The authors regret that an error has been identified in Table 1 . The number of participants ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 at T3 (February 2020) is incorrectly listed as 75 (27.1%). The correct number of participants ≥10 on the PHQ-9 at T3 was 76, (37.1% of the sample). This correction does not change the study conclusions.
Table 1.
Prevalence of Clinical Cutoff Scores Pre and Post COVID-19 Pandemic (n = 205).
| Pre-Pandemic (T3) | Post-Pandemic (T4) | |
|---|---|---|
| GAD-7 ≥ 10 | 67 (32.7%) | 105 (51.2%) |
| PHQ-9 ≥ 10 | 76 (37.1%) | 121 (59%) |
| Both GAD-7 and PHQ-9 ≥ 10 | 56 (27.3%) | 88 (42.9%) |
| Either GAD-7 or PHQ-9 ≥ 10 | 87 (42.4%) | 138 (67.3%) |
| PHQ-9 Item 9 ≥ 1 | 51 (25.0%) | 47 (22.9%) |
| PHQ-9 Impairment | 46 (22.4%) | 79 (38.5%) |
T3: February 2020, T4: April 2020. PHQ-9 Item 9 scores ≥ 1 indicate report of suicidal ideation or thoughts of self-harm on at least several days in the past 2 weeks. PHQ-9 impairment scores ≥ 2 indicate significant impairment.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.