A multinational cross-sectional study on the awareness and concerns of healthcare providers toward monkeypox and the promotion of the monkeypox vaccination.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore potential healthcare workers' (HCWs) concerns about the monkeypox virus in order to create practical solutions to manage this disease. Methods: Online cross-sectional research was conducted in 11 Arabic countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, and Sudan) from 2 August 2022 to 28 December 2022. Results: Approximately 82% of respondents felt the need to acquire further information. The acceptability of the vaccine against monkeypox has been indicated by more than half of the participants (54.5%). Furthermore, we state that 45% of the participants are knowledgeable about the monkeypox virus, and 53.1% of the participants have never been affected with COVID-19 before are more worried about COVID-19 than about monkeypox. Participants diagnosed with COVID-19 were 0.63 times less likely to worry about monkeypox than those who were not diagnosed with COVID-19. A greater willingness to get the monkeypox vaccination was seen among the age group 21-30 years (42.4%) compared to the other age groups. Conclusion: Most healthcare professionals have a moderate knowledge of the monkeypox virus. Furthermore, they demonstrated a low willingness to get the vaccination against the monkeypox virus.

Affectionate touch and diurnal oxytocin levels: An ecological momentary assessment study.

Background: Affectionate touch, which is vital for mental and physical health, was restricted during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study investigated the association between momentary affectionate touch and subjective well-being, as well as salivary oxytocin and cortisol in everyday life during the pandemic. Methods: In the first step, we measured anxiety and depression symptoms, loneliness and attitudes toward social touch in a large cross-sectional online survey (N = 1050). From this sample, N = 247 participants completed ecological momentary assessments over 2 days with six daily assessments by answering smartphone-based questions on affectionate touch and momentary mental state, and providing concomitant saliva samples for cortisol and oxytocin assessment. Results: Multilevel models showed that on a within-person level, affectionate touch was associated with decreased self-reported anxiety, general burden, stress, and increased oxytocin levels. On a between-person level, affectionate touch was associated with decreased cortisol levels and higher happiness. Moreover, individuals with a positive attitude toward social touch experiencing loneliness reported more mental health problems. Conclusions: Our results suggest that affectionate touch is linked to higher endogenous oxytocin in times of pandemic and lockdown and might buffer stress on a subjective and hormonal level. These findings might have implications for preventing mental burden during social contact restrictions. Funding: The study was funded by the German Research Foundation, the German Psychological Society, and German Academic Exchange Service.

[Assessment of Direct (COVID-19-Related) and Collateral, Psychosocial Pandemic Consequences for Vulnerable Groups by the Example of Serious Mental Illness]. / Erfassung direkter (COVID-19-bezogener) und kollateraler, psychosozialer Folgen für vulnerable Gruppen am Beispiel schwerer psychischer Erkrankungen.

The indirect pandemic consequences could by far exceed the direct effects of SARS-CoV-2 in terms of costs, morbidity, and mortality. This essay includes a proposed method (matrix) to visualize virus-related and psychosocial risks for different populations side by side in a systematic and concise manner. COVID-19-related and psychosocial vulnerability, stressors, direct and indirect consequences are derived on a theoretical and empirical basis. An exemplary quantification of the matrix for the vulnerable group of people with severe mental illness revealed a very high risk for severe COVID-19 consequences, as well as a pronounced risk for psychosocial collateral effects. The proposed approach could be further discussed for a risk-graded pandemic management, crisis recovery, and future preparedness to adequately address psychosocial collateral effects and better identify and protect vulnerable groups in this regard.

Monkeypox Post-COVID-19: Knowledge, Worrying, and Vaccine Adoption in the Arabic General Population.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of monkeypox was declared a global public health emergency by the World Health Organization on 23 July 2022. There have been 60,000 cases reported worldwide, most of which are in places where monkeypox has never been seen due to the travel of people who have the virus. This research aims to evaluate the general Arabic population in regard to the monkeypox disease, fears, and vaccine adoption after the WHO proclaimed a monkeypox epidemic and to compare these attitudes to those of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in some Arabic countries (Syria, Egypt, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan, Algeria, and Iraq) between 18 August and 7 September 2022. The inclusion criteria were the general public residing in Arabic nations and being older than 18. This questionnaire has 32 questions separated into three sections: sociodemographic variables, prior COVID-19 exposure, and COVID-19 vaccination history. The second portion assesses the knowledge and anxieties about monkeypox, while the third section includes the generalized anxiety disorder (GAD7) scale. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compute the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and their confidence intervals (95%CI) using STATA (version 17.0). RESULTS: A total of 3665 respondents from 17 Arabic countries were involved in this study. Almost two-thirds (n = 2427, 66.2%) of the participants expressed more worry about COVID-19 than monkeypox diseases. Regarding the major cause for concern about monkeypox, 39.5% of participants attributed their anxiety to the fear that they or a member of their family may contract the illness, while 38.4% were concerned about monkeypox becoming another worldwide pandemic. According to the GAD 7 score, 71.7% of the respondents showed very low anxiety toward monkeypox and 43.8% of the participants scored poor levels of knowledge about monkeypox disease. Participants with previous COVID-19 infection showed a 1.206 times greater acceptance to receive the monkeypox vaccine than those with no previous infection. A 3.097 times higher concern for monkeypox than COVID-19 was shown by the participants who perceived monkeypox as dangerous and virulent than those who did not. Participants who have a chronic disease (aOR: 1.32; 95%CI: 1.09-1.60); participants worried about monkeypox (aOR: 1.21; 95%CI: 1.04-1.40), and perceived monkeypox as a dangerous and virulent disease (aOR: 2.25; 95%CI: 1.92-2.65); and excellent knowledge level (aOR: 2.28; 95%CI: 1.79-2.90) have emerged as significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reported that three-fourths of the participants were more concerned about COVID-19 than monkeypox disease. In addition, most of the participants have inadequate levels of knowledge regarding monkeypox disease. Hence, immediate action should be taken to address this problem. Consequently, learning about monkeypox and spreading information about its prevention is crucial.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry.

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting "Decisional Uncertainty" provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for "Decisional Conflicts" included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. METHODS: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective.

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Opposing Association of Situational and Chronic Loneliness with Interpersonal Distance.

Loneliness is a prevalent condition with adverse effects on physical and mental health. Evolutionary theories suggest it evolved to drive people to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness may result in a negative social bias and self-preservation behaviors, paradoxically driving individuals away from social interactions. Lonely people often feel they are not close to anyone; however, little is known about their interpersonal distance preferences. During COVID-19, many experienced situational loneliness related to actual social isolation. Therefore, there was a unique opportunity to examine both chronic and situational (COVID-19-related) loneliness. In the present study, 479 participants completed an online task that experimentally assessed interpersonal distance preferences in four conditions-passively being approached by a friend or a stranger, and actively approaching a friend or a stranger. Results show that high chronic loneliness was related to a greater preferred distance across conditions. Intriguingly, by contrast, high COVID-19-related loneliness was related to a smaller preferred distance across conditions. These findings provide further support for the evolutionary theory of loneliness: situational loneliness indeed seems to drive people towards reconnection, while chronic loneliness seems to drive people away from it. Implications for the amelioration of chronic loneliness are discussed based on these findings.