Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol ; 2023 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2273444

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The current study aimed to investigate the rates of anxiety, clinical depression, and suicidality and their changes in health professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data came from the larger COMET-G study. The study sample includes 12,792 health professionals from 40 countries (62.40% women aged 39.76 ± 11.70; 36.81% men aged 35.91 ± 11.00 and 0.78% non-binary gender aged 35.15 ± 13.03). Distress and clinical depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm, respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses, and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. RESULTS: Clinical depression was detected in 13.16% with male doctors and 'non-binary genders' having the lowest rates (7.89 and 5.88% respectively) and 'non-binary gender' nurses and administrative staff had the highest (37.50%); distress was present in 15.19%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics, and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (24.64% vs. 9.62%; p < 0.0001). Suicidal tendencies were at least doubled in terms of RASS scores. Approximately one-third of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop clinical depression was associated with a history of Bipolar disorder (RR = 4.23). CONCLUSIONS: The current study reported findings in health care professionals similar in magnitude and quality to those reported earlier in the general population although rates of clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, and adherence to conspiracy theories were much lower. However, the general model of factors interplay seems to be the same and this could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable.

3.
Psychiatry Res ; 315: 114702, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914933

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic various degrees of lockdown were applied by countries around the world. It is considered that such measures have an adverse effect on mental health but the relationship of measure intensity with the mental health effect has not been thoroughly studied. Here we report data from the larger COMET-G study pertaining to this question. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, data were gathered with an online questionnaire from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Anxiety was measured with the STAI, depression with the CES-D and suicidality with the RASS. Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: It included the calculation of Relative Risk (RR), Factorial ANOVA and Multiple backwards stepwise linear regression analysis RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds were currently living under significant restrictions due to lockdown. For both males and females the risk to develop clinical depression correlated significantly with each and every level of increasing lockdown degree (RR 1.72 and 1.90 respectively). The combined lockdown and psychiatric history increased RR to 6.88 The overall relationship of lockdown with severity of depression, though significant was small. CONCLUSIONS: The current study is the first which reports an almost linear relationship between lockdown degree and effect in mental health. Our findings, support previous suggestions concerning the need for a proactive targeted intervention to protect mental health more specifically in vulnerable groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Suicide , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Communicable Disease Control , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics
4.
Int J Soc Psychiatry ; 68(5): 1036-1046, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879175

ABSTRACT

AIMS: We aimed to identify the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and suicidality and identify relevant risk and protecting factors among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey (n = 984, convenience sample by approaching all universities in Georgia and some student organizations) using valid instruments (e.g., STAI to assess anxiety, CES-D for depression, and RASS to assess suicidality). We calculated frequencies and prevalence and applied regression analysis and Chi-square tests to identify risk and protecting factors. FINDINGS: Respondents' mental health had been significantly affected (with a high prevalence of depression (46.7%) and anxiety (79%)) during the pandemic (which coincided with political turmoil and caused an economic crisis) in Georgia. Some of the critical factors affecting mental health were: female sex (p = .000), bad general health condition (anxiety p = .001, depression p = .004), finances (anxiety and depression p < .001), reduced physical activity (anxiety p < .001, depression p = .014), and a history of self-harming (suicidality p < .001). Less family conflicts (anxiety and depression p < .05), absence of nightmares (anxiety and depression p < .001), moderate or low fears of COVID-19 (anxiety p < .001), and lower substance use (anxiety p = .023) were among the potentially protective factors. International students coped better, despite vulnerability. Medical students had a lower risk of depression. CONCLUSIONS: In the complex socioeconomic context, mental health of students in Georgia suffered a lot during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring thorough planning and delivery of student support services in higher educational institutions during and after the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Students/psychology , Universities
5.
Acta Neuropsychiatr ; 34(3): 132-147, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565677

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate mental health and conspiracy theory beliefs concerning COVID-19 among health care professionals (HCPs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: During lockdown, an online questionnaire gathered data from 507 HCPs (432 females aged 33.86 ± 8.63 and 75 males aged 39.09 ± 9.54). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A post-stratification method to transform the study sample was used; descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Anxiety and probable depression were increased 1.5-2-fold and were higher in females and nurses. Previous history of depression was the main risk factor. The rates of believing in conspiracy theories concerning the COVID-19 were alarming with the majority of individuals (especially females) following some theory to at least some extend. CONCLUSIONS: The current paper reports high rates of depression, distress and suicidal thoughts in the HCPs during the lockdown, with a high prevalence of beliefs in conspiracy theories. Female gender and previous history of depression acted as risk factors, while the belief in conspiracy theories might act as a protective factor. The results should be considered with caution due to the nature of the data (online survey on a self-selected but stratified sample).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Greece/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Mental Health , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol ; 54: 21-40, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466347

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There are few published empirical data on the effects of COVID-19 on mental health, and until now, there is no large international study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. RESULTS: Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed. CONCLUSIONS: The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/epidemiology , Mental Health , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Global Burden of Disease , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Suicidal Ideation
8.
J Affect Disord ; 279: 624-629, 2021 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-899058

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There are only a few published empirical data on COVID-19's effects on the mental health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During lockdown, an online questionnaire registered demographic, health data, previous psychiatric history, current anxiety, depression and suicidality, believing in conspiracy theories and other domains. Data from 3399 persons were used (81.08% females; aged 34.02 ± 9.72 and 18.27% males; aged 36.38±10.33). Distress and clinical depression were identified with the use of cut-off and a previously developed algorithm respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A post-stratification method was used; descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. RESULTS: Clinical depression was present in 9.31% of the stratified sample, while 8.5% had severe distress; increased anxiety was present in more than 45%. Suicidal thoughts increased in 10.40% and decreased in 4.42%. Beliefs in conspiracy theories were widely prevalent; at least half of cases were following various misconceptions. A model for the development of depression was created with general health status, previous history of depression, self-harm and suicidal attempts, family responsibility, economic change, and age acting as risk factors, while keeping a daily routine, pursuing religiousness/spirituality, and believing in conspiracy theories acting as protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: The model developed here revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to clinical depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since most of these factors are modifiable. Future research, as well as interventions, should focus specifically on them.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/epidemiology , Suicidal Ideation , Adult , COVID-19/virology , Female , Greece/epidemiology , Health Status , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Protective Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report , Self-Injurious Behavior , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
9.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 42(4): 681-687, 2020 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690485

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, all European countries were hit, but mortality rates were heterogenous. The aim of the current paper was to identify factors responsible for this heterogeneity. METHODS: Data concerning 40 countries were gathered, concerning demographics, vulnerability factors and characteristics of the national response. These variables were tested against the rate of deaths per million in each country. The statistical analysis included Person correlation coefficient and Forward Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (FSLRA). RESULTS: The FSLRA results suggested that 'days since first national death for the implementation of ban of all public events' was the only variable significantly contributing to the final model, explaining 44% of observed variability. DISCUSSION: The current study suggests that the crucial factor for the different death rates because of COVID-19 outbreak was the fast implementation of public events ban. This does not necessarily mean that the other measures were useless, especially since most countries implemented all of them as a 'package'. However, it does imply that this is a possibility and focused research is needed to clarify it, and is in accord with a model of spreading where only a few superspreaders infect large numbers through prolonged exposure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Mortality/trends , Disease Outbreaks , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Physical Distancing , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL