Longitudinal validation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale in a nationwide United States sample: An item response theory model across three inflection points of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic's global emergence/spread caused widespread fear. Measurement/tracking of COVID-19 fear could facilitate remediation. Despite the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S)'s validation in multiple languages/countries, nationwide United States (U.S.) studies are scarce. Cross-sectional classical test theory-based validation studies predominate. Our longitudinal study sampled respondents to a 3-wave, nationwide, online survey. We calibrated the FCV-19S using a unidimensional graded response model. Item/scale monotonicity, discrimination, informativeness, goodness-of-fit, criterion validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were assessed. Items 7, 6, and 3 consistently displayed very high discrimination. Other items had moderate-to-high discrimination. Items 3, 6, and 7 were most (items 1 and 5 the least) informative. [Correction added on 18 May 2023, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the term 'items one-fifth least' has been changed to 'items 1 and 5 the least'.] Item scalability was 0.62-0.69; full-scale scalability 0.65-0.67. Ordinal reliability coefficient was 0.94; test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient 0.84. Positive correlations with posttraumatic stress/anxiety/depression, and negative correlations with emotional stability/resilience supported convergent/divergent validity. The FCV-19S validly/reliably captures temporal variation in COVID-19 fear across the U.S.

The risks of attrition bias in longitudinal surveys of the impact of COVID-19.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, interest in mental health impacts is shifting from short-term to long-term outcomes. As part of a longitudinal online survey study examining mental health impacts of the pandemic, we assessed the risk of attrition bias related to a history of depression-a condition research shows can increase challenges of recruitment and retention. Among 5023 participants who completed the baseline survey, significantly more reporting a history of depression were lost to follow-up: baseline to 3 months: 497/760 (65.4%) vs 2228/4263 (52.3%), P < 0.001; 3 to 6 months: 179/263 (68.1%) vs 1183/2035 (58.1%), P = 0.002. Participants reporting a history of depression also had greater adjusted odds of a Patient Health Questionnaire-8 score ≥10 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.27, 4.84), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 score ≥10 (OR = 3.77, 95% CI 3.07, 4.62), and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM V score ≥ 28 (OR = 7.17, 95% CI 4.67, 11.00) at baseline, indicating a need to account for attrition bias when examining these outcomes. Similar considerations likely apply to other longitudinal survey studies and are important to address to ensure accurate evidence is available to support policy decisions regarding resource allocation and funding.

The Pandemic Experience for People with Depressive Symptoms: Substance Use, Finances, Access to Treatment, and Trusted Sources of Information.

Background: Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are well recognized, but little is known about the pandemic experience among people experiencing mental health symptoms. Methods: In June 2020, a national sample of 5023 U.S. adults, including 785 scoring ⩾10 on the PHQ-8 for symptoms of depression, completed survey measures related to their pandemic experience. Results: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic experience for which participants scoring PHQ-8 ⩾ 10 had the greatest increase in odds of reporting moderate/severe negative impacts included: mental health treatment access (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.81, 6.70-11.57), family stress/discord (OR, 95% CI = 5.21, 4.24-6.42), food access (OR, 95% CI = 3.76, 2.97-4.77), and income/employment (OR, 95% CI = 3.19, 2.66-3.83). They were also significantly more likely to report increased use of prescription painkillers (OR, 95% CI = 8.46, 4.50-15.92) and other drugs (OR, 95% CI = 4.43, 2.85-6.89), and less trust in healthcare authorities/providers, family/friends, and employers, and more trust in websites/blogs/social media, for COVID-19 information (P-values < .05). Conclusions: The interplay among depressive symptoms, substance use, lack of trust in healthcare authorities, and negative impact of the pandemic on family, finances, and access to mental health treatment and food indicate the need for robust social and behavioral health safety nets to buffer communities from the shadow epidemics of depression, family violence, and overdose deaths during public health disasters.

The experience of COVID-19 among people with depression: Impact on daily life and coping strategies.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression symptoms among U.S. adults increased dramatically during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on people with a history of depression. METHODS: In June 2020, a national sample of 5023 U.S. adults, including 760 reporting past/current diagnoses of depression, completed survey measures related to the COVID experience, coping, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. RESULTS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, a history of depression increased the odds of negative effects of pandemic on multiple aspects of life: routines, access to mental health treatment, alcohol use, prescription painkiller use, and other drug use. Those with a history of depression also scored significantly higher on the PHQ-8, GAD-7, and PDS-5 (all ps < 0.0001). Greater use of adaptive coping strategies was significantly associated with lower scores, and greater use of maladaptive strategies with higher scores. Individuals reporting a history of depression reported greater use of both adaptive and maladaptive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive coping strategies appear to be protective and help regulate symptomatology, suggesting that particular focus during the clinical encounter on developing tools to promote well-being, alleviate stress, and decrease perceptions of helplessness could mitigate the effects.

Attitudes and personal beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine among people with COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little research is available regarding vaccination attitudes among those recently diagnosed with COVID-19. This is important to investigate, particularly among those experiencing mild-to-moderate illness, given the ongoing need to improve uptake of both initial vaccine series and booster doses, and the divergent ways such an experience could impact attitudes. METHODS: From September 3 - November 12, 2021, all patients enrolled in Baylor Scott & White's "COVID-19 Digital Care Journey for Home Monitoring" were invited to participate in an online survey that included questions about vaccination status and attitudes/opinions regarding COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. Following an item asking about accordance of COVID-19 vaccination with religious/personal beliefs, participants were asked to describe those beliefs and how they relate to taking/not taking the vaccine. RESULTS: Of 8,075 patients age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 and invited to join the survey during the study period, 3242 (40.2%) were fully vaccinated. In contrast, among the 149 who completed the questionnaire, 95(63.8%) reported full vaccination. Responses differed significantly between vaccination groups. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that COVID-19 is a major public health problem, the vaccines are safe and effective, and their decision to vaccinate included considering community benefit. The unvaccinated group responded neutrally to most questions addressing safety and public health aspects of the vaccine, while strongly disagreeing with statements regarding vaccine effectiveness and other preventative public health measures. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that taking the vaccine accorded with their religious/personal beliefs, while the unvaccinated group was neutral. In qualitative analysis of the free text responses "risk perception/calculation" and "no impact" of religious/personal beliefs on vaccination decisions were frequent themes/subthemes in both groups, but beliefs related to the "greater good" were a strong driver among the vaccinated, while statements emphasizing "individual choice" were a third frequent theme for the unvaccinated. CONCLUSION: Our results show that two of the three factors that drive vaccine hesitancy (complacency, and lack of confidence in the vaccines) are present among unvaccinated adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19. They also show that beliefs emphasizing the importance of the greater good promote public health participation.

The Pandemic Experience for People with Depressive Symptoms: Substance Use, Finances, Access to Treatment, and Trusted Sources of Information

Background: Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are well recognized, but little is known about the pandemic experience among people experiencing mental health symptoms. Methods: In June 2020, a national sample of 5023 U.S. adults, including 785 scoring ⩾10 on the PHQ-8 for symptoms of depression, completed survey measures related to their pandemic experience. Results: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic experience for which participants scoring PHQ-8 ⩾ 10 had the greatest increase in odds of reporting moderate/severe negative impacts included: mental health treatment access (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.81, 6.70-11.57), family stress/discord (OR, 95% CI = 5.21, 4.24-6.42), food access (OR, 95% CI = 3.76, 2.97-4.77), and income/employment (OR, 95% CI = 3.19, 2.66-3.83). They were also significantly more likely to report increased use of prescription painkillers (OR, 95% CI = 8.46, 4.50-15.92) and other drugs (OR, 95% CI = 4.43, 2.85-6.89), and less trust in healthcare authorities/providers, family/friends, and employers, and more trust in websites/blogs/social media, for COVID-19 information (P-values < .05). Conclusions: The interplay among depressive symptoms, substance use, lack of trust in healthcare authorities, and negative impact of the pandemic on family, finances, and access to mental health treatment and food indicate the need for robust social and behavioral health safety nets to buffer communities from the shadow epidemics of depression, family violence, and overdose deaths during public health disasters.

Intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines in the united states: Sociodemographic factors and personal experiences with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Information regarding vaccination and the association with individuals' characteristics, experiences, and information sources is important for crafting public health campaigns to maximize uptake. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with intentions for COVID-19 vaccination among a sample of U.S. adults using a population-based cross-sectional survey. METHOD: Data were collected via an online questionnaire administered nationwide from January 4, to January 7, 2021 following the emergency use authorization for two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccines. RESULTS: Of 936 U.S. adult respondents, 66% stated an intention to be vaccinated once a COVID-19 vaccine was available to them; 14.7% responded "maybe" and 19.6% "no." Unadjusted and multivariate associations revealed "no/maybe" vaccination intentions were associated with younger age, female, Black race, lower income, history of not receiving the influenza vaccine, lower fear of COVID-19, suffering moderate to severe reduction in access to food/nutrition, and lower trust in health care authorities, personal health care providers, and/or traditional news media as sources of COVID-19 information. Of respondents "maybe" intending to be vaccinated, 65% reported "a lot" of trust in personal health care providers as sources of COVID-19 information. Respondents stating "no" intention to be vaccinated were skeptical of all COVID-19 information sources considered. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm observations predating COVID-19 vaccine availability regarding sociodemographic characteristics associated with vaccine hesitancy in the United States. We further identify personal health care providers as the most trusted information source among people who "maybe" intend to get vaccinated and demonstrate the challenge in reaching people not intending to be vaccinated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Multi-center matched cohort study of convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although frequently used in the early pandemic, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) remain mixed. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in real-world practices during the first two waves of the pandemic in a multi-hospital healthcare system in Texas. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Among 11,322 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from July 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021, we included patients who received CCP and matched them with those who did not receive CCP within ±2 days of the transfusion date across sites within strata of sex, age groups, days and use of dexamethasone from hospital admission to the match date, and oxygen requirements 4-12 hours prior to the match date. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effectiveness outcomes in a propensity score 1:1 matched cohort. Pre-defined safety outcomes were described. We included 1,245 patients each in the CCP treated and untreated groups. Oxygen support was required by 93% of patients at the baseline. The pre-defined primary effectiveness outcome of 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.66,1.10) were similar between treatment groups. Sensitivity and stratified analyses found similar null results. CCP-treated patients were less likely to be discharged alive (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.91), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.48; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96). Safety outcomes were rare and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The findings in this large, matched cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and mostly requiring oxygen support at the time of treatment, do not support a clinical benefit in 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality for CCP. Future studies should assess the potential benefits with specifically high-titer units in perhaps certain subgroups of patients (e.g. those with early disease or immunocompromised).

Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disproportionate suffering among vulnerable and socioeconomically disadvantaged portions of the population. Low-income and minority populations are likely to experience disparate disease and mental health burdens. Currently, there is little evidence regarding how the experience of the early months of the US COVID-19 outbreak differed by income level, and how that related to mental health symptoms. The present study used data from a national sample of US adults (n = 5023) who completed measures related to the COVID experience, the COVID-19 Fear Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8). Multivariable regression was performed to determine whether income level (low: <$45,000 vs high: ≥$75,000) was significantly associated with COVID experience measures, PHQ-8, GAD-7, and COVID fear scores. Among the low-income group, COVID-19 had a significantly greater negative impact on: family income/employment, access to food, access to mental health treatment, and stress and discord in the family. Participants in the low-income group also had greater odds of a PHQ-8 score ≥10 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08, 1.77) and a GAD-7 score ≥10 (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.27, 2.14) compared to those in the high-income group. Study findings suggest substantial differences in how COVID-19 impacted daily life and mental health between adults living in low-income households compared to high-earning households during the early months of the pandemic.

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor-Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis.

PURPOSE: Psychometric validity/reliability of 10-item and 2-item abbreviations of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; CD-RISC-2) was investigated via item response theory and classic approaches. METHODS: We sampled 5023 adult American participants in a June/July 2020 survey on the COVID-19 pandemic's psychological effects. Our questionnaire incorporated the CD-RISC-10 with other validated measures. CD-RISC-10 items were ranked on item-to-scale correlations, loadings on a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model, and item slope/threshold parameters plus information curves from a unidimensional graded response model. Concurrent validity of the highest ranked item pair was evaluated vis-à-vis the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2. Internal consistency, based on average variance extracted (AVE) and multiple reliability coefficients, was also compared. Convergent/divergent validity was tested by correlating anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, anxiety sensitivity, coping, and personality measures with both scales and the highest ranked item pair. Binary agreement/classification indexes assessed inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Items 2 and 9 from CD-RISC-10 ranked the highest. Reliability coefficients were > 0.93, > 0.72, and > 0.82 for the CD-RISC-10, CD-RISC-2, vs summation of items 2 and 9. AVEs were 0.66, 0.67, and 0.77. CD-RISC abbreviations and the summation of items 2 and 9 correlated negatively with anxiety (> - 0.43), depression (> - 0.42), and fear of COVID-19 (> - 0.34); positively with emotional stability (> 0.53) and conscientiousness (> 0.40). Compared to the CD-RISC-2, summative scores of items 2 and 9 more efficiently classified/discriminated high resilience on the CD-RISC-10. CONCLUSION: We confirmed construct validity/reliability of copyrighted CD-RISC abbreviations. The CD-RISC-10's items 2 and 9 were psychometrically more salient than the CD-RISC-2.

Psychological differences in adults with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence is emerging regarding the broad societal and psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but little is known about whether infected individuals are differently affected. AIM: We evaluated psychological differences between individuals who do vs. do not report testing positive for COVID-19. METHODS: An online survey was offered to adults (≥18 years) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by a provider within a large integrated-delivery healthcare system, enrolled in COVID-19-related clinical trials at the healthcare system, or responded to targeted local distribution. Measures assessed included the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale, and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5. RESULTS: Of 487 respondents, 43% reported testing positive for COVID-19, including 11% requiring hospitalization. Overall rates of general anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress were 34% and 16%, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Prevalence of depression was higher among respondents reporting a positive COVID-19 test (52% vs. 31%). This difference persisted after controlling for respondent characteristics (odds ratio = 3.7, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: People who report testing positive for COVID-19, even those not requiring hospitalization, have increased risk for depression. Mental health care screening and services should be offered to individuals testing positive, facilitating early intervention.