Social and Behavioral Health During COVID-19 Report by Utah’s Department of Health Causes Further Damage to Mental Health Community

In January 2021, the Utah Department of Health and the Utah Department of Human Services released a Social and Behavioral Health report during COVID-19. (You can find the report here.) Staff members collected data on emergency room visits, prescriptions filled for anxiety and depression medication, and new patient intakes. Using statistical correlation (an analytical error), they leaped to damaging and false assumptions about the mental health state of Utahns, including the false claim that “there is currently no evidence that directly links public health measures to increased levels of mental distress among Utahns.”

It’s important to note that the Social and Behavioral Health During COVID-19 report gathered information only from March 2020 to August 2020. It does not cover the whole year. It was released only seven months after Utah announced the Live On campaign to further suicide prevention. A time when then Lieutenant Governor Cox was running for the governor of the state of Utah. Cox himself said in May 2020, the pandemic has “exacerbated the mental health issues we already face as a state and as a society.”

How can correlational statistics be damaging?

First, it’s vital to understand that correlational data doesn’t indicate causation. There may be a relationship between the data, but one doesn’t cause the other. Only with a proper experiment and further study can you understand correlational data.

Let’s take an imaginary example. A school looks at student test scores and student shoe size and discovers that students with the largest shoe sizes scored higher on the tests. They conclude from this correlational data that students with larger shoe sizes are smarter. Are they correct in making this assumption?

Are there more factors to consider when it comes to taking tests? By releasing the “findings” of their study to the students and parents, what damage will the school do to the morale of students who can’t change the size of their feet?

What damage will be done as word spreads to the community about the supposed link between intelligence and foot size?

(To learn more about statistical correlation – what it is and isn’t – click here and here.)

Now that we understand why using correlational data to jump to conclusions is damaging to individuals and the community at large let’s return to the report and examine how it uses correlational data with ER visits.

The report says there was no significant increase in individuals going to the emergency room in 2020 compared to 2019. The assumption is that there was no increase in people feeling suicidal or depressed in 2020. It doesn’t take into account other factors in the community and in the person’s life that may inhibit them from going to the ER.

If our state politicians wonder why suicide and mental illness are a problem in our state, the first step is to take a closer look at the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. Reducing mental illness to correlational statistics minimizes individuals who suffer from a mental health condition and the family members who care for this person. It communicates that the Department of Health and the Utah Department of Human Services are far removed from the experience and needs of those with mental health conditions.

Releasing a report and spreading the false message of we’re okay here in Utah, also tells those who aren’t feeling okay—those who are depressed, anxious, worried, angry—that they’re not like everyone else. They feel alone, like they’re an outlier when really, they’re not.

It makes it harder for people to reach out, to speak up, to feel safe about their feelings.

The false message of you’re okay also allows Utah politicians and policymakers to feel good about allocating money and resources elsewhere—money and resources that are desperately needed to go towards improving mental health outcomes for individuals and families and for creating mental health equality—something that is long overdue in our state.

I know what my own personal experience was in 2020, as well as what I’ve observed on social media, on the news, and in conversations with friends and family.

I know that 2020 was a survival year for me. What was it like for others? I created a brief 10-question mental health survey for Utah residents to discover some of the reasons if any, people had for NOT seeking mental health treatment. A little over 62% of the participants had either been diagnosed with a mental health condition or had an immediate family member diagnosed with a mental health condition.

Here’s what I learned from the survey participants:

• 65% said their mental health worsened in 2020 (regardless of whether that person had been diagnosed previously with a mental health condition or not)

• 70% reported that the mental health of an immediate family member worsened in 2020 (regardless of whether that person had been diagnosed previously with a mental health condition or not)

• 67.5% reported that the number of times they accessed mental health care in 2020 stayed the same, and 10% reported a decrease in accessing mental health care

• 52.5% reported that the number of times their immediate family member accessed mental health care stayed the same, and 17.5% reported a decrease in accessing mental health care

Survey participants were then given a variety of choices to indicate what, if any, impacted their ability or the ability of their immediate family member(s) to access mental health treatment. (See the question and results below.)

What are the key takeaways from my survey versus the Department of Health’s Survey?

While the survey was small, (I was limited in the number of survey answers I could collect), asking people about their experience rather than relying solely on correlational data is a key part of understanding mental health.

Note that although individuals reported their mental health got worse, the majority of these individuals said the number of times they or family members accessed treatment stayed the same. For some, the number of times decreased.

The Utah Department of Health report used correlational data in terms of ER visits and assumed that mental health didn’t worsen because people didn’t come to the hospital more often.

But looking at some of the reasons participants gave, the top reason was fear of getting COVID. In fact, during the first few months, Utahns were encouraged to NOT go to the doctor or the hospital but to reserve those places for sick people.

Will the Social and Behavioral Health During COVID-19 report be used to justify an ongoing attitude of indifference toward mental health disparity and maintaining the status quo? Or will Utah politicians and policymakers recognize the report for what it really is?

Incomplete.

Flawed.

Inaccurate.

It’s time to stop glossing over mental health and face Utah’s issues head on.

If you’re not okay, please speak up. Let your local and state representatives know you disagree with the Social and Behavioral Health During COVID-19 report.

Let them know you want more done for mental health in our state and BE SPECIFIC about your needs. What will help you the most? What will give you hope for the future?

It’s one thing to say we’re all in this together, but it’s another to work together for a brighter, hopeful future.

I’m willing do that.

Who’s with me?