Prenatal Mental Health and Its Stress-Process Mechanisms During a Pandemic Lockdown: A Moderated Parallel Mediation Model

Man Jiang; Lei Chen; Nan Tuo; Dongjian Yang; Shimeng Liu; Zhen Huang

doi:10.30773/pi.2024.0205

Psychiatry Investig > Volume 22(3); 2025 > Article

Jiang, Chen, Tuo, Yang, Liu, and Huang: Prenatal Mental Health and Its Stress-Process Mechanisms During a Pandemic Lockdown: A Moderated Parallel Mediation Model

Original Article

Psychiatry Investigation 2025;22(3):221-230.

Published online: March 18, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0205

Prenatal Mental Health and Its Stress-Process Mechanisms During a Pandemic Lockdown: A Moderated Parallel Mediation Model

Man Jiang^1,²

, Lei Chen³

, Nan Tuo³

, Dongjian Yang³

, Shimeng Liu^2,⁴

, Zhen Huang^2,^3,⁴

¹Eye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

²School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

³The International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

⁴National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Correspondence: Zhen Huang, PhD The International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Hengshan Road 910, Xu Hui District, Shanghai 200030, China Tel: +86-64070434, E-mail: huangz22@m.fudan.edu.cn

Received June 24, 2024 Revised October 9, 2024 Accepted December 4, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood.

Methods

This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken.

Results

In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies.

Conclusion

This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Keywords: Mental health, Pregnant women, Coping strategies, Self-efficacy, Lockdown

INTRODUCTION

As the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) enters its fifth year, the number of reported deaths in April 2024 has dropped to its lowest level since the pandemic began, with just under 0.1 million new monthly cases reported globally. Many countries have discontinued COVID-19-specific reporting and integrated it into respiratory disease surveillance [1]. However, we have to admit that the COVID-19 epidemic has dealt a fatal blow to the world. As of April 28, 2024, over 775 million confirmed cases and over 7 million deaths have been reported globally. Over the past several years, more than 100 countries (including the United States, France, Australia, Thailand, and South Africa) have implemented various restrictive measures at different times to slow the spread of COVID-19. Shanghai, a metropolis of around 24 million people, also entered a phased lockdown on March 28, 2022 under a dynamic zero-COVID policy, and completely returned to normal by June 1st, 2022 [2]. During the lockdown, mandatory stay-at-home reduced community transmission and prevented the overburdening of healthcare systems; however, it may also have had long-term social, behavioral, and economic consequences, resulting in psychological distress, particularly for vulnerable populations [3]. World Health Organization warns that COVID-19 remains a major threat and urges Member States to learn from their experience during this epidemic and maintain rather than dismantle their established COVID-19 infrastructure.

Since the worldwide pandemic began, several studies have documented the psychological impact of the pandemic and its lockdown measures [4]. One crucial factor for well-being is the pandemic’s economic impact [5]. Job loss and financial strain have significantly exacerbated the psychological burden experienced during this period [6]. Research has identified three forms of economic hardship—income loss, job loss, and changes in workload—during the COVID-19 lockdown that are correlated with mental health issues [7]. According to an Austrian study [8] based on an online poll that investigated mental health four weeks after the COVID-19 lockdown, young adults (under 35 years), women, those without jobs, and low-income groups were much more burdened. Furthermore, during the stringent lockdown measures, disruptions to the domestic food supply chain and food production have frequently been identified as key factors contributing to psychological stress [9]. Households have reported reductions in both the quantity and quality of their food consumption during the pandemic due to rising retail prices and decreased income [10,11]. Several studies conducted in North America and 12 sub-Saharan countries have shown that household food insecurity caused by the pandemic or self-quarantine is a significant independent risk factor for poor mental well-being, including higher levels of anxiety, depression, and psychiatric morbidity [12,13].

During the pandemic, women were more likely than men to experience anxiety and depression symptoms, and perinatal women were significantly more susceptible to mental illness than the general population [14]; roughly 12% of prenatal women suffered from depression and up to 22% experienced high levels of anxiety in the third trimester [15]. Major stressors (e.g., health crises and natural disasters) may exacerbate prenatal stress and put gestational women at risk [16]. Studies in China found that prenatal mental disorders were significantly higher after the declaration of COVID-19 than before the outbreak [17]. In Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms among maternal women was also higher during lockdown than the pre-lockdown phase [18,19]. The unprecedented lockdown situation characterized by social isolation, restricted freedom, concerns regarding the impact of the pandemic on pregnancy, potential exposure to COVID-19, unemployment, financial instability, and food insecurity can pose significant challenges to maternal psychological well-being [3,20]. A systematic review has identified various factors associated with an increased prevalence of mental health symptoms in pregnant women during this period including COVID-19 infection, colleagues or family members infected, experience of frontline work, close contact with infected patients, high exposure risk, and high concern about epidemics [21].

Several studies have shown that certain protective variables can successfully mitigate the harmful effects of COVID-19 stressors on psychological states. Effective coping, the primary component of an individual’s response to stressful events, can mitigate certain COVID-19 stressors’ influence on psychological outcomes during pregnancy [22]. During the COVID-19 lockdown in northern Italy, the adoption of coping strategies to counteract antenatal anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms was important [23]. Pregnant women with relatively high coping capacities and perceived self-efficacy adjusted better to environmental changes or existing stressors and had fewer negative emotional reactions [24]. Although the potential stressors associated with mandatory quarantine during the pandemic and the positive emotions (POS) to alleviate prenatal mental disorders have been widely discussed, knowledge regarding how salient pandemic-related factors and the lockdown affect pregnant women psychologically remains fragmented.

In summary, previous research consistently underscores the detrimental effects of food scarcity, exposure risk, and income reduction during lockdown on maternal mental health. Conversely, it also highlights the beneficial roles of coping styles and self-efficacy in alleviating negative emotions. To investigate the interrelationships among lockdown-related stressors, POS, and maternal mental health during this period, we employ Pearlin et al.’s [25] stress-process model (SPM). This model conceptualizes stress as a process comprising three key components: stressors, resources, and stress outcomes. The SPM has been extensively utilized to explore pathways from common stressors—such as unwanted pregnancy, financial difficulties, and food access—to maternal psychological outcomes [26]. It has also been tested for depression within Chinese prenatal and postnatal populations through structural equation modeling (SEM), which analyzes direct, indirect, and total effects of stressors and mediators on depressive symptoms [27].

By integrating Pearlin’s SPM into our study design (Figure 1), we aim to enhance our understanding of potential pathways leading to adverse psychological consequences among pregnant women during lockdown, thereby providing a reference for the government to formulate humanized restrictive measures for pregnant women in the face of an infectious disease pandemic. Additionally, this study will examine how factors such as lockdown duration, hours spent consuming pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies moderate the relationship between positive resources and psychological outcomes.

METHODS

Participants

During the COVID-19 lockdown, a hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted from April 22, 2022, to June 1, 2022, to recruit a convenience sample of maternal home-quarantined participants. Pregnant women attending prenatal care at the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital of the China Welfare Institute (IPMCH), a tertiary health institution in Shanghai, were invited to complete the survey by scanning a QR code at the hospital or clicking a link sent to their cell phones. Chinese women who met the inclusion criteria were 1) pregnant, 2) older than 18 years, 3) in Shanghai, 4) in mandatory quarantine for the previous 60 days under restrictive measures and still currently in isolation, except for medical appointments, and 5) able to read and write in Chinese. Pregnant women with histories of mental illness were excluded from the study. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. A total of 1,539 anonymous questionnaires were collected, 48 of which were incomplete, yielding a final sample of 1,491 eligible individuals. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital (2022-0169).

Measures

Stressors during the lockdown

Several stressors during the lockdown were identified in the study to explore how the pandemic has affected pregnant women. 1) Loss of household income (HI): participants were asked to rate the extent to which lockdown measures had adversely affected their HI in the previous month, with responses ranging from “1=severely affected” to “5=not affected at all”; 2) Lack of daily supplies (DS): participants rated their access to DS (e.g., food) in the previous two weeks on a scale ranging from “1=not met daily needs at all” to “5=completely met daily needs”; 3) COVID-19 infection: participants were asked if they/acquaintances/household members had been medically diagnosed with COVID-19 or identified as being in close contact with the disease in the previous month, using dichotomous items (1=yes, 2=no).

Perceived self-efficacy in managing negative emotions

The Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, initially developed by Caprara et al. [28], measures perceived self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) and POS. NEG comprises two negative effects: despondency-distress (DES) and anger-irritation (ANG), each with four items. In 2009, the scale was modified to include compunction in the NEG subscale to align with Chinese cultural context. Participants rated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1=extremely inconsistent” to “5=highly consistent.” [29] A high score indicated strong belief in one’s ability to manage negative emotions effectively. Previous studies have used the NEG subscale to assess maternal mental health and emotion regulation during the COVID-19 lockdown [30]. Therefore, we utilized the Chinese version of the NEG subscale with 11 items to measure pregnant women’s ability in managing negative emotions. The Cronbach’s alpha for the NEG subscale was 0.956.

COVID-19-related coping strategies

The COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) scale was developed by Yıldırım et al. [31] in the context of COVID-19. Participants rated four items (“I believe that I have the ability to cope with COVID-19”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), giving a potential range of 4-20. Higher scores indicated higher levels of COVID-19-related coping strategies. The Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was 0.886, demonstrating adequate internal consistency.

Mental health

The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) is a 21-item self-reporting questionnaire with three seven-item subscales: depression, anxiety, and stress [32]. This instrument was used among pregnant individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms). In this tool, a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “0=did not apply to me at all” to “3=applied to me a lot or most of the time” was used to assess the state of the participants in the three subscales with five severity ratings. Each item score is multiplied by two, and the final score is the sum of the three subscale values [33]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the DASS-21 was 0.939 in our study.

Socio-demographic characteristics

Socio-demographic characteristics in this study, including age, education, occupation, marital status, HI, residency, and COVID-19 immunization were considered covariates. In addition, the number of pregnancies was categorized as 1, 2, or ≥3. The duration of the lockdown was assessed by the question, “How many days has the community you currently live in been put under lockdown by the government?” (<20/20-25/26-30/31-35/>35 days). For pandemic-related information acquisition, participants were asked how much time they spent every day, on average, looking for information about the epidemic on social media over the past two weeks (none/<0.5/0.5-1/>1 hour).

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 23.0 for descriptive statistics and correlation analyses) and Mplus 8.3 (for SEM, mediation, and moderation analyses; Muthén & Muthén). Descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, means, one-way analysis of variance, or t-tests) were performed with NEG, COP, and mental health as dependent variables. Correlations between component measures with continuous distributions were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and Pearson’s chi-squared (χ²) correlation coefficient for categorical variables. SEM with the maximum likelihood method was performed to test the hypothetical SPM, in which demographic characteristics were introduced as covariates. First, a measurement model was tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The direct and indirect effects of the relationships between the independent variables (stressors) and mental health were tested using the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap method. Bootstrapping was set to 5,000, and a 95% BC confidence interval (CI) was reported; if zero was not included in the result, a significant mediating (indirect) effect existed. Subsequently, the hypothesized moderators were incorporated, and the moderated mediation effect of the final model was tested according to the Mplus code proposed by Stride et al. [34] A comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were employed to evaluate the optimum model [35]. The model fit was considered acceptable when the CFI and TLI were above 0.90 and the RMSEA and SRMR were below 0.08 [36].

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics and COVID-19-related stressors

As shown in Table 1, pregnant women who had experienced lockdown for 26-35 days were in their first pregnancy and spent more than one hour per day browsing COVID-19 information had a lower NEG (p<0.05) or worse COP (p<0.01) than other groups. More than 80% of home-quarantined pregnant women reported a loss of their HI, and nearly 90% were concerned about a lack of DS (e.g., food) in the past two weeks due to lockdown. Participants who were significantly affected by decreased HI, insufficient DS, and possible infections among acquaintances had poor self-efficacy (p<0.001), COP (p<0.001), and mental health status (p<0.001).

Correlation analyses

COP and NEG had significant positive relationships with three key stressors, including loss of HI, acquaintance infection (AI), and lack of DS (p<0.001), with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.114 to 0.274. Similarly, each of the three stressors revealed a slight negative connection with mental health (r from -0.259 to -0.158, p<0.001). Both NEG and COP were significantly associated with mental health with medium intensities (r=-0.471, p<0.001; r=-0.462, p<0.001, respectively).

Model testing

A CFA revealed that a measurement model for NEG, COP, and mental health was acceptable with all factor loadings above 0.5 (p<0.001). However, two path coefficients (from loss of HI and lack of DS to mental health) in the original hypothetical model (Figure 1) were not significant at the p<0.05 level and were deleted from the SEM. The fit indices for the optimized model (Figure 2) were satisfactory (CFI=0.936, TLI=0.930, RMSEA=0.038, SRMR=0.077). Three stressors were shown to be positively and directly related to NEG and COP. Acquired infections (β=-0.089, p<0.001), NEG (β=-0.353, p<0.001), and COP (β=-0.333, p<0.001) directly predicted the degree of mental health.

Mediation analyses

A parallel mediation model was employed to explore the influence of stressors on materthat only NP moderated the mediation of COP nal mental health (Y) during the lockdown through the NEG and COP. After adjustments for covariates, the results (Table 2) showed that the total effect of HI, AI, and DS was negatively correlated with mental health (b_total=-10.776, 95% CI_BC: -14.010, -7.793), and NEG and COP significantly contributed to the overall indirect effects (b_indirect=-6.598, 95% CI_BC: -8.251, -5.097). Specifically, NEG and COP fully mediated the relationship between HI, DS, and mental health, and partially mediated the path between AI and mental health (AI-NEG-Y: b_path3=-1.656, 95% CI_BC: -2.521, -0.918; AI-COP-Y: b_path4=-1.897, 95% CI_BC: -2.985, -1.067), indicating that increased stress from income, food, and infection during the lockdown could significantly reduce positive resources, leading to mental health problems among pregnant women. In addition, the indirect effect of NEG accounted for 28.8% of the total effect, which was less than that of COP (32.5%); however, the difference was not statistically significant, suggesting that the mediating roles of the two variables in the parallel model were roughly the same.

Moderated mediation analyses

After controlling for demographic covariates, we respectively incorporated duration of lockdown (DL), hours on COVID-19 information seeking (HIS), and number of pregnancies seeking (NP) as hypothetical moderators in the tested parallel mediation model (Figure 2). Results of testing the moderated mediating effect of stressors on mental health shows that only NP moderated the mediation of COP (b_NP*COP=1.501, p<0.05), while NP, DL, and HIS did not moderate the mediation of NEG. The interaction between NEG and the three hypothetical moderators did not yield any significant effect on mental health outcomes. Consequently, DL, HIS, and the moderating effect of NP on the path from NEG to mental health were excluded. In the modified moderated mediation model, the interaction between COP and NP significantly influenced mental health (b_NP*COP=1.483, p<0.05).

The results in Table 3 show that NP negatively moderated the mediating effect of COP between the three COVID-19-related stressors and maternal mental health. For women in their first pregnancy, the indirect effect of HI, AI, and DS on mental health through COP was stronger than for mothers with two or more pregnancies. Moreover, simple slope analysis revealed that the negative effect observed between COP and mental health was strongest among women in their first pregnancy (b_NP=1=-4.542, b_NP=2=-3.059, b_NP≥3=-1.576, p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

It is crucial for policymakers to understand how pandemic restrictions affect mothers’ mental health and to provide a reference for designing maternity-friendly lockdown measures in response to future public health emergencies. Since the beginning of the pandemic, a growing body of research has examined the psychological impact of lockdown measures. However, this study is unique in its use of SEM to design and analyze the mechanisms between lockdown-related risk factors and prenatal psychological outcomes. The SPM was employed during the epidemic to examine the mediating role of POS. Our results indicate a significant relationship between the mental health of pregnant women and three stressors (food, infection, and income) during lockdown, which were fully or partially mediated by maternal COP and NEG. In addition, the moderated mediating results prove that COP is a stronger mediator between COVID-19-related stressors and mental health in first-time pregnant women than in women with two or more pregnancies, and interventions aimed at increasing maternal COP to reduce psychological problems during the lockdown will be more effective among primiparous women; this has not been discussed in previous studies.

Previous studies have indicated that many pandemic-related factors have the potential to influence POS. Higher levels of dysfunctional and problem-focused coping were associated with more financial trouble and social isolation during pregnancy [22], while declining self-efficacy was linked to increased perceived stress [37]. During the quarantine period, pregnant women in our study who experienced stressors such as interpersonal contact with sick acquaintances, limited access to food, and a decline in HI demonstrated a reduction in their COP and NEG levels. Furthermore, several studies have underscored the significance of POS as protective factors in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown, providing evidence of a positive association between effective coping strategies and improved psychological well-being during the pandemic across diverse populations [38,39]. Research has also indicated that higher levels of COVID-19 self-efficacy are associated with reduced suicidal ideation among adults in the United States [40]. Consistent with previous studies among college students, young adults, and vulnerable people [41,42], the protective roles of the COP and NEG against stressors and psychological problems were also confirmed in our sample of pregnant women during lockdown. Specifically, COP- and NEG-related interventions were more effective in alleviating mental distress caused by reduced income and food scarcity due to the COVID-19 pandemic than in alleviating adverse psychological outcomes caused by stress from AIs.

The growing number of deaths and newly diagnosed cases reported online were related to maternal depression rates [43], and regular internet use has affected the mental health of employees and students during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown [44]. A survey in China indicated that social media exposure to COVID-19 information enhanced levels of depression and anxiety [45]. These conclusions are similar to those of our study: the time spent browsing pandemic-related information is directly related to maternal NEG, COP, and mental health levels but does not play a moderating role in the relationship between POS and mental health. Browsing epidemic information moderately (within half an hour) per day is better for mental health than not browsing it at all or browsing too frequently.

Furthermore, previous studies have found that individual quarantine is associated with increased anxiety and depression, large disparities have been found between the mental health effects of lockdowns of varied durations in Australia, with the effect of long lockdowns being more than three times larger than that of short lockdowns [46]. Long lockdowns are associated with prolonged psychological distress, financial stress, and social restriction [47]. In our study, there were also differences in the levels of COP, NEG, and mental health among pregnant women with different periods of mandatory quarantine; however, days in quarantine did not play a moderating role in the relationship between POS and mental health. For pregnant women who were restricted to a moderate length of time (26-35 days), their emotional management ability and level of mental health were slightly lower than those who were confined for a short duration and quarantined for a long period of time, suggesting that psychological counseling of pregnant women should be given special attention in areas where the lockdown policy was implemented early and for a long period of time.

Limitations

Despite the significance of these findings, this study has several limitations. First, we employed a cross-sectional design to evaluate measurements concurrently without collecting pre-lockdown baseline data for comparative analysis, owing to the abrupt implementation of restrictions. In the future, longitudinal studies should be conducted to establish causal relationships. Second, many other factors, such as the trimester of pregnancy and behavioral characteristics, such as sleep quality, which could potentially influence psychological outcomes, were not considered in this study. Third, online self-assessment and the convenience sample adopted may have reduced the representativeness and reliability of the findings. Further investigation is required to ascertain whether the findings from pregnant women can be generalized to other adults, vulnerable cohorts, and the general population.

Conclusions

Although our cross-sectional study cannot prove causality, our finding that the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown could adversely affect maternal mental health is consistent with previous findings. Moreover, we believe that the current study extends our comprehension of how lockdown stressors (income, food, and infection) and protective mediating variables (COP and NEG) predict psychological outcomes in home-quarantined pregnant women. The present study is also the first to find a moderating role of the number of pregnancies on the mediating effect of COP between stressors during the lockdown and maternal mental health, providing a reference for designing pregnancy-friendly restrictions in response to future public health emergencies

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets used and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Zhen Huang, Man Jiang, Shimeng Liu. Data curation: Dongjian Yang. Funding acquisition: Zhen Huang. Investigation: Lei Chen, Nan Tuo. Methodology: Man Jiang, Nan Tuo, Lei Chen. Writing—original draft: Man Jiang, Zhen Huang. Writing—review & editing: Zhen Huang, Shimeng Liu.

Funding Statement

The study was funded by a grant from the China hospital development institute (project number: CHDI-2023-B-20).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the medical staff of the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital who participated in this study for their support and assistance with recruiting participants. We thank the participants for their participation in the study during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Figure 1.

A hypothetical stress-process model for pregnant women during the COVID-19 lockdown based on Pearlin et al. [25]

Figure 2.

Final structural equation model with standardized path coefficients. All solid black lines represent paths of the optimized model with p<0.001, while two dashed paths were deleted from the initial model as there was no statistical significance. The deep green areas are three hypothetical moderators in the moderated mediation model. NEG, self-efficacy in managing negative affect; COP, COVID-19 coping strategies; DES, despondency-distress; ANG, anger-irritation; COM, compunction; DL, duration of lockdown; HIS, hours on COVID-19 information seeking; NP, number of pregnancies seeking.

Table 1.

NEG, COP, and mental health among participants with different characteristics and stressors during the COVID-19 lockdown (N=1,491)

	N (%)	NEG		COP		Mental health
	N (%)	Mean±SD	p	Mean±SD	p	Mean±SD	p
Age (yr)			0.405		0.559		0.096
18-24	25 (1.68)	40.64±10.21		15.36±2.96		31.28±15.47
25-34	1,150 (77.13)	40.70±7.69		15.69±2.81		27.77±7.89
≥35	316 (21.19)	41.36±7.80		15.52±2.83		27.95±7.75
Education			0.889		0.286		0.747
≤High school	304 (20.39)	40.72±8.85		15.82±3.03		27.84±8.97
College or undergraduate	795 (53.32)	40.81±7.56		15.66±2.75		27.75±7.50
≥Postgraduate	392 (26.29)	40.99±7.25		15.48±2.78		28.13±8.37
Work status			0.014^*		0.011^*		0.066
Full-time	1,326 (88.93)	40.96±7.62		15.71±2.79		27.76±7.88
Part-time	33 (2.21)	42.79±5.94		15.85±2.61		26.58±4.81
Does not work	132 (8.85)	39.17±9.22		14.95±3.10		29.33±10.05
Marital status			0.245		0.641		0.273
Married	1,432 (96.04)	40.89±7.67		15.64±2.79		27.81±7.91
Single	57 (3.82)	39.96±9.74		15.70±3.47		29.19±10.97
Divorced	2 (0.13)	33.00±0.00		17.50±3.54		33.50±6.36
Annual household income (RMB)			0.970		0.669		0.364
<160,000	408 (27.36)	40.82±8.47		15.62±2.82		27.86±8.57
160,000-240,000	287 (19.25)	40.66±7.76		15.78±2.59		27.56±7.22
240,001-320,000	281 (18.85)	40.93±8.04		15.73±2.81		27.37±7.66
>320,000	515 (34.54)	40.91±7.00		15.55±2.94		28.33±8.27
Residency			0.859		0.237		0.382
Inner city	449 (30.11)	40.78±8.07		15.51±2.95		28.16±8.59
Outer city	1,042 (69.89)	40.86±7.62		15.71±2.76		27.74±7.80
Number of pregnancies			0.008^**		0.405		0.087
1	1,103 (73.98)	40.52±7.69		15.61±2.84		28.11±8.32
2	333 (22.33)	41.49±7.43		15.68±2.82		27.36±7.38
≥3	55 (3.69)	43.29±10.24		16.13±2.35		26.13±5.93
COVID-19 vaccination			0.349		0.325		0.959
Yes	501 (33.60)	40.57±8.01		15.55±2.78		27.88±7.97
No	990 (66.40)	40.98±7.63		15.70±2.84		27.86±8.09
Days in quarantine			0.001^**		0.026^*		0.025^*
≤25	291 (19.52)	40.55±7.56		15.61±2.97		27.76±8.41
26-35	243 (16.30)	39.29±7.88		15.22±2.78		29.14±8.96
>35	957 (64.19)	41.32±7.74		15.77±2.77		27.58±7.66
Hours on pandemic-related information obtaining			0.015^*		<0.001^***		<0.001^***
None	99 (6.64)	40.97±9.44		15.72±3.23		27.35±10.71
<0.5	842 (56.47)	41.07±7.38		15.89±2.69		26.97±6.79
0.5-1	288 (19.32)	41.37±7.42		15.61±2.60		28.27±7.90
>1	262 (17.57)	39.46±8.47		14.87±3.14		30.52±9.97
Degree to which household income was affected			<0.001^***		<0.001^***		<0.001^***
Severely affected	116 (7.78)	38.66±8.47		14.14±3.22		31.33±10.98
Greatly affected	188 (12.61)	38.41±7.03		15.08±2.59		29.77±8.13
Moderately affected	405 (27.16)	40.40±7.81		15.51±2.76		27.65±7.70
Slightly affected	509 (34.14)	41.90±7.42		16.02±2.69		27.51±7.81
Not affected at all	273 (18.31)	42.12±7.87		16.20±2.80		26.08±6.74
Level of fulfillment of daily supplies (e.g., food)			<0.001^***		<0.001^***		<0.001^***
Not met at all	42 (2.82)	36.76±11.56		13.74±3.79		33.02±11.82
Slightly met	215 (14.42)	38.33±7.76		14.70±3.00		30.77±9.13
Moderately met	696 (46.68)	40.34±7.25		15.36±2.62		28.22±7.78
Greatly met	394 (26.43)	42.40±7.34		16.40±2.50		26.00±6.42
Fully met	144 (9.66)	43.92±7.97		16.96±2.91		25.46±8.16
Self-infection			0.552		0.968		0.517
Yes	18 (1.21)	39.83±7.08		15.61±3.74		29.56±10.91
No	1,473 (98.79)	40.85±7.77		15.65±2.81		27.85±8.01
Infection of acquaintances			<0.001^***		<0.001^***		<0.001^***
Yes	186 (12.47)	38.46±7.06		14.60±3.13		31.42±10.42
No	1,305 (87.53)	41.18±7.80		15.80±2.74		27.36±7.52
Infection of household members			0.063		0.260		0.046^*
Yes	30 (2.01)	38.13±7.76		14.97±3.29		31.97±10.93
No	1,461 (97.99)	40.90±7.75		15.66±2.81		27.79±7.96

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01;

^*** p<0.001.

NEG, self-efficacy in managing negative affect; COP, COVID-19 coping strategies; RMB, Ren Min Bi; SD, standard deviation

Table 2.

Testing the parallel mediating effect from three stressors to mental health (Y)

Path	b	SE	p	Bias-corrected 95% CI
Path	b	SE	p	Lower	Upper
Total effect	-10.776	1.580	<0.001	-14.010	-7.793
Direct effect (AI-Y)	-4.178	1.282	0.001	-6.826	-1.800
Indirect effect	-6.598	0.807	<0.001	-8.251	-5.097
Indirect effect via NEG (Ind1)	-3.100	0.501	<0.001	-4.171	-2.201
Path1: HI-NEG-Y	-0.414	0.131	0.002	-0.680	-0.164
Path3: AI-NEG-Y	-1.656	0.402	<0.001	-2.521	-0.918
Path5: DS-NEG-Y	-1.031	0.196	<0.001	-1.443	-0.675
Indirect effect via COP (Ind2)	-3.498	0.636	<0.001	-4.896	-2.407
Path2: HI-COP-Y	-0.442	0.137	0.001	-0.726	-0.187
Path4: AI-COP-Y	-1.897	0.495	<0.001	-2.985	-1.067
Path6: DS-COP-Y	-1.158	0.199	<0.001	-1.585	-0.799
Ratio1 (Ind1/Total)	0.288	0.055	<0.001	0.197	0.415
Ratio2 (Ind2/Total)	0.325	0.054	<0.001	0.232	0.441
Difference (Ind1 vs. Ind2)	0.398	0.813	0.625	-1.086	2.156

b, unstandardized regression coefficients; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; AI, acquaintance infection; NEG, self-efficacy in managing negative affect; HI, household income; DS, daily supplies; COP, COVID-19 coping strategies

Table 3.

Conditional indirect effects of stressors on mental health (Y) through COP at different number of pregnancies

Path	Number of pregnancies	b	SE	p	95% CI
Path	Number of pregnancies	b	SE	p	Lower	Upper
HI-COP-Y	1	-1.147	0.416	0.006	-2.074	-0.470
	2	-0.772	0.258	0.003	-1.333	-0.324
	≥3	-0.398	0.127	0.002	-0.669	-0.168
AI-COP-Y	1	-4.919	1.493	0.001	-8.455	-2.522
	2	-3.313	0.913	<0.001	-5.465	-1.850
	≥3	-1.707	0.465	<0.001	-2.768	-0.938
DS-COP-Y	1	-3.002	0.737	<0.001	-4.632	-1.721
	2	-2.022	0.413	<0.001	-2.932	-1.308
	≥3	-1.042	0.187	<0.001	-1.455	-0.706

COP, COVID-19 coping strategies; HI, household income; AI, acquaintance infection; DS, daily supplies; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval

REFERENCES

1. COVID-19 epidemiological update-12 April 2024 [Internet]. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-epidemiological-update-edition-166. Accessed April 12, 2024.

2. Shanghai to resume normal production and life from June 1 [Internet]. Available at: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202205/31/WS6295b75aa310fd2b29e600c0.html. Accessed May 31, 2022.

3. Avalos LA, Nance N, Badon SE, Young-Wolff K, Ames J, Zhu Y, et al. Associations of COVID-19-related health, healthcare and economic factors with prenatal depression and anxiety. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1604433

4. Iyengar U, Jaiprakash B, Haitsuka H, Kim S. One year into the pandemic: a systematic review of perinatal mental health outcomes during COVID-19. Front Psychiatry 2021;12:674194

5. Burhamah W, AlKhayyat A, Oroszlányová M, AlKenane A, Almansouri A, Behbehani M, et al. The psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures: experience from 4000 participants. J Affect Disord 2020;277:977-985.

6. Wickens CM, Hamilton HA, Elton-Marshall T, Nigatu YT, Jankowicz D, Wells S. Household- and employment-related risk factors for depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Public Health 2021;112:391-399.

7. Witteveen D, Velthorst E. Economic hardship and mental health complaints during COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:27277-27284.

8. Pieh C, Budimir S, Probst T. The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. J Psychosom Res 2020;136:110186

9. Impacts of COVID-19 on food security and nutrition: developing effective policy responses to address the hunger and malnutrition pandemic [Internet]. Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cb6720en. Accessed September 25, 2020.

10. Mishra K, Rampal J. The COVID-19 pandemic and food insecurity: a viewpoint on India. World Dev 2020;135:105068

11. Ahmed F, Islam A, Pakrashi D, Rahman T, Siddique A. Determinants and dynamics of food insecurity during COVID-19 in rural Bangladesh. Food Policy 2021;101:102066

12. Nagata JM, Ganson KT, Whittle HJ, Chu J, Harris OO, Tsai AC, et al. Food insufficiency and mental health in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Prev Med 2021;60:453-461.

13. Chiwona-Karltun L, Amuakwa-Mensah F, Wamala-Larsson C, Amuakwa-Mensah S, Abu Hatab A, Made N, et al. COVID-19: from health crises to food security anxiety and policy implications. Ambio 2021;50:794-811.

14. López-Morales H, Del-Valle MV, Andrés ML, Gelpi Trudo R, CanetJuric L, Urquijo S. Longitudinal study on prenatal depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch Womens Ment Health 2021;24:1027-1036.

15. Woody CA, Ferrari AJ, Siskind DJ, Whiteford HA, Harris MG. A systematic review and meta-regression of the prevalence and incidence of perinatal depression. J Affect Disord 2017;219:86-92.

16. Xiong X, Harville EW, Mattison DR, Elkind-Hirsch K, Pridjian G, Buekens P. Hurricane Katrina experience and the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression among pregnant women. Am J Disaster Med 2010;5:181-187.

17. Zheng Z, Zhang R, Liu T, Cheng P, Zhou Y, Lu W, et al. The psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on pregnant women in China. Front Psychiatry 2021;12:628835

18. Lubián López DM, Butrón Hinojo CA, Arjona Bernal JE, Fasero Laiz M, Alcolea Santiago J, Guerra Vilches V, et al. Resilience and psychological distress in pregnant women during quarantine due to the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain: a multicentre cross-sectional online survey. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2021;42:115-122.

19. Ionio C, Gallese M, Fenaroli V, Smorti M, Greco A, Testa I, et al. COVID-19: what about pregnant women during first lockdown in Italy? J Reprod Infant Psychol 2022;40:577-589.

20. Avalos LA, Nance N, Zhu Y, Croen LA, Young-Wolff KC, Zerbo O, et al. Contributions of COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors to racial and ethnic disparities in mental health during pregnancy. Front Psychiatry 2022;13:837659

21. Yuan K, Zheng YB, Wang YJ, Sun YK, Gong YM, Huang YT, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence of and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety and insomnia in infectious diseases, including COVID-19: a call to action. Mol Psychiatry 2022;27:3214-3222.

22. Khoury JE, Atkinson L, Bennett T, Jack SM, Gonzalez A. Coping strategies mediate the associations between COVID-19 experiences and mental health outcomes in pregnancy. Arch Womens Ment Health 2021;24:1007-1017.

23. Allegri B, Brenna V, Confalonieri L, Puzzini A, Nichelatti M, Piccinini G, et al. The impact of the second COVID-19 lockdown on anxiety and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: a case study of pregnant women in northern Italy. Brain Behav Immun Health 2023;30:100633

24. Luo Z, Shen Y, Yuan J, Zhao Y, Liu Z, Shangguan F. Perceived stress, resilience, and anxiety among pregnant Chinese women during the COVID-19 pandemic: latent profile analysis and mediation analysis. Front Psychol 2021;12:696132

25. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav 1981;22:337-356.

26. Dadi AF, Mwanri L, Woodman RJ, Azale T, Miller ER. Causal mechanisms of postnatal depression among women in Gondar town, Ethiopia: application of a stress-process model with generalized structural equation modeling. Reprod Health 2020;17:63

27. Liu S, Yan Y, Gao X, Xiang S, Sha T, Zeng G, et al. Risk factors for postpartum depression among Chinese women: path model analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:133

28. Caprara GV, Di Giunta L, Eisenberg N, Gerbino M, Pastorelli C, Tramontano C. Assessing regulatory emotional self-efficacy in three countries. Psychol Assess 2008;20:227-237.

29. Liu J, Zhu X, Yan J, Gong L, Wu X, Liu M, et al. Association between regulatory emotional self-efficacy and immunosuppressive medication adherence in renal transplant recipients:does medication belief act as a mediator? Front Pharmacol 2021;12:559368

30. Morelli M, Cattelino E, Baiocco R, Trumello C, Babore A, Candelori C, et al. Parents and children during the COVID-19 lockdown: the influence of parenting distress and parenting self-efficacy on children’s emotional well-being. Front Psychol 2020;11:584645

31. Yıldırım M, Akgül Ö, Geçer E. The effect of COVID-19 anxiety on general health: the role of COVID-19 coping. Int J Ment Health Addict 2022;20:1110-1121.

32. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther 1995;33:335-343.

33. Cowles B, Medvedev ON Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). In: Medvedev ON, Krägeloh CU, Siegert, RJ, Singh NN, editors. Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research. Cham: Springer, 2022.

34. Mplus Code for the Mediation, Moderation, and Moderated Mediation Model Templates From Andrew Hayes’ Process Analysis Examples [Internet]. Available at: https://www.figureitout.org.uk/mplusmedmod.htm. Accessed May 5, 2022.

35. Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 2002;7:422-445.

36. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1-55.

37. Cihan H, Var EC. Developing a model on the factors affecting family resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic: risk and protective factors. Curr Psychol 2023;42:20259-20274.

38. Brehl AK, Schene A, Kohn N, Fernández G. Maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in a vulnerable population predict increased anxiety during the Covid-19 pandemic: a pseudo-prospective study. J Affect Disord Rep 2021;4:100113

39. Jiang HJ, Nan J, Lv ZY, Yang J. Psychological impacts of the COVID-19 epidemic on Chinese people: exposure, post-traumatic stress symptom, and emotion regulation. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2020;13:252-259.

40. Lueck JA, Callaghan T, Scherr S. Suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic: investigating mental health, COVID-19 health beliefs, and news media consumption in the United States population in the year 2020. Omega (Westport) 2024;88:1168-1180.

41. Brailovskaia J, Margraf J. Relationship between sense of control, psychological burden, sources of information and adherence to anti-COVID-19 rules. J Affect Disord Rep 2022;8:100317

42. Rettie H, Daniels J. Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol 2021;76:427-437.

43. Wu Y, Zhang C, Liu H, Duan C, Li C, Fan J, et al. Perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms of pregnant women during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223:240.e1-240.e9.

44. Majumdar P, Biswas A, Sahu S. COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown: cause of sleep disruption, depression, somatic pain, and increased screen exposure of office workers and students of India. Chronobiol Int 2020;37:1191-1200.

45. Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, Chen S, et al. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS One 2020;15:e0231924.

46. Li A, Mansour A, Bentley R. Green and blue spaces, COVID-19 lockdowns, and mental health: an Australian population-based longitudinal analysis. Health Place 2023;83:103103

47. Prati G, Mancini AD. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol Med 2021;51:201-211.