. In a study with older people, fear of COVID-19 significantly mediated the association between perceived health status, and insomnia, mental health and COVID-19 preventative behaviours [16]. A recent study among university students from Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand found that Thai students had the highest level of anxiety but limited resources to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas Taiwanese students were more negatively affected by information gathering from the internet; such less perceived satisfactory support was associated with more suicidal thoughts among Indonesian students [17]. Stressors of COIVD-19 pandemic could also result in behaviour impairments of children and adolescents, which could potentially impact psychological wellbeing in early life and adulthood [18].

Studies on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health are limited in Malaysia and most of them were conducted amongst students. In one study using online survey, out of 983 Malaysian students, 20.4%, 6.6%, and 2.8% experienced minimal to moderate, marked to severe, and most extreme levels of anxiety, respectively. Female gender, age under 18 years, pre-university level of education, management studies, and staying alone were significantly associated with higher levels of anxiety. The main stressors included financial constraints, remote online teaching, and uncertainty about the future regarding study and career also affecting the mental health [2]. In another study amongst Malaysian university students, the prevalence of anxiety was much higher; 30.5% were experiencing mild, 31.1% moderate, and 26.1% severe anxiety; age >20 years, Chinese ethnicity, decreased family income, co-morbid conditions, and spending time watching COVID-related news and infected friends and relatives were found to be associated with increased anxiety [19]. In another study in Malaysia age <25 years and females were more likely to have higher levels of fear of COVID-19; however, 70% of the respondents were also students in this study [20].

There is limited evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a whole and amongst community members and healthcare workers in Malaysia. We, therefore, conducted this study to understand the extent of the mental health burden in the community settings in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study will identify population subgroups more at risk of developing poor mental health outcomes and enable policy makers to guide resource planning and design psychosocial interventions targeted to these high-risk and vulnerable groups of population.

Materials and methods

Study design and settings

A cross-sectional study was conducted between August and September 2020. An online survey link was shared in different online platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn inviting online users to participate in this study.

Study population

Study participants included patients, university students and healthcare professionals residing in Malaysia. To be eligible, participants had to be 18 years or above and were literate enough to respond to an online questionnaire in English. The participants who took <1 minute to complete the questionnaire, were excluded during analyses.

Sampling

Sample size was calculated using OpenEpi [21]. Considering 32.6 million population of Malaysia [22], 30% estimated prevalence of stress amongst Malaysians [23, 24], at 95% confidence intervals and 80% power, the estimated minimum sample size was 323. Snowball sampling technique was used to recruit the study participants. Once any participant filled up the online questionnaire, h/she forwarded the survey link to own personal/professional networks.

Data collection

Google form was used to develop the study questionnaire. The first page included participant information statement and the consent form. Participants, who provided consents, could move to the next screen. There were two screening questions to determine eligibility of the study participants, one was age and the other was location of residence. Eligible participants accessed the full study questionnaire and responses were collected anonymously. The online survey link was shared through university/hospital staff/students’ emails, text messages, WhatsApp and other social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Patients visiting any healthcare settings or university students within the defined study period were informed about the study and of the online link by the respective healthcare professionals or university faculty members.

Study tool

We used the same survey questionnaire (except residence location/region in Malaysia) which was used earlier by the Australian investigators included in this study [7]. Three validated tools were included in the survey questionnaire. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) tool having ten items was used to assess psychological distress [25], the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) having seven items was used to assess the levels of fear [26], and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) having four items was used to assess the levels of coping [27]. Each of those tools collected responses using a 5-point likert scale and the scoring was categorised as discussed in earlier study [7]. Reliability of using these tools had also been examined in a recent study [28]. The questionnaire was pre-tested and no changes were made.

Data analyses

Data from Google forms were downloaded and analysed using STATA v.12. Continuous variables were described using descriptive statistics such as mean standard deviations, and proportions. Scoring in the K10 scale was re-defined into low (score 10–15) and moderate to very high (score 16–50), the FCV-19S scale to low (score 7–21) and high (score 22–35) and BRCS scale categorised into low (score 4–13) and medium to high (score 14–20) resilient coping. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to investigate the associations. The multivariate models were adjusted for socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, living status, country of birth, education, and employment status.

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM/JEPeM/COVID19-40). Data were collected anonymously and could not be linked back to identify any participant. Contact details of Befrienders was included at the end of the online questionnaire, allowing participant/s to access necessary support in case of distress during filling questionnaire.

Results

A total of 720 individuals participated in this study. Mean age (±SD) of the participants was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them (56.7%) were in the age group 18–29 years. More than two-thirds of the participants (67.1%) were females. A quarter of the study population (27.1%) was from Penang, and another quarter (22.9%) was from Perak in Malaysia. Almost all of them (90.8%) were born in Malaysia. A third of the study population (30%) identified themselves as frontline or essential service workers, and a third (31.9%) was identified as patients. Details of the characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.

Characteristics Total, n(%)
Total study participants 720
Age (in years) 702
Mean (±SD) 31.7 (11.5)
Range 19 to 76
Age groups 702
18–29 years 398 (56.7)
30–59 years 282 (40.2)
≥60 years 22 (3.1)
Gender 720
Male 235 (32.6)
Female 483 (67.1)
Others 2 (0.3)
Location in Malaysia 720
Johor 24 (3.3)
Kedah 50 (6.9)
Kelantan 60 (8.3)
Kuala Lumpur 72 (10.0)
Kuala Terengganu 5 (0.7)
Malacca 7 (1.0)
Nigari Sembilan 8 (1.1)
Pahang 16 (2.2)
Penang 195 (27.1)
Perak 165 (22.9)
Perlis 3 (0.4)
Sabah 13 (1.8)
Sarawak 6 (0.8)
Selangor 96 (13.3)
Living status 718
Live without family members (on your own/shared house/others) 136 (18.9)
Live with family members (partner and/or children) 559 (77.9)
Born in Malaysia 720
No 66 (9.2)
Yes 654 (90.8)
Completed level of education 716
Secondary 113 (15.8)
Diploma 119 (16.6)
Degree (Bachelor) 301 (42.0)
Masters and above 183 (25.6)
Current employment condition 710
Unemployed/Home duties (No source of income) 309 (43.5)
Jobs affected by COVID-19 (lost job/working hours reduced/afraid of job loss) 46 (6.5)
Have an income source (employed/Government benefits) 355 (50.0)
Perceived distress due to change of employment status 699
A little to none 482 (69.0)
Moderate to a great deal 217 (31.0)
Self-identification as a frontline or essential service worker 720
No 504 (70.0)
Yes 216 (30.0)
COVID-19 impacted financial situation 720
No 379 (52.6)
Yes 341 (47.4)
Co-morbidities 612
No 478 (78.1)
Psychiatric/Mental health problem 20 (3.3)
Other co-morbidities* 114 (18.6)
Smoking 720
Never smoker 656 (91.1)
Ever smoker (Daily/Non-daily/Ex) 64 (8.9)
Current alcohol drinking (last 4 weeks) 713
No 665 (93.3)
Yes 48 (6.7)
Increased alcohol drinking over the last 4 weeks 48
No 34 (70.8)
Yes 14 (29.2)
Provided care to a family member/patient with known/suspected case of COVID-19 715
No 647 (90.5)
Yes 68 (9.5)
Experience related to COVID-19 pandemic (multiple responses possible) 688
No known exposure to COVID-19 638 (92.7)
I had recent overseas travel history and was in self-quarantine 10 (1.5)
I have been tested negative for COVID-19 but self-isolating 40 (5.8)
Self-identification as a patient (visited a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks) 715

No

487 (68.1)
Yes 228 (31.9)
Healthcare service use in the last 4 weeks 301
Telehealth consultation/Use of national helpline 240 (79.7)
In-person visit to a healthcare provider 45 (15.0)
Used both services 16 (5.3)
Healthcare service use to overcome COVID-19 related stress in the last 4 weeks 707
No 689 (97.5)
Yes 18 (2.5)

* Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidaemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory illness

About two-thirds of the study participants (62.1%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Only a quarter (27.1%) reported high levels of fear of COVID-19 and two-thirds of the participants (65.1%) were identified as having medium to high resilient coping (Tables 24).

Table 2. Level of psychological distress among the study participants.

Anxiety and Depression Checklist (K10) (last 4 weeks) Total, n(%)
About how often did you feel tired out for no good reason? 720
None 184 (25.6)
A little 182 (25.3)
Sometime 248 (34.4)
Most of the time 83 (11.5)
All the time 23 (3.2)
About how often did you feel nervous? 720
None 229 (31.8)
A little 221 (30.7)
Sometime 206 (28.6)
Most of the time 55 (7.6)
All the time 9 (1.3)
About how often did you feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down? 720
None 378 (52.5)
A little 178 (24.7)
Sometime 129 (17.9)
Most of the time 31 (4.3)
All the time 4 (0.6)
About how often did you feel hopeless? 720
None 361 (50.1)
A little 176 (24.4)
Sometime 120 (16.7)
Most of the time 51 (7.1)
All the time 12 (1.7)
About how often did you feel restless or fidgety? 720
None 296 (41.1)
A little 200 (27.8)
Sometime 164 (22.8)
Most of the time 46 (6.4)
All the time 14 (1.9)
About how often did you feel so restless you could not sit still? 720
None 382 (53.1)
A little 175 (24.3)
Sometime 134 (18.6)
Most of the time 22 (3.1)
All the time 7 (1.0)
About how often did you feel so depressed? 720
None 310 (43.1)
A little 205 (28.5)
Sometime 139 (19.3)
Most of the time 48 (6.7)
All the time 18 (2.5)
About how often did you feel that everything was an effort? 720
None 194 (26.9)
A little 224 (31.1)
Sometime 178 (24.7)
Most of the time 98 (13.6)
All the time 26 (3.6)
About how often did you feel so sad that nothing could cheer you up? 720
None 325 (45.1)
A little 194 (26.9)
Sometime 144 (20.0)
Most of the time 42 (5.8)
All the time 15 (2.1)
About how often did you feel worthless? 720
None 378 (52.5)
A little 178 (24.7)
Sometime 107 (14.9)
Most of the time 34 (4.7)
All the time 23 (3.2)
K10 score (total) 720
Mean (±SD) 20.0 (8.3)
Range 10 to 50
Level of psychological distress (K10 categories) 720
Low (score 10–15) 273 (37.9)
Moderate (score 16–21) 177 (24.6)
High (score 22–29) 151 (21.0)
Very high (score 30–50) 119 (16.5)

Table 4. Coping during COVID-19 pandemic among the study participants.

Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) individual items Total, n(%)
I look for creative ways to alter difficult situations 720
Does not describe me at all 24 (3.3)
Does not describe me 55 (7.6)
Neutral 289 (40.1)
Describes me 270 (37.5)
Describes me very well 82 (11.4)
Regardless of what happens to me, I believe I can control my reaction to it 720
Does not describe me at all 7 (1.0)
Does not describe me 56 (7.8)
Neutral 249 (34.6)
Describes me 302 (41.9)
Describes me very well 106 (14.7)
I believe I can grow in positive ways by dealing with difficult situations 720
Does not describe me at all 10 (1.4)
Does not describe me 33 (4.6)
Neutral 182 (25.3)
Describes me 348 (48.3)
Describes me very well 147 (20.4)
I actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life 720
Does not describe me at all 26 (3.6)
Does not describe me 40 (5.6)
Neutral 281 (39.0)
Describes me 304 (42.2)
Describes me very well 69 (9.6)
BRCS score (total) 720
Mean (±SD) 14.4 (2.7)
Range 4 to 20
Level of coping (BRCS categories) 720
Low resilient coping (score 4–13) 251 (34.9)
Medium resilient coping (score 14–16) 345 (47.9)
High resilient coping (score 17–20) 124 (17.2)

Table 3. Level of fear of COVID-19 among the study participants.

Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) individual items Total, n(%)
I am most afraid of COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 106 (14.7)
Somewhat disagree 109 (15.1)
Neither agree nor disagree 150 (20.8)
Somewhat agree 237 (32.9)
Strongly agree 118 (16.4)
It makes me uncomfortable to think about COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 136 (18.9)
Somewhat disagree 118 (16.4)
Neither agree nor disagree 165 (22.9)
Somewhat agree 230 (31.9)
Strongly agree 71 (9.9)
My hands become clammy when I think about COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 333 (46.3)
Somewhat disagree 166 (23.1)
Neither agree nor disagree 164 (22.8)
Somewhat agree 42 (5.8)
Strongly agree 15 (2.1)
I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 188 (26.1)
Somewhat disagree 113 (15.7)
Neither agree nor disagree 154 (21.4)
Somewhat agree 180 (25.0)
Strongly agree 85 (11.8)
When watching news and stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious 720
Strongly disagree 165 (22.9)
Somewhat disagree 139 (19.3)
Neither agree nor disagree 161 (22.4)
Somewhat agree 216 (30.0)
Strongly agree 39 (5.4)
I cannot sleep because I’m worrying about getting COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 413 (57.4)
Somewhat disagree 135 (18.8)
Neither agree nor disagree 129 (17.9)
Somewhat agree 33 (4.6)
Strongly agree 10 (1.4)
My heart races or palpitates when I think about getting COVID-19 720
Strongly disagree 346 (48.1)
Somewhat disagree 123 (17.1)
Neither agree nor disagree 142 (19.7)
Somewhat agree 90 (12.5)
Strongly agree 19 (2.6)
FCV-19S score (total) 720
Mean (±SD) 17.5 (6.3)
Range 7 to 35
Level of fear of COVID-19 (FCV-19S categories) 720
Low (score 7–21) 525 (72.9)
High (score 22–35) 195 (27.1)

Table 5 shows the univariate and multivariate analyses regarding factors associated with psychological distress. Moderate to very high levels of psychological distress was associated with impacted financial situation due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54–3.03, p<0.001), alcohol drinking in the last four weeks (AOR 3.43, 95% CIs 1.45–8.10, p<0.01), being a patient (AOR 2.02, 95% CIs 1.39–2.93, p<0.001), and having higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (AOR 2.55, 95% CIs 1.70–3.80, p<0.001). However, those in the older age groups i.e. 30–59 years (AOR 0.51, 95% CIs 0.27–0.95, p<0.05), those of ≥60 years old (AOR 0.07, 95% CIs 0.01–0.37, p<0.01) and those who had medium to highly resilient coping (AOR 0.54, 95% CIs 0.38–0.77, p<0.01) were less likely experience higher psychological distress (Table 5).

Table 5. Factors associated with high psychological distress among the study population (based on K10 scoring).

Characteristics Moderate to Very High (score 16–50), n(%) Low (score 10–15), n(%) Unadjusted analyses Adjusted analyses
p OR 95% CIs p AOR 95% CIs
Total study participants 447 273    
Age groups 433 269    
18–29 years 278 (64.2) 120 (44.6)   1   1
30–59 years 153 (35.3) 129 (48.0) <0.001 0.51 0.37–0.70 0.035 0.51 0.27–0.95
≥60years 2 (0.5) 20 (7.4) <0.001 0.04 0.01–0.19 0.002 0.07 0.01–0.37
Gender 445 273    
Male 126 (28.3) 109 (39.9)   1   1
Female 319 (71.17) 164 (60.1) 0.001 1.68 1.22–2.31 0.186 1.57 0.80–3.07
Living status 426 269    
Live without family members (on your own/shared house/others) 90 (21.1) 46 (17.1)   1   1
Live with family members (partner and/or children) 336 (78.9) 223 (82.9) 0.193 0.77 0.52–1.14 0.729 0.80 0.23–2.79
Born in Malaysia 447 273    
No 53 (11.9) 13 (4.8)   1   1
Yes 394 (88.1) 260 (95.2) 0.001 0.37 0.20–0.70 0.257 0.60 0.24–1.46
Completed level of education 444 272    
Secondary 76 (17.1) 37 (13.6)   1   1
Diploma 76 (17.1) 43 (15.8) 0.587 0.86 0.50–1.48 0.744 0.78 0.17–3.54
Degree (Bachelor) 209 (47.1) 92 (33.8) 0.670 1.11 0.70–1.76 0.466 0.52 0.09–2.99
Masters and above 83 (18.7) 100 (36.8) <0.001 0.40 0.25–0.66 0.466 0.66 0.22–2.01
Current employment condition 441 269    
Unemployed/Home duties 167 (37.9) 142 (52.8)   1   1
Jobs affected by COVID-19 (lost job/working hours reduced/afraid of job loss) 29 (6.6) 17 (6.3) 0.254 1.45 0.77–2.75 0.698 1.24 0.42–3.69
Have an income source (employed/Government benefits) 245 (55.6) 110 (40.9) <0.001 1.89 1.38–2.60 0.887 1.08 0.36–3.27
Perceived distress due to change of employment status 434 265    
A little to none 319 (73.5) 163 (61.5)   1   1
Moderate to a great deal 115 (26.5) 102 (38.5) 0.001 0.58 0.42–0.80 0.981 NA NA
Self-identification as a frontline or essential service worker 447 273    
No 289 (64.7) 215 (78.8)   1   1
Yes 158 (35.3) 58 (21.2) <0.001 2.03 1.43–2.87 0.071 1.59 0.96–2.63
COVID-19 impacted financial situation 447 273    
No 200 (44.7) 179 (65.6)   1   1
Yes 247 (55.3) 94 (34.4) <0.001 2.35 1.72–3.21 0.000 2.16 1.54–3.03
Co-morbidities 372 240    
No 274 (73.7) 204 (85.0)   1   1
Psychiatric/Mental health problem 10 (2.7) 10 (4.2) 0.518 0.74 0.30–1.82 0.254 0.24 0.02–2.79
Other co-morbidities* 88 (23.7) 26 (10.8) <0.001 2.52 1.57–4.05 0.285 1.47 0.73–2.97
Smoking 447 273    
Never smoker 405 (90.6) 251 (91.9)   1   1
Ever smoker (Daily/Non-daily/Ex) 42 (9.4) 22 (8.1) 0.541 1.18 0.69–2.03 0.734 0.83 0.28–2.47
Current alcohol drinking (last 4 weeks) 443 270    
No 403 (91.0) 262 (97.0)   1   1
Yes 40 (9.0) 8 (3.0) 0.002 3.25 1.50–7.06 0.005 3.43 1.45–8.10
Provided care to a family member/patient with known/suspected case of COVID-19 443 272    
No 394 (88.9) 253 (93.0)   1   1
Yes 49 (11.1) 19 (7.0) 0.071 1.66 0.95–2.88 0.120 1.60 0.89–2.89
Experience related to COVID-19 pandemic 423 265    
No known exposure to COVID-19 385 (91.0) 253 (95.5)   1   1
I had recent overseas travel history and was in self-quarantine 7 (1.7) 3 (1.1) 0.538 1.53 0.39–5.98 NA NA NA
I have been tested negative for COVID-19 but self-isolating 31 7.3) 9 (3.4) 0.035 2.26 1.06–4.83 0.592 0.74 0.25–2.23
Self-identification as a patient (visited a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks) 444 271    
No 280 (63.1) 207 (76.4)   1   1
Yes 164 (36.9) 64 (23.6) <0.001 1.89 1.35–2.66 0.000 2.02 1.39–2.93
Healthcare service use in the last 4 weeks 207 94    
Telehealth consultation/Use of national helpline 34 (16.4) 11 (11.7)   1   1
In-person visit to a healthcare provider 160 (77.3) 80 (85.1) 0.243 0.65 0.31–1.34 0.473 0.76 0.35–1.62
Used both services 13 (6.3) 3 (3.2) 0.643 1.40 0.34–5.84 0.551 1.57 0.36–6.84
Level of fear of COVID-19 (FCV-19S categories) 447 273    
Low (score 7–21) 301 (67.3) 224 (82.1)   1   1
High (score 22–35) 146 (32.7) 49 (17.9) <0.001 2.22 1.54–3.20 0.000 2.55 1.70–3.80
Level of coping (BRCS categories) 447 273    
Low resilient coping (score 4–13) 176 (39.4) 75 (27.5)   1   1
Medium to high resilient coping (score 14–20) 271 (60.6) 198 (72.5) 0.001 0.58 0.42–0.81 0.001 0.54 0.38–0.77
Healthcare service use to overcome COVID-19 related stress in the last 4 weeks 440 267    
No 426 (96.8) 263 (98.5)   1   1
Yes 14 (3.2) 4 (1.5) 0.168 2.16 0.70–6.63 0.196 2.13 0.68–6.69

Adjusted for: age, gender, living status, born in Malaysia, education and employment

* Cardiac diseases/Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory disease

Table 6 shows the univariate and multivariate analyses regarding factors associated with fear of COVID-19. Study participants who had been tested negative for COVID-19 but were self-isolating (AOR 3.12, 95% CIs 1.04–9.32, p<0.05) and those who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (AOR 2.56, 95% CIs 1.71–3.83, p<0.001) also had high levels of fear. Conversely, study participants who were born in Malaysia (AOR 0.39, 95% CIs 0.18–0.86, p<0.05) and who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (AOR 0.26, 95% CIs 0.10–0.68, p<0.01) had lower levels of fear in this study (Table 6).

Table 6. Factors associated with high levels of fear of COVID-19 among the study population (based on FCV-19S scoring).

Characteristics High (score 22–35), n(%) Low (score 7–21), n(%) Unadjusted analyses Adjusted analyses
p OR 95% CIs p AOR 95% CIs
Total study participants 195 525    
Age groups 191 511    
18–29 years 105 (55.0) 293 (57.3)   1   1
30–59 years 81 (42.4) 201 (39.3) 0.500 1.12 0.80–1.58 0.493 1.25 0.66–2.39
≥60 years 5 (2.6) 17 (3.3) 0.705 0.82 0.30–2.28 0.599 0.70 0.18–2.67
Gender 195 523    
Male 65 (33.3) 170 (32.5)   1   1
Female 130 (66.7) 353 (67.5) 0.833 0.96 0.68–1.37 0.795 1.10 0.54–2.26
Living status 187 508    
Live without family members (on your own/shared house/others) 38 (20.3) 98 (19.3)   1   1
Live with family members (partner and/or children) 149 (79.7) 410 (80.7) 0.762 0.94 0.62–1.43 0.276 2.53 0.48–13.5
Born in Malaysia 195 525    
No 25 (12.8) 41 (7.8)   1   1
Yes 170 (87.2) 484 (92.2) 0.038 0.58 0.34–0.98 0.020 0.39 0.18–0.86
Completed level of education 194 522    
Secondary 35 (18.0) 78 (14.9)   1   1
Diploma 29 (14.9) 90 (17.2) 0.262 0.72 0.40–1.28 0.239 0.32 0.05–2.14
Degree (Bachelor) 81 (41.8) 220 (42.1) 0.413 0.82 0.51–1.32 0.251 0.29 0.04–2.38
Masters and above 49 (25.3) 134 (25.7) 0.437 0.81 0.49–1.37 0.152 0.32 0.07–1.52
Current employment condition 96 259    
Unemployed/Home duties 88 (45.8) 221 (42.7)   1   1
Jobs affected by COVID-19 (lost job/working hours reduced/afraid of job loss) 8 (4.2) 38 (7.3) 0.119 0.53 0.24–1.18 0.212 0.46 0.13–1.56
Have an income source (employed/Government benefits) 96 (50.0) 259 (50.0) 0.680 0.93 0.66–1.31 0.893 0.92 0.29–2.98
Perceived distress due to change of employment status 189 510    
A little to none 130 (68.8) 352 (69.0)   1   1
Moderate to a great deal 59 (31.2) 158 (31.0) 0.952 1.01 0.71–1.45 NA NA NA
Self-identification as a frontline or essential service worker 195 525    
No 138 (70.8) 366 (69.7)   1   1
Yes 57 (29.2) 159 (30.3) 0.784 0.95 0.66–1.36 0.112 0.64 0.37–1.11
COVID-19 impacted financial situation 195 525    
No 92 (47.2) 287 (54.7)   1   1
Yes 103 (52.8) 238 (45.3) 0.074 1.35 0.97–1.88 0.119 1.33 0.93–1.89
Co-morbidities 161 451    
No 123 (76.4) 355 (78.7)   1   1
Psychiatric/Mental health problem 3 (1.9) 17 (3.8) 0.288 0.51 0.15–1.77 0.648 0.50 0.03–9.77
Other co-morbidities* 35 (21.7) 79 (17.5) 0.282 1.28 0.82–2.00 0.585 0.81 0.37–1.75
Smoking 195 525    
Never smoker 172 (88.2) 484 (92.2)   1   1
Ever smoker (Daily/Non-daily/Ex) 23 (11.8) 41 (7.8) 0.095 1.58 0.92–2.71 0.413 1.61 0.52–4.99
Current alcohol drinking (last 4 weeks) 193 520    
No 186 (96.4) 479 (92.1)   1   1
Yes 7 (3.6) 41 (7.9) 0.044 0.44 0.19–0.99 0.006 0.26 0.10–0.68
Provided care to a family member/patient with known/suspected case of COVID-19 194 521    
No 175 (90.2) 472 (90.6)   1   1
Yes 19 (9.8) 49 (9.4) 0.875 1.05 0.60–1.83 0.60 1.17 0.65–2.11
Experience related to COVID-19 pandemic 183 505    
No known exposure to COVID-19 164 (89.6) 474 (93.9)   1   1
I had recent overseas travel history and was in self-quarantine 4 (2.2) 6 (1.2) 0.314 1.93 0.54–6.91 NA NA NA
I have been tested negative for COVID-19 but self-isolating 15 (8.2) 25 (5.0) 0.104 1.73 0.89–3.37 0.042 3.12 1.04–9.32
Self-identification as a patient (visited a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks) 194 521    
No 132 (68.0) 355 (68.1)   1   1
Yes 62 (32.0) 166 (31.9) 0.980 1.00 0.71–1.43 0.924 1.02 0.70–1.48
Healthcare service use in the last 4 weeks 79 222    
Telehealth consultation/Use of national helpline 12 (15.2) 33 (14.9)   1   1
In-person visit to a healthcare provider 61 (77.2) 179 (80.6) 0.860 0.94 0.46–1.93 0.413 0.73 0.34–1.57
Used both services 6 (7.6) 10 (4.5) 0.417 1.65 0.49–5.53 0.804 1.18 0.33–4.24
Level of psychological distress (K10 categories) 195 525    
Low (score 10–15) 49 (25.1) 224 (42.7)   1   1
Moderate to Very High (score 16–50) 146 (74.9) 301 (57.3) <0.001 2.22 1.54–3.20 <0.001 2.56 1.71–3.83
Level of coping (BRCS categories) 195 525    
Low resilient coping (score 4–13) 77 (39.5) 174 (33.1)   1   1
Medium to high resilient coping (score 14–20) 118 (60.5) 351 (66.9) 0.112 0.76 0.54–1.07 0.074 0.72 0.50–1.03
Healthcare service use to overcome COVID-19 related stress in the last 4 weeks 191 516    
No 185 (96.9) 504 (97.7)   1   1
Yes 6 (3.1) 12 (2.3) 0.541 1.36 0.50–3.68 0.453 1.47 0.54–4.02

Adjusted for: age, gender, living status, born in Malaysia, education and employment

* Cardiac diseases/Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory disease

Study participants who provided care to a family member/patient with known/suspected case of COVID-19 had medium to high resilient coping (AOR 1.87, 95% CIs 1.01–3.46, p<0.05), whereas participants with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress had low resilient coping (AOR 0.54, 95% CIs 0.38–0.76, p<0.01) (Table 7).

Table 7. Factors associated with coping among the study population (based on BRCS scoring).

Characteristics Medium to High (score 14–20), n(%) Low (score 4–13), n(%) Unadjusted analyses Adjusted analyses
p OR 95% CIs p AOR 95% CIs
Total study participants 469 251    
Age groups 459 243    
18–29 years 250 (54.5) 148 (60.9)   1   1
30–59 years 195 (42.5) 87 (35.8) 0.087 1.33 0.96–1.84 0.525 1.23 0.65–2.34
≥60 years 14 (3.1) 8 (3.3) 0.938 1.04 0.42–2.53 0.831 0.88 0.27–2.84
Gender 468 250    
Male 153 (32.7) 82 (32.8)   1   1
Female 315 (67.3) 168 (67.2) 0.977 1.01 0.73–1.39 0.455 0.76 0.38–1.55
Living status 454 241    
Live without family members (on your own/shared house/others) 86 (18.9) 50 (20.7)   1   1
Live with family members (partner and/or children) 368 (81.1) 191 (79.3) 0.568 1.12 0.76–1.65 0.125 2.64 0.77–9.10
Born in Malaysia 469 251    
No 48 (10.2) 18 (7.2)   1   1
Yes 421 (89.8) 233 (92.8) 0.175 0.68 0.39–1.19 0.032 0.33 0.12–0.91
Completed level of education 466 250    
Secondary 77 (16.5) 36 (14.4)   1   1
Diploma 83 (17.8) 36 (14.4) 0.792 1.08 0.62–1.88 0.842 1.19 0.21–6.59
Degree (Bachelor) 192 (41.2) 109 (43.6) 0.408 0.82 0.52–1.30 0.899 0.88 0.13–5.90
Masters and above 114 (24.5) 69 (27.6) 0.308 0.77 0.47–1.27 0.083 0.39 0.13–1.13
Current employment condition 460 250    
Unemployed/Home duties 201 (43.7) 108 (43.2)   1   1
Jobs affected by COVID-19 (lost job/working hours reduced/afraid of job loss) 29 (6.3) 29 (6.3) 0.791 0.92 0.48–1.74 0.103 0.32 0.08–1.26
Have an income source (employed/Government benefits) 230 (50.0) 230 (50.0) 0.944 0.99 0.72–1.36 0.320 0.49 0.12–1.99
Perceived distress due to change of employment status 450 249    
A little to none 315 (70.0) 167 (67.1)   1   1
Moderate to a great deal 135 (30.0) 82 (32.9) 0.422 0.87 0.63–1.22 NA NA NA
Self-identification as a frontline or essential service worker 469 251    
No 327 (69.7) 177 (70.5)   1   1
Yes 142 (30.3) 74 (29.5) 0.824 1.04 0.74–1.45 0.655 0.89 0.55–1.46
COVID-19 impacted financial situation 469 251    
No 262 (55.9) 117 (46.6)   1   1
Yes 207 (44.1) 134 (53.4) 0.018 0.69 0.51–0.94 0.058 0.73 0.52–1.01
Co-morbidities 395 217    
No 304 (77.0) 174 (80.2)   1   1
Psychiatric/Mental health problem 11 (2.8) 9 (4.1) 0.437 0.70 0.28–1.72 0.629 1.67 0.21–13.2
Other co-morbidities* 80 (20.3) 34 (15.7) 0.187 1.35 0.87–2.10 0.391 1.34 0.21–13.2
Smoking 469 251    
Never smoker 423 (90.2) 233 (92.8)   1   1
Ever smoker (Daily/Non-daily/Ex) 46 (9.8) 18 (7.2) 0.236 1.41 0.80–2.48 0.564 1.41 0.44–4.52
Current alcohol drinking (last 4 weeks) 466 247    
No 434 (93.1) 231 (93.5)   1   1
Yes 32 (6.9) 16 (6.5) 0.844 1.07 0.57–1.98 0.813 1.08 0.56–2.09
Provided care to a family member/patient with known/suspected case of COVID-19 465 250    
No 415 (89.2) 232 (92.8)   1   1
Yes 50 (10.8) 18 (7.2) 0.123 1.55 0.89–2.73 0.046 1.87 1.01–3.46
Experience related to COVID-19 pandemic 442 246    
No known exposure to COVID-19 407 (92.1) 231 (92.1)   1   1
I had recent overseas travel history and was in self-quarantine 4 (0.9) 6 (2.4) 0.135 0.38 0.11–1.35 NA NA NA
I have been tested negative for COVID-19 but self-isolating 31 (7.0) 9 (3.7) 0.084 1.95 0.91–4.18 0.090 3.73 0.81–17.1
Self-identification as a patient (visited a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks) 468 247    
No 324 (69.2) 163 (66.0)   1   1
Yes 144 (30.8) 84 (34.0) 0.377 0.86 0.62–1.20 0.283 0.83 0.58–1.17
Healthcare service use in the last 4 weeks 184 177    
Telehealth consultation/Use of national helpline 27 (14.7) 18 (15.4)   1   1
In-person visit to a healthcare provider 144 (78.3) 96 (82.1) 1.000 1.00 0.52–1.92 0.982 1.01 0.51–2.01
Used both services 13 (7.1) 3 (2.6) 0.135 2.89 0.72–11.6 0.133 3.02 0.71–12.8
Level of psychological distress (K10 categories) 469 251    
Low (score 10–15) 198 (42.2) 75 (29.9)   1   1
Moderate to Very High (score 16–50) 271 (57.8) 176 (70.1) 0.001 0.58 0.42–0.81 0.001 0.54 0.38–0.76
Level of fear of COVID-19 (FCV-19S categories) 469 251    
Low (score 7–21) 351 (74.8) 174 (69.3)   1   1
High (score 22–35) 118 (25.2) 77 (30.7) 0.112 0.76 0.54–1.07 0.074 0.72 0.50–1.03
Healthcare service use to overcome COVID-19 related stress in the last 4 weeks 465 242    
No 456 (98.1) 233 (96.3)   1   1
Yes 9 (1.9) 9 (3.7) 0.153 0.51 0.20–1.31 0.193 0.53 0.21–1.37

Adjusted for: age, gender, living status, born in Malaysia, education and employment

* Cardiac diseases/Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory disease

Discussion

This cross-sectional survey found that a large proportion of Malaysian residents experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Malaysians, whose financial situation was impacted by COVID-19, those who drank alcohol in the past four weeks, those who self-identified as patients and those with higher levels of fear, were more likely to experience higher psychological distress. Higher levels of psychological distress were also associated with higher levels of fear and so were people who self-identified as patients. A large majority of the participants also reported as having medium to highly resilient coping during this pandemic especially those who provided care to family members affected by the pandemic.

Findings of our survey in Malaysia are comparable to similar studies conducted in other parts of the globe. Financial difficulty is associated with anxiety as well as a predisposition to depression after several months of quarantine exacerbated by undue uncertainty [29]. Studies among the general population in China and India have shown that poor economic status and difficulties in meeting living expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increasing the degree of psychological distress [30, 31]. Likewise, studies during the SARS and MERS epidemics have also shown that increased psychological distress was associated with increased financial difficulties. This could be explained by the emergence of a sense of uncertainty and lack of security during the pandemic [32]. Hence, our finding further supports the inverse association between increased financial difficulties during COVID-19 and the occurrence of psychological distress.

In line with our findings, Ahmed et al. conducted a study in a Chinese population where they had also reported high prevalence of alcohol use and alcohol dependence during the COVID-19 pandemic [33]. Given that this was a cross-sectional study, it was possible that psychological distress led to increased alcohol use as a coping mechanism to deal with COVID-19 induced psychological distress, but the converse was also likely that increased alcohol use worsened psychological distress [34].

This study also showed that people who self-identified as a patient i.e. having visited a healthcare provider in the past four weeks, were more likely to experience higher psychological distress. However, it was not clear from the survey questionnaire if patients had visited a healthcare provider for COVID-19 like symptoms or for other medical conditions. Being infected with COVID-19 or awaiting the possibility of becoming ill was likely to be more stressful because of the fear of mortality or morbidity associated with a disease [29]. Those infected with COVID-19 had higher levels of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms when compared to those not infected. In fact, people with a history of being infected with COVID-19 had reported unresolved fear, guilt, and helplessness. They were likely to be affected by the stigma of being labelled as someone who had been infected and faced uncertainty about their prognosis and future [35]. Moreover, the findings of this study also highlighted that those who tested negative for COVID-19 but maintained self-isolation from others had higher levels of fear, and those with higher levels of fear of COVID-19 also had moderate to high psychological distress. Knowing the high infectivity capability of the virus, the asymptomatic presentation of some of the COVID-19 positive cases, and the consequences of the COVID-19 infection had created enormous fear among the general population and healthcare workers [3638]. Unresolved fear which led to long-lasting stress might have predisposed individuals to psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic [39]. Hence, our study further strengthened the relationship between fear of the COVID-19 pandemic and increased psychological distress.

Factors identified as protective factors against psychological distress in this study was older age (≥30 years) and having higher level of resilience. Several studies on the psychological impact of COVID-19 in the general population reported that younger people (aged 21 to 40 years) were at higher risk of predisposing to depression and anxiety [40] highlighting consistency with other studies. Younger people may have greater focus on COVID-19 and higher degree of worry about the spread of COVID-19 presumably because of more and/or frequent access to news/social media, hence increasing their risk of psychological distress compared to older people [40].

Those with higher resilience, particularly in the components of tenacity, strength, and optimism, have shown to experience less mental health complications during the COVID-19 pandemic [41]. Our study has also indicated that low resilience was associated with moderate to high levels of psychological distress while moderate to high resilience was not only associated with lower psychological distress, but also enabled the individual to provide care to family members or patients infected with COVID-19. Hence, our study highlighted the pivotal role of resilience in overcoming the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The strength of this study was the use of validated tools to investigate the factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies in Malaysia. Due to nation-wide travel restrictions, online survey was the only feasible way for data collection, and we were able to recruit a large sample of Malaysian population during the critical pandemic period. However, there were some limitations in this study. As this study was an online survey, most younger people participated into this survey as they were more active on social media. The study was conducted in English, so those who were not well versed in English might not be able to take part in the study. It was beyond the scope of the study to check and ensure that the participants had sufficient ability in understanding English. Due to the self-reporting nature of the survey, possibility of reporting bias cannot be excluded. The survey responses were predominantly from west Malaysia, although the survey link was shared across all the states in Malaysia through various social media platforms and emails. This could be explained by the researchers’ use of snowball sampling techniques which reflected their community acquaintances and accessibility to clinics/allied health service facilities more in West Malaysia than in the eastern part of Malaysia. Another important limitation of our study was, those who might have tested positive to COVID-19 or those whose family members or friends were tested positive with COVID-19 infection or who were interested to this topic were more likely to participate into this survey. We also acknowledge that we might have missed the more marginalized or vulnerable group of population in this study (e.g., those who were more isolated specially people from rural areas, from the areas of poor internet access, older people those who were not active in social media, or migrant or other minority groups); therefore, the findings of this study could be potentially underestimated and might not be representative to the general Malaysian Population.

Conclusions

The study identified some of the key risk factors for developing psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period. Findings of this study would assist the researchers to plan future studies with vulnerable groups of Malaysians, specifically exploring the strategies to support their mental wellbeing during the pandemic and post-pandemic period. Specific interventions based on the emerging evidence arising from Malaysian and global studies can be tested to alleviate psychological distress, fear and improve resilience among Malaysian population.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support from Trisha Zafrin, Nur Syakirarah Binti Mohamed Elias for helping us for data collection.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

Telstra Health provided support in the form of salary for author FS. However, the authors did not receive direct or specific funding for this work. The specific roles of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Worldometer. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic [Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/.
  • 2.Sundarasen S, Chinna K, Kamaludin K, Nurunnabi M, Baloch GM, Khoshaim HB, et al. Psychological Impact of COVID-19 and Lockdown among University Students in Malaysia: Implications and Policy Recommendations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17). doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Elengoe A. COVID-19 Outbreak in Malaysia. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2020;11(3):93–100. doi: 10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shah AUM, Safri SNA, Thevadas R, Noordin NK, Rahman AA, Sekawi Z, et al. COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia: Actions taken by the Malaysian government. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;97:108–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reuters. Malaysia launches COVID-19 vaccination drive as PM gets first shot. Accessed on 23-Mar-2021 from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-malaysia-idUSKBN2AO0RX
  • 6.Wang Y, Kala MP, Jafar TH. Factors associated with psychological distress during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the predominantly general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rahman MA, Hoque N, Alif SM, Islam SMS, Banik B, Sharif A, et al. Factors Associated With Psychological Distress, Fear and Coping Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia. Globalization and Health. 2020;16:95. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00624-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Smith L, Jacob L, Yakkundi A, McDermott D, Armstrong NC, Barnett Y, et al. Correlates of symptoms of anxiety and depression and mental wellbeing associated with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study of UK-based respondents. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113138. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mazza C, Ricci E, Biondi S, Colasanti M, Ferracuti S, Napoli C, et al. A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress among Italian People during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9). doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ni MY, Yang L, Leung CMC, Li N, Yao XI, Wang YS, et al. Mental Health, Risk Factors, and Social Media Use During the COVID-19 Epidemic and Cordon Sanitaire Among the Community and Health Professionals in Wuhan, China: Cross-Sectional Survey. Jmir Ment Health. 2020;7(5). doi: 10.2196/19009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aktekin M, Karaman T, Senol YY, Erdem S, Erengin H, Akaydin M. Anxiety, depression and stressful life events among medical students: a prospective study in Antalya, Turkey. Med Educ. 2001;35(1):12–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00726.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thombs BD, Bonardi O, Rice DB, Boruff JT, Azar M, He C, et al. Curating evidence on mental health during COVID-19: A living systematic review. J Psychosom Res. 2020:110113. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gunnell D, Appleby L, Arensman E, Hawton K, John A, Kapur N, et al. Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):468–71. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30171-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. The Effects of Social Support on Sleep Quality of Medical Staff Treating Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549. doi: 10.12659/MSM.923549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ahorsu DK, Imani V, Lin CY, Timpka T, Brostrom A, Updegraff JA, et al. Associations Between Fear of COVID-19, Mental Health, and Preventive Behaviours Across Pregnant Women and Husbands: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Modelling. Int J Ment Health Ad. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ahorsu DK, Lin CY, Pakpour AH. The Association Between Health Status and Insomnia, Mental Health, and Preventive Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Fear of COVID-19. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine. 2020;6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pramukti I, Strong C, Sitthimongkol Y, Setiawan A, Pandin MGR, Yen CF, et al. Anxiety and Suicidal Thoughts During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Country Comparative Study Among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai University Students. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e24487. doi: 10.2196/24487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de Figueiredo CS, Sandre PC, Portugal LCL, Mazala-de-Oliveira T, Chagas LD, Raony I, et al. COVID-19 pandemic impact on children and adolescents’ mental health: Biological, environmental, and social factors. Prog Neuro-Psychoph. 2021;106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kalok A, Sharip S, Hafizz AMA, Zainuddin ZM, Shafiee MN. The Psychological Impact of Movement Restriction during the COVID-19 Outbreak on Clinical Undergraduates: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8522. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kassim MAM, Pang NTP, Mohamed NH, Kamu A, Ho CM, Ayu F, et al. Relationship Between Fear of COVID-19, Psychopathology and Sociodemographic Variables in Malaysian Population. Int J Ment Health Ad. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.OpenEpi. [Available from: https://www.openepi.com/Menu/OE_Menu.htm.
  • 22.Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal. [Available from: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/.
  • 23.Yahaya SN, Wahab SFA, Yusoff MSB, Yasin MAM, Rahman MAA. Prevalence and associated factors of stress, anxiety and depression among emergency medical officers in Malaysian hospitals. World J Emerg Med. 2018;9(3):178–86. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2018.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shamsuddin K, Fadzil F, Ismail WS, Shah SA, Omar K, Muhammad NA, et al. Correlates of depression, anxiety and stress among Malaysian university students. Asian J Psychiatr. 2013;6(4):318–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2013.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Furukawa TA, Kessler RC, Slade T, Andrews G. The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychol Med. 2003;33(2):357–62. doi: 10.1017/s0033291702006700 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ahorsu DK, Lin CY, Imani V, Saffari M, Griffiths MD, Pakpour AH. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sinclair VG, Wallston KA. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment. 2004;11(1):94–101. doi: 10.1177/1073191103258144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rahman MA, Salehin M, Islam SMS, Alif SM, Sultana F, Sharif A, et al. Reliability of the tools used to examine psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping amongst migrants and non-migrants in Australia. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021. [Online ahead of print] doi: 10.1111/inm.12845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jurblum M, Ng CH, Castle DJ. Psychological consequences of social isolation and quarantine: Issues related to COVID-19 restrictions. Aust J Gen Pract. 2020;49(12):778–83. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-06-20-5481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Khanna RC, Honavar SG, Metla AL, Bhattacharya A, Maulik PK. Psychological impact of COVID-19 on ophthalmologists-in-training and practising ophthalmologists in India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(6):994–8. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1458_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:112934. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ahmed MZ, Ahmed O, Aibao Z, Hanbin S, Siyu L, Ahmad A. Epidemic of COVID-19 in China and associated Psychological Problems. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102092. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mäkelä P, Raitasalo K, Wahlbeck K. Mental health and alcohol use: A cross-sectional study of the Finnish general population. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(2):25–31. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Guo Q, Zheng Y, Shi J, Wang J, Li G, Li C, et al. Immediate psychological distress in quarantined patients with COVID-19 and its association with peripheral inflammation: A mixed-method study. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang WR, Wang K, Yin L, Zhao WF, Xue Q, Peng M, et al. Mental Health and Psychosocial Problems of Medical Health Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China. Psychother Psychosom. 2020;89(4):242–50. doi: 10.1159/000507639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liu X, Luo WT, Li Y, Li CN, Hong ZS, Chen HL, et al. Psychological status and behavior changes of the public during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00678-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lu W, Wang H, Lin Y, Li L. Psychological status of medical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:112936. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rodriguez-Hidalgo AJ, Pantaleon Y, Dios I, Falla D. Fear of COVID-19, Stress, and Anxiety in University Undergraduate Students: A Predictive Model for Depression. Front Psychol. 2020;11:591797. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wang Y, Di Y, Ye J, Wei W. Study on the public psychological states and its related factors during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some regions of China. Psychol Health Med. 2020; Epub ahead of print:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cai W, Lian B, Song X, Hou T, Deng G, Li H. A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of Corona Virus Disease 2019. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102111. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amir H Pakpour

19 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-40506

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bahar Moni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please clarify in your Methods section whether the questionnaire is published under a CC-BY license, or whether you obtained permission from the publisher to reproduce the questionnaire in this manuscript. Please explain any copyright or restrictions on this questionnaire" Ping Copyright Discussions team (copyrightdiscussions@plos.org) for follow up.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Telstra Health.

3.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

3.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-020-00624-w

- https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-57952/v1

- https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6206/htm

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study entitled “Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic” investigated the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic among Malaysian residents. Additionally, the factors associated with the psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies are studied and discussed. The sample size is good (n=720) for this study and the analyses seem appropriate (several logistic regression models). However, the presentation and the literature review of the present submission are unsatisfactory. The authors should improve their submission substantially to achieve the scientific rigor. Below please see my specific comments.

1. There are many papers on the impacts of COVID-19 on psychological distress. However, the authors did not review these papers properly in their Introduction. I suggest the authors take references from the following publications, which have outlined the psychological distress during COVID-19 in different populations, including children, older people, pregnant women, university students, people with overweight, online population, and general population. I believe that it is very important to enrich the Introduction.

Nathiya D, Singh P, Suman S, Raj P, Tomar BS. Mental health problems and impact on youth minds during the COVID-19 outbreak: Cross-sectional (RED-COVID) survey. Soc Health Behav 2020;3:83-8

Lin CY. Social reaction toward the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Soc Health Behav 2020;3:1-2

Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., Pakpour, A. H., Lin, C.-Y., & Griffiths, M. D. (accepted). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during the COVID-19 school hiatus. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

Chen, I.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H., Griffiths, M. D., Lin, C.-Y., Li, X.-D., Tsang, H. W. H. (2020). Problematic internet-related behaviors mediate the associations between levels of internet engagement and distress among schoolchildren during COVID-19 lockdown: A longitudinal structural equation modeling study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. doi: 10.1556/2006.2021.00006

Pramukti, I., Strong, C., Sitthimongkol, Y., Setiawan, A., Pandin M. G. R., Yen, C.-F., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Ko, N.-Y. (2020). Anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-country comparison among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai university students. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(12), e24487.

Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., O'Brien, K. S., Latner, J. D., & Lin, C.-Y. (2020). Psychological distress and internet-related behaviors between schoolchildren with and without overweight during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Obesity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-021-00741-5

Fazeli, S., Zeidi, I. M., Lin, C.-Y., Namdar, P., Griffiths, M. D., Ahorsu, D. K., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Depression, anxiety, and stress mediate the associations between internet gaming disorder, insomnia, and quality of life during the COVID-19 outbreak. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100307.

Mamun, M. A., Sakib, N., Gozal, D., Bhuiyan, A. I., Hossain, S., Bodrud-Doza, M., Mamun, F. A., Hosen, I., Abdullah, A. H., Sarker, M. A., Rayhan, I., Sikder, M. T., Muhit, M., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and serious psychological consequences in Bangladesh: a population-based nationwide study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 462-472.

Hashemi, S. G. S., Hosseinnezhad, S., Dini, S., Griffiths, M. D., Lin, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). The mediating effect of the cyberchondria and anxiety sensitivity in the association between problematic internet use, metacognition belief and fear of COVID-19 among Iranian online population. Heliyon, 6(10), e05135.

Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). The association between health status and insomnia, mental health, and preventive behaviours: The mediating role of fear of COVID-19. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 6, 1-9.

Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Investigating mediated effects of fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misunderstanding in the association between problematic social media use and distress/insomnia. Internet Interventions, 21, 100345.

Chen, I.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H., Griffiths, M. D., & Lin, C.-Y. (2020). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during COVID-19 school suspension. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 159(10), 1099-1102.

Ahorsu, D. K., Imani, V., Lin, C.-Y., Timpka, T., Broström, A., Updegraff, J. A., Årestedt, K., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (accepted). Associations between fear of COVID-19, mental health, and preventive behaviours across pregnant women and husbands: An actor-partner interdependence modelling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.

Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., Pakpour, A. H., Lin, C.-Y., & Griffiths, M. D. (accepted). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during the COVID-19 school hiatus. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

2. Given the references I have provided in the comment #1, I think that the statement “However, there has been limited evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on community members including healthcare workers” is not supported. Please note that I only provide some references, and there are ample references in the literature that I have not listed.

3. The Methods part provides little information regarding how the authors distribute the online survey. How did the authors use these online platforms to recruit potential participants?

4. How could the authors identify whether the participants were capable of responding to an online questionnaire in English? Specifically, any participant whose English is poor still can answer the English online survey. What the participant has to do is only to click on the answers in random. I wonder how the authors control this factor. Using answering time within 1 minute may work, but not really reflect because the participant whose English is poor still can use a lot of time in answering the online survey.

5. The authors said that they used “Snowball sampling technique”, please describe clearly how this technique was used in the online survey.

6. After I read the Data Collection subsection, I found that some of my queries above are answered in the subsection. However, this indicates that the authors did not arrange the presentation in a good manner. Therefore, the authors should think about how to clearly deliver the information in their revised manuscript.

7. The Study tool subsection is poorly written. The authors should still provide the information on the used instruments. It is quite irresponsive to refer the readers to a previous paper. Specifically, not all readers have time or access to the previous paper. I also wonder why the online survey made no changes given that cultures between Malaysia and Australia are different.

8. Following the previous comment, the authors did not provide proper citations to acknowledge the use of the studied instruments. For example, the citation of Ahorsu et al. (accepted) should be acknowledged for the use of FCV-19S. Similar issues are happened to other used instruments.

Reference:

Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (accepted). Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

9. The authors should provide proper citations to indicate their used cutoffs for every studied instruments.

10. When reporting the significance, please do not use p=0.000. Use p<0.001 instead given that the p-value will never be 0.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257304.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Mar 2021

Response to reviewers

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic (PONE-D-20-40506)

The line number and page numbers are mentioned according to the track change version of the manuscript

Comments from the Editor with Responses

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: The manuscript has been re-formatted accordingly.

2. Please clarify in your Methods section whether the questionnaire is published under a CC-BY license, or whether you obtained permission from the publisher to reproduce the questionnaire in this manuscript.

Response: The questionnaire was not published in the earlier study. Therefore, obtaining permission from the publisher was not applicable. The lead investigator of this study (Rahman MA) was also the lead investigator for the Australian study along with a number of investigators common in both studies. Therefore, no further permission was deemed necessary to use the same study tool for this study. It has already been mentioned: (page-11, line-09)

“We used the same survey questionnaire (except residence location/region in Malaysia) which was used earlier by the Australian investigators included in this study [7].”

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Telstra Health.

Response: This has been addressed and included in the cover letter as advised:

In terms of funding, I can certify on behalf of all the authors that we did not receive funding for this study. Dr Farhana Sultana is a staff of Telstra Health, but the commercial organization did not fund this study and did not have any role in this study.

In addition, I can confirm that we did not have any competing interests. The commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

In addition, we have also updated the manuscript accordingly (Page-19).

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work.

Response: We have rephrased the entire manuscript, revised and added citations as needed.

In terms of what this study adds further to the existing evidence, we have explained this in the revised Introduction section.

Comments from the Reviewer-1

The study entitled “Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic” investigated the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic among Malaysian residents. Additionally, the factors associated with the psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies are studied and discussed. The sample size is good (n=720) for this study and the analyses seem appropriate (several logistic regression models). However, the presentation and the literature review of the present submission are unsatisfactory. The authors should improve their submission substantially to achieve the scientific rigor. Below please see my specific comments.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind feedback.

1. There are many papers on the impacts of COVID-19 on psychological distress. However, the authors did not review these papers properly in their Introduction. I suggest the authors take references from the following publications, which have outlined the psychological distress during COVID-19 in different populations, including children, older people, pregnant women, university students, people with overweight, online population, and general population. I believe that it is very important to enrich the Introduction:

o Nathiya D, Singh P, Suman S, Raj P, Tomar BS. Mental health problems and impact on youth minds during the COVID-19 outbreak: Cross-sectional (RED-COVID) survey. Soc Health Behav 2020;3:83-8

o Lin CY. Social reaction toward the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Soc Health Behav 2020;3:1-2

o Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., Pakpour, A. H., Lin, C.-Y., & Griffiths, M. D. (accepted). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during the COVID-19 school hiatus. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

o Chen, I.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H., Griffiths, M. D., Lin, C.-Y., Li, X.-D., Tsang, H. W. H. (2020). Problematic internet-related behaviors mediate the associations between levels of internet engagement and distress among schoolchildren during COVID-19 lockdown: A longitudinal structural equation modeling study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. doi: 10.1556/2006.2021.00006

o Pramukti, I., Strong, C., Sitthimongkol, Y., Setiawan, A., Pandin M. G. R., Yen, C.-F., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Ko, N.-Y. (2020). Anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-country comparison among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai university students. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(12), e24487.

o Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., O'Brien, K. S., Latner, J. D., & Lin, C.-Y. (2020). Psychological distress and internet-related behaviors between schoolchildren with and without overweight during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Obesity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-021-00741-5

o Fazeli, S., Zeidi, I. M., Lin, C.-Y., Namdar, P., Griffiths, M. D., Ahorsu, D. K., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Depression, anxiety, and stress mediate the associations between internet gaming disorder, insomnia, and quality of life during the COVID-19 outbreak. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100307.

o Mamun, M. A., Sakib, N., Gozal, D., Bhuiyan, A. I., Hossain, S., Bodrud-Doza, M., Mamun, F. A., Hosen, I., Abdullah, A. H., Sarker, M. A., Rayhan, I., Sikder, M. T., Muhit, M., Lin, C.-Y., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and serious psychological consequences in Bangladesh: a population-based nationwide study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 462-472.

o Hashemi, S. G. S., Hosseinnezhad, S., Dini, S., Griffiths, M. D., Lin, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). The mediating effect of the cyberchondria and anxiety sensitivity in the association between problematic internet use, metacognition belief and fear of COVID-19 among Iranian online population. Heliyon, 6(10), e05135.

o Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). The association between health status and insomnia, mental health, and preventive behaviours: The mediating role of fear of COVID-19. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 6, 1-9.

o Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). Investigating mediated effects of fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misunderstanding in the association between problematic social media use and distress/insomnia. Internet Interventions, 21, 100345.

o Chen, I.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Pakpour, A. H., Griffiths, M. D., & Lin, C.-Y. (2020). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during COVID-19 school suspension. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 159(10), 1099-1102.

o Ahorsu, D. K., Imani, V., Lin, C.-Y., Timpka, T., Broström, A., Updegraff, J. A., Årestedt, K., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H. (accepted). Associations between fear of COVID-19, mental health, and preventive behaviours across pregnant women and husbands: An actor-partner interdependence modelling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.

o Chen, C.-Y., Chen, I.-H., Pakpour, A. H., Lin, C.-Y., & Griffiths, M. D. (accepted). Internet-related behaviors and psychological distress among schoolchildren during the COVID-19 school hiatus. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, there had been a surge of publications on COVID-19 since we drafted and submitted it to the journal. Based on the feedback from the reviewer and suggested citations, we have carefully reviewed and revised the entire Introduction section by incorporating the relevant references.

2. Given the references I have provided in the comment #1, I think that the statement “However, there has been limited evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on community members including healthcare workers” is not supported. Please note that I only provide some references, and there are ample references in the literature that I have not listed.

Response: We do acknowledge the feedback and have updated the sentence with supporting evidence in the Introduction section (Page-9, line-5):

“There is limited evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a whole and amongst community members and healthcare workers in Malaysia.”

3. The Methods part provides little information regarding how the authors distribute the online survey. How did the authors use these online platforms to recruit potential participants?

Response: It has been addressed: (page-9, line-21)

“An online survey link was shared in different online platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn inviting online users to participate in this study.”

4. How could the authors identify whether the participants were capable of responding to an online questionnaire in English? Specifically, any participant whose English is poor still can answer the English online survey. What the participant has to do is only to click on the answers in random. I wonder how the authors control this factor. Using answering time within 1 minute may work, but not really reflect because the participant whose English is poor still can use a lot of time in answering the online survey.

Response: There was no practical way to control the issue that the reviewer has indicated. We have modified the terms used: (page-10, line-4)

“To be eligible, participants had to be 18 years or above and were literate enough to respond to an online questionnaire in English.”

5. The authors said that they used “Snowball sampling technique”, please describe clearly how this technique was used in the online survey.

Response: We have clarified this further: (pgae-10, line-13)

“Once any participant filled up the online questionnaire, he/she forwarded the survey link to own personal/professional networks.”

6. After I read the Data Collection subsection, I found that some of my queries above are answered in the subsection. However, this indicates that the authors did not arrange the presentation in a good manner. Therefore, the authors should think about how to clearly deliver the information in their revised manuscript.

Response: We have reviewed and updated the manuscript accordingly.

7. The Study tool subsection is poorly written. The authors should still provide the information on the used instruments. It is quite irresponsive to refer the readers to a previous paper. Specifically, not all readers have time or access to the previous paper. I also wonder why the online survey made no changes given that cultures between Malaysia and Australia are different.

Response: We have updated the section: (page-11, line-9)

“Three validated tools were included in the survey questionnaire. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) tool having ten items was used to assess psychological distress [25], the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) having seven items was used to assess the levels of fear [26], and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) having four items was used to assess the levels of coping [27]. Each of those tools collected responses using a 5-point likert scale and the scoring was categorised as discussed in earlier study [7]. Reliability of using these tools had also been examined in a recent study [28].”

This study did not have any aim to assess cultural difference or impact of culture on the issues of our interest examined in this study. Therefore, the same questionnaire was used for Australia and Malaysia.

8. Following the previous comment, the authors did not provide proper citations to acknowledge the use of the studied instruments. For example, the citation of Ahorsu et al. (accepted) should be acknowledged for the use of FCV-19S. Similar issues are happened to other used instruments.

Reference:

Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (accepted). Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

Response: We have addressed this and updated the sub-section of study tool as described above.

9. The authors should provide proper citations to indicate their used cut offs for every studied instruments.

Response: We used the cut-offs as used in previously published studies, which has been mentioned in the sub-section of study tool: (page-11, line-13)

“Each of those tools collected responses using a 5-point likert scale and the scoring was categorised as discussed in earlier study [7].”

10. When reporting the significance, please do not use p=0.000. Use p<0.001 instead given that the p-value will never be 0.

Response: We have updated this accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506_Response to reviewers_24 Mar 2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Amir H Pakpour

6 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-40506R1

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bahar Moni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the reviewers that they have sincerely take my prior comments into consideration to prepare this revision. I can observe that the revised manuscript is substantially improved. I have only one minor comment for the authors to further address. That is, the authors acknowledged that they were unable to make sure that all the participants having sufficient ability in understanding English. Then, this should be listed as one of the limitations.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257304.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Apr 2021

Dear Sir,

We would like to thank you for the kind feedback.

Your comments have been addressed and we have clarified this in the limitation section of the manuscript (page-16, line-17):

“The study was conducted in English, so those who were not well versed in English might not be able to take part in the study. It was beyond the scope of the study to check and ensure that the participants had sufficient ability in understanding English.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506_Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alessio Gori

2 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-40506R2

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 02 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessio Gori, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have now addressed my final concern and I am pleased to see this valuable paper to be published.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-40506R2

1. Recommendation

Minor revision

2. Comments to Author:

Thank you for the opportunity of review this study entitled “Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic”. The manuscript presented an investigation about the levels of psychological distress, fear and coping strategies and other related factors among Malaysian residents. The framework of this work is the COVID-19 pandemic.

In my opinion, the study has some relevant and interesting results. I think it's a good paper, well done. I commend the authors and other reviewers who have worked to reach this optimum point. There are only a few very minor issues that need to be addressed before the document is suitable for publication.

• Authors should be more detailed in the limitation section. The use of the online survey implies the need to pay attention in generalize results to general population, since people who do not have internet access (pronominally older individuals, of course) could be unrepresented. Furthermore, participants were voluntary, so only those who have interest in this research topic decided to participate: they may be unrepresentative of general Malaysian population.

• There are no incentives for future research: it is important not only to find a link with past results, but also to offer possible ideas for future work, in order to favour a continuous development of research. Therefore, please add implications for future research

• Parallelly, the paper could benefit from a focus on its strengths, highlighting the relevance of this research topic and results.

• In the conclusion section, the authors should focus on the practical implications of this study. Some studies provided an understanding of the treat responses at the time of COVID-19, as well as the effect of stress on health. Given these outcomes and the large incidence of these variables highlighted in Malaysian residents, the importance of effective tailor-made interventions on protective/risk variables (e.g., coping, defences etc.. based on previous studies) could be highlighted. I think the authors have a wide choice, given the large amount of literature available on this field. Therefore, the results of this study highlight the importance of working on some outcames (e.g., distress and fear) related to COVID-19 in Malaysian residents, preparing interventions that work on other associated variables, both those included in the study and other explored in previous research.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 2 Comments.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 10;16(9):e0257304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257304.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Aug 2021

Response to reviewers

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic (PONE-D-20-40506R2)

The line number and page numbers are mentioned according to the track change version of the manuscript

Comments from the Reviewer-2 Responses

Thank you for the opportunity of review this study entitled “Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic”. The manuscript presented an investigation about the levels of psychological distress, fear and coping strategies and other related factors among Malaysian residents. The framework of this work is the COVID-19 pandemic.

In my opinion, the study has some relevant and interesting results. I think it's a good paper, well done. I commend the authors and other reviewers who have worked to reach this optimum point. There are only a few very minor issues that need to be addressed before the document is suitable for publication.

Ans: We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind feedback.

The minor comments have been addressed in the revised version.

Authors should be more detailed in the limitation section. The use of the online survey implies the need to pay attention in generalize results to general population, since people who do not have internet access (pronominally older individuals, of course) could be unrepresented. Furthermore, participants were voluntary, so only those who have interest in this research topic decided to participate: they may be unrepresentative of general Malaysian population.

Ans: We have addressed this and expanded the limitation section further:

(Page:16, Line: 22)

Due to the self-reporting nature of the survey, possibility of reporting bias cannot be excluded.

(Page: 17, Line: 04)

Another important limitation of our study was, those who might have tested positive to COVID-19 or those whose family members or friends were tested positive with COVID-19 infection or who were interested to this topic were more likely to participate into this survey. We also acknowledge that we might have missed the more marginalized or vulnerable group of population in this study (e.g., those who were more isolated specially people from rural areas, from the areas of poor internet access, older people those who were not active in social media, or migrant or other minority groups); therefore, the findings of this study could be potentially underestimated and might not be representative to the general Malaysian Population.

There are no incentives for future research: it is important not only to find a link with past results, but also to offer possible ideas for future work, in order to favour a continuous development of research. Therefore, please add implications for future research

Ans: We have added future research areas (Page: 17, Line: 21)

Findings of this study would assist the researchers to plan future studies with vulnerable groups of Malaysians, specifically exploring the strategies to support their mental wellbeing during the pandemic and post-pandemic period.

Parallelly, the paper could benefit from a focus on its strengths, highlighting the relevance of this research topic and results.

Ans: We have added strengths (Page:16, Line: 13)

The strength of this study was the use of validated tools to investigate the factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies in Malaysia. Due to nation-wide travel restrictions, online survey was the only feasible way for data collection, and we were able to recruit a large sample of Malaysian population during the critical pandemic period.

In the conclusion section, the authors should focus on the practical implications of this study. Some studies provided an understanding of the treat responses at the time of COVID-19, as well as the effect of stress on health. Given these outcomes and the large incidence of these variables highlighted in Malaysian residents, the importance of effective tailor-made interventions on protective/risk variables (e.g., coping, defences etc.. based on previous studies) could be highlighted. I think the authors have a wide choice, given the large amount of literature available on this field. Therefore, the results of this study highlight the importance of working on some outcames (e.g., distress and fear) related to COVID-19 in Malaysian residents, preparing interventions that work on other associated variables, both those included in the study and other explored in previous research

Ans: We have already included implications of current findings (Page:17, Line:18)

Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period.

We have also added another implication (Page: 17, Line: 24)

Specific interventions based on the emerging evidence arising from Malaysian and global studies can be tested to alleviate psychological distress, fear and improve resilience among Malaysian population.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506R2_Response to reviewers_06 Aug 2021.docx

Decision Letter 3

Alessio Gori

31 Aug 2021

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

PONE-D-20-40506R3

Dear Dr. Ahmed Suparno Bahar Moni, 

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alessio Gori, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Alessio Gori

3 Sep 2021

PONE-D-20-40506R3

Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic

Dear Dr. Bahar Moni:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alessio Gori

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506_Response to reviewers_24 Mar 2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506_Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 2 Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-40506R2_Response to reviewers_06 Aug 2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES