Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
Infection ; 2022 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2234257

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Antibody assays against SARS-CoV-2 are used in sero-epidemiological studies to estimate the proportion of a population with past infection. IgG antibodies against the spike protein (S-IgG) allow no distinction between infection and vaccination. We evaluated the role of anti-nucleocapsid-IgG (N-IgG) to identify individuals with infection more than one year past infection. METHODS: S- and N-IgG were determined using the Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in two groups: a randomly selected sample from the population of Stuttgart, Germany, and individuals with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were five years or older. Demographics and comorbidities were registered from participants above 17 years. RESULTS: Between June 15, 2021 and July 14, 2021, 454 individuals from the random sample participated, as well as 217 individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean time from positive PCR test result to antibody testing was 458.7 days (standard deviation 14.6 days) in the past infection group. In unvaccinated individuals, the seroconversion rate for S-IgG was 25.5% in the random sample and 75% in the past infection group (P = < 0.001). In vaccinated individuals, the mean signal ratios for S-IgG were higher in individuals with prior infection (6.9 vs 11.2; P = < 0.001). N-IgG were only detectable in 17.1% of participants with past infection. Predictors for detectable N-IgG were older age, male sex, fever, wheezing and in-hospital treatment for COVID-19 and cardiovascular comorbidities. CONCLUSION: N-IgG is not a reliable marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection after more than one year. In future, other diagnostic tests are needed to identify individuals with past natural infection.

2.
Front Neurosci ; 16: 1030397, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2199054

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Face-to-face medical and psychotherapeutic treatments during the Corona pandemic often involve patients and health care providers wearing face masks. We performed a pilot survey assessing the subjective experience of wearing face masks during psychotherapy sessions regarding (i) feasibility, (ii) psychotherapeutic treatment and (iii) communication, emotion and working alliance in patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: A total of n = 62 inpatients (RR = 95.4%) and n = 33 healthcare professionals (RR = 86.8%) at an academic department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy participated in this survey anonymously. The items of the questionnaire were created by the interprofessional expert team and were based on existing instruments: (i) the Therapeutic Relationship Questionnaire and (ii) the German translation of Yalom's Questionnaire on Experiencing in Group Psychotherapy. Results: The majority of patients rate their psychotherapy as highly profitable despite the mask. In individual therapy, face masks seem to have a rather low impact on subjective experience of psychotherapy and the relationship to the psychotherapist. Most patients reported using alternative facial expressions and expressions. In the interactional group therapy, masks were rather hindering. On the healthcare professional side, there were more frequent negative associations of face masks in relation to (i) experiencing connectedness with colleagues, (ii) forming relationships, and (iii) therapeutic treatment. Discussion: Information should be given to patients about the possible effects of face masks on the recognition of emotions, possible misinterpretations and compensation possibilities through alternative stimuli (e.g., eye area) and they should be encouraged to ask for further information. Especially in group therapy, with patients from other cultural backgrounds and in cases of need for help (e.g., hearing impairment) or complex disorders, appropriate non-verbal gestures and body language should be used to match the intended emotional expression.

3.
Frontiers in psychiatry ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2101935

ABSTRACT

The stress response to the COVID-19 pandemic might differ between early and later stages. Longitudinal data on the development of population mental health during COVID-19 pandemic is scarce. We have investigated mental health trajectories and predictors for change in a probability sample of the general population in Germany at the beginning and after 6 months of the pandemic. We conducted a longitudinal survey in a population-based probability sample of German adults. The current study analyzed data from a first assessment in May 2020 (T1;N = 1,412) and a second in November 2020 (T2;N = 743). Mental health was assessed in terms of anxiety and depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). Mental health outcomes at T1 were compared with PHQ-4 norm data. Trajectories over time were investigated based on outcome classifications of PHQ-4 scores. Predictors of mental health outcomes and change were identified using multiple regression analysis. In spring 2020, participants showed significantly higher PHQ-4 scores as compared to the norm data, however, overall anxiety and depression remained low also 6 months later. 6.6% of respondents showed a mental health deterioration in autumn 2020, entering subclinical and clinical ranges, outweighing the proportion of people with improved outcomes. Sociodemographic variables associated with mental distress at T1 were mainly not predictive for change at T2. Even under prolonged pandemic-related stress, mental health remained mainly stable in the general population. Further development of the considerable subgroup experiencing deterioration of depression and anxiety should be monitored, in order to tailor prevention and intervention efforts.

4.
Int J Eat Disord ; 55(2): 285-287, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1615959

ABSTRACT

Burnette et al. reported a study that they sought to undertake to validate common eating disorder questionnaires in sexual and gender minorities. The researchers took advantage of the online recruitment platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Contrary to their expectations, the study proved not feasible due to invalid answering. Thus, Burnette et al. raise concerns against the trustworthiness of crowd-sourced data that may be undermined by financial interests and other kinds of motivations. Our commentary highlights the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic to inflate especially those intentions, which are monetary. Against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, a further problem seems to be that the anonymity of online crowd sourcing platforms might tempt participants to provide inconsistent answers, possibly reflecting tendencies of reactance. The reported pattern of paradoxical responses in Burnette et al.'s work does not reflect malingering; rather we believe that the study might have served some participants as an outlet for negative emotions. We discuss mechanisms of quality control and highlight the lack of interpersonal interaction associated with online data collections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Crowdsourcing , Feeding and Eating Disorders , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 768132, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528868

ABSTRACT

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic poses immense challenges for health care systems and population-wide mental health. The e-mental health intervention "CoPE It" has been developed to offer standardized and manualized support to overcome psychological distress caused by the pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of "CoPE It" in terms of reducing distress (primary outcome), depression and anxiety symptoms, and improving self-efficacy, and mindfulness (secondary outcomes). Furthermore, the intervention's usability, feasibility, and participants' satisfaction with "CoPE It" was evaluated (tertiary outcome). The study protocol has been published previously. Methods: A bicentre longitudinal study was conducted from April 27th 2020 to May 3rd 2021. N = 110 participants were included in the analyses. The intervention consisted of four modules featuring different media promoting evidence-based methods of cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Difference in psychological distress between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1) were analyzed by repeated measure analysis of covariance. Mixed linear models were applied to assess moderating effects. Depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety symptoms, self-efficacy, and mindfulness were compared between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1) via t-tests. Usability of the "CoPE It" intervention and participants' satisfaction was evaluated by calculation means and frequencies. Results: Primary outcome: A significant effect of time on psychological distress at post-intervention (T1) after controlling for age, gender, education, mental illness and attitudes toward online interventions was found. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, and mindfulness were a significant moderators of the relationship between time and psychological distress for consistent wording. Secondary outcomes: There was a significant decrease in depressive symptoms and generalized anxiety, and a significant increase in self-efficacy and mindfulness between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1). Tertiary outcomes: 95.83% of the participants thought the "CoPE It" intervention was easy to use and 87.50% were satisfied with the "CoPE It" intervention in an overall, general sense. Conclusion: The e-mental health "CoPE It" intervention seems to be an effective approach in reducing psychological distress, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and in enhancing self-efficacy and mindfulness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants' satisfaction and the program's feasibility, and usability were proven to be high. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: DRKS00021301.

7.
Eur Eat Disord Rev ; 29(4): 657-662, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217352

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: A history of an eating disorder (ED) might constitute a risk for symptom deterioration and relapse during COVID-19 pandemic. This longitudinal study investigates ED symptom trajectories until the first COVID-19 lockdown in Spring 2020 in patients with a history of binge eating disorder (BED). METHOD: Participants of the randomised-controlled BED treatment trial IMPULS participated in a re-assessment directly after the first COVID-19 lockdown in Germany. We used expert-rated clinical interviews and self-report to investigate binge eating (BE) frequency, ED and general psychopathology, distress, emotion regulation and sense of coherence. Symptom trajectories were analysed for baseline when entering the trial, end of trial participation and the time point directly after lockdown. BE frequency was assessed on a recall basis for 4 weeks directly before lockdown and 4 weeks during lockdown. RESULTS: BE frequency, general ED pathology and depressive symptoms markedly increased after as compared to before the COVID-19 outbreak. Individuals scoring high on reappraisal as emotion regulation strategy and sense of coherence scored lower on general ED pathology. CONCLUSION: Individuals with a history of an ED are at risk for symptom deterioration and relapse during the pandemic. Intervention and service dissemination strategies are needed to support vulnerable groups throughout the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Binge-Eating Disorder/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Feeding Behavior/psychology , Pandemics , Adult , Binge-Eating Disorder/epidemiology , Binge-Eating Disorder/therapy , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Quarantine/psychology , Recurrence , Risk Assessment
8.
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz ; 64(3): 322-333, 2021 Mar.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1044186

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health was evident early on. The extent of the effects, especially cumulative over the long period of the pandemic, has not yet been fully investigated for Germany. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine psychological burden as well as COVID-19-related experience and behavior patterns and to show how they changed during the different phases of the pandemic in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Germany-wide online-based cross-sectional study (03/10-07/27/2020) included 22,961 people (convenience sample). Generalized anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-2), and psychological distress (DT) were collected, as well as COVID-19-related experiences and behavior patterns: COVID-19-related fear, trust in governmental actions, subjective level of information, adherent safety behavior, and personal risk assessment for infection/severe course of illness. The pandemic was retrospectively divided into five phases (initial, crisis, lockdown, reorientation, and new normality). RESULTS: Compared to pre-COVID-19 reference values, GAD­7, PHQ­2, and DT levels were significantly elevated and persistent throughout the different phases of the pandemic. COVID-19-related fear, information level, trust, safety behavior, and the risk assessment for infection/severe course of illness showed, after initial strong increase, a strong decrease to partly below the initial value. Exceptions were constant risk assessments of having a severe course of illness or dying of it. CONCLUSIONS: The increased levels of psychological burden, which have persisted throughout all phases of the pandemic, illustrate the need for sustainable support services. Declining values over the duration of the pandemic in terms of trust in governmental actions and the feeling of being well informed underline the need for more targeted education.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Anxiety , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fear , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Trust
9.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health ; 94(2): 347-350, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-777822

ABSTRACT

Due to the SARS CoV-2-virus (COVID-19), anxiety, distress, and insecurity occur more frequently. In particular, infected individuals, their relatives, and medical staff face an increased risk of high psychological distress as a result of the ongoing pandemic. Thus, structured psychosocial emergency concepts are needed. The University hospital of Essen has taken up this challenge by creating the PEC concept to reduce psychosocial long-term consequences for infected patients, relatives, and medical staff at the university hospital. The concept includes professional medical as well as psychological support to convey constructive coping strategies and the provision of adequate tools such as the low-threshold online training program (CoPE It), which is accessible via the webpage www.cope-corona.de .


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Crisis Intervention/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Adaptation, Psychological , Hospitals, University , Humans , Occupational Stress/psychology , Occupational Stress/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/virology
10.
Z Psychosom Med Psychother ; 66(3): 220-242, 2020 Sep.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-740596

ABSTRACT

Psychological stress caused by epidemics among health care workers and implications for coping with the corona crisis: a literature review Objectives: COVID-19 has significantly changed the working and living conditions within a short period. Despite the milder course of the disease in comparison to other countries, employees in the German health care system are particularly affected by the massive impact of the disease on their professional and private lives. From a scientific point of view, summarized empirical evidence made during other epidemics and at the beginning of the COVID-19-pandemic is largely missing. Methods: Narrative review article, literature search on PubMed database. Results: A total of 56 studies were included, 35 of them on the SARS epidemic and seven on COVID-19; included studies reported overall increased stress levels, anxiety and PTSD symptoms due to health care work during various epidemics. Direct contact with patients, quarantine experiences and perceived health risks were further stress factors in epidemics. Participation in intervention studies enabled better management of epidemic-related situations. Conclusions: Healthcare workers are exposed to high workloads because of epidemics, which can have a variety of adverse effects. Recommendations are made for dealing with periods of high exposure during the COVID-19-pandemic.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
BMJ Open ; 10(8): e039646, 2020 08 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-721207

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic poses immense challenges for national and international healthcare systems. Especially in times of social isolation and governmental restrictions, mental health should not be neglected. Innovative approaches are required to support psychologically burdened people. The e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' has been developed to offer manualised and evidence-based psychotherapeutic support adapted to COVID-19-related issues in order to overcome psychological distress. In our study, we aim to assess the efficacy of the e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' in terms of reducing distress (primary outcome), depression and anxiety symptoms as well as improving self-efficacy, quality of life and mindfulness (secondary outcomes). Furthermore, we want to evaluate the programme's usability, feasibility and participants' satisfaction with 'CoPE It' (tertiary outcome). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' consists of four 30 min modules, conducted every other day, involving psychotherapeutic techniques of mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive-behavioural therapy. The widely applied and previously established content has been adapted to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic by experts in psychosomatic medicine and stress prevention. In our longitudinal study, adult participants-with adequate German language and computer skills, and who have provided informed consent-will be recruited via emergency support hotlines in Germany. Flyers will be distributed, and online channels will be used. Participants will complete a baseline assessment (T0), a postintervention assessment (T1) and assessments 1 and 3 months later (T2 and T3, respectively). We will perform repeated measures analysis of covariance, mixed linear models, standard analyses of variance and regression, and correlation coefficients. In case of binary outcome variables, either mixed logistic regression or χ² tests will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethics Committees of the University of Duisburg-Essen (20-9243-BO) and University of Tübingen (469/2020BO) approved the study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00021301.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Distance Counseling/methods , Mindfulness/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Anxiety/prevention & control , Anxiety/therapy , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Depression/prevention & control , Depression/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Efficacy , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control
12.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 42(4): 688-695, 2020 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696717

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HPs) are the key figures to keep up the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus are one of the most vulnerable groups in this. To this point, the extent of this psychological burden, especially in Europe and Germany, remains unclear. This is the first study investigating German HPs after the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We performed an online-based cross-sectional study after the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany (10-31 March 2020). In total, 2224 HPs (physicians n = 492, nursing staff n = 1511, paramedics n = 221) and 10 639 non-healthcare professionals (nHPs) were assessed including generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), current health status (EQ-5D-3L), COVID-19-related fear, subjective level of information regarding COVID-19. RESULTS: HPs showed less generalized anxiety, depression and COVID-19-related fear and higher health status and subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 than the nHPs. Within the HP groups, nursing staff were the most psychologically burdened. Subjective levels of information regarding COVID-19 correlated negatively with generalized anxiety levels across all groups. Among HPs, nursing staff showed the highest and paramedics the lowest generalized anxiety levels. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of COVID-19, German HPs seem to be less psychological burdened than nHPs, and also less burdened compared with existing international data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Vulnerable Populations/psychology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 42(3): 647-648, 2020 Aug 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-165260

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the novel SARS CoV-2-virus (COVID-19) is pushing national and international healthcare systems to their limits. The aspect of mental health issues, which has been neglected (so far) in times of social isolation and governmental restrictions, now demands innovative and situation-based approaches to support psychological burdened people. The developed e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' offers manualized, evidence-based psychotherapeutic/psychological support to overcome psychological distress in times of COVID-19. E-mental health approaches offer great possibilities to support burdened people during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic effectively.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Behavior Therapy/standards , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Social Isolation/psychology , Telemedicine/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL