Networks of pandemic-specific stressors, risk factors, and clinical symptoms: A comparison between women and men during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, female gender was a robust factor associated with mental health problems. This study aimed to investigate associations between pandemic-related risk factors, stressors, and clinical symptoms, with special reference to gender and possible differential gender effects. METHODS: Participants were recruited from June to September 2020 through an online survey (ESTSS ADJUST study). Women (N = 796) and men (N = 796) were matched on age, education, income, and living community. Symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (PHQ-4), adjustment disorder (ADNM-8), and PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) and different risk factors including pandemic-specific stressors (PaSS) were assessed. Separate network analyses for men and women were conducted and compared followed by a joint network analysis including gender. RESULTS: The networks of women and men did not differ in their structure (M = 0.14, p = .174) or strength of associations (S = 1.22, p = .126). Few relationships differed significantly between genders e.g., the connection between burden through work-related problems and anxiety was stronger in women. In the joint network, single factors were related to gender e.g., men felt more burdened through work-related problems and women through conflicts at home. LIMITATIONS: We cannot imply causal relationships due to the cross-sectional data of our study. The findings cannot be generalized as the sample is not representative. CONCLUSION: Men and women seem to show comparable networks of risk factors, stressors, and clinical symptoms, although differences in individual connections and in levels of clinical symptoms and burdens were found.

Promoting Recovery from Disasters, Pandemics, and Trauma: A Systematic Review of Brief Psychological Interventions to Reduce Distress in Adults, Children, and Adolescents.

A substantial number of survivors of disasters, pandemics, and other severe stressors develop persistent distress that impairs mental health and well-being. However, only a few brief psychological interventions target distress or subclinical symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe brief psychological interventions to reduce distress or subclinical symptoms in survivors of disasters, pandemics, and other severe stressors. Based on a systematic literature search (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, PTSDpubs, and Web of Science), we reviewed published studies and study protocols on self-help, psychosocial support, or brief psychotherapeutic interventions to reduce distress and/or subclinical symptoms following natural hazards and man-made disasters, pandemics, or other traumatic events. We included 27 published studies or study protocols (n = 15 RCTs, n = 3 controlled pre-post studies, and n = 9 uncontrolled pre-post studies) describing 22 interventions. We found evidence for reducing psychological distress and/or subclinical symptoms in 9 out of 15 RCTs, 2 out of 3 controlled pre-post studies, and 9 out of 9 uncontrolled pre-post studies. One RCT provided evidence of increasing well-being. Innovative brief interventions have been developed to reduce distress and/or subclinical symptoms that have an emerging evidence base.

Shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic: Psychological responses from a subjective perspective-A longitudinal mixed-methods study across five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors are essential for understanding long-term adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the present study investigated changes in mental health outcomes and subjective pandemic-related experiences over time and across countries. The main objective was to explore how psychological responses vary in relation to individual and environmental factors. METHODS: The sample consisted of N = 1070 participants from the general population of Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Portugal. We applied a longitudinal mixed-methods approach, with baseline assessment in summer and autumn 2020 (T1) and follow-up assessment 12 months later (T2). Qualitative content analysis by Mayring was used to analyse open-ended questions about stressful events, positive and negative aspects of the pandemic, and recommendations on how to cope. Mental health outcomes were assessed with the Adjustment Disorder-New Module 8 (ADNM-8), the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and the 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics Version 26 and MAXQDA 2022. RESULTS: The mental health outcomes significantly differed over time and across countries, with e.g. Greek participants showing decrease in adjustment disorder symptoms (p = .007) between T1 and T2. Compared with other countries, we found better mental health outcomes in the Austrian and the Croatian sample at both timepoints (p < .05). Regarding qualitative data, some themes were equally represented at both timepoints (e.g. Restrictions and changes in daily life), while others were more prominent at T1 (e.g. Work and finances) or T2 (e.g. Vaccination issues). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that people's reactions to the pandemic are largely shaped by the shifting context of the pandemic, country-specific factors, and individual characteristics and circumstances. Resource-oriented interventions focusing on psychological flexibility might promote resilience and mental health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and other global crises.

Risk and protective factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic-Findings from a pan-European study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a health emergency resulting in multiple stressors that may be related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Objective: This study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors, and PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study were used. N = 4,607 trauma-exposed participants aged 18 years and above were recruited from the general populations of eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. We assessed sociodemographic (e.g. gender), pandemic-related (e.g. news consumption), and health-related (e.g. general health condition) risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and probable PTSD (PC-PTSD-5). The relationships between these variables were examined using logistic regression on multiple imputed data sets. Results: The prevalence of probable PTSD was 17.7%. Factors associated with an increased risk for PTSD were younger age, female gender, more than 3 h of daily pandemic-related news consumption (vs. no consumption), a satisfactory, poor, or very poor health condition (vs. a very good condition), a current or previous diagnosis of a mental disorder, and trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a reduced risk for PTSD included a medium and high income (vs. very low income), face-to-face contact less than once a week or 3-7 times a week (vs. no contact), and digital social contact less than once a week or 1-7 days a week (vs. no contact). Pandemic-related stressors associated with an increased risk for PTSD included governmental crisis management and communication, restricted resources, restricted social contact, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusion: We identified risk and protective factors as well as stressors that may help identify trauma-exposed individuals at risk for PTSD, enabling more efficient and rapid access to care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Spanish) Antecedentes: La pandemia COVID-19 es una emergencia sanitaria que genera multiples estresores que pueden estar relacionados con el trastorno de estres postraumatico (TEPT). Objetivo: Este estudio examino las relaciones entre los factores de riesgo y protectores, estresores relacionados con la pandemia y TEPT durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Metodos: Se utilizaron los datos del estudio ADJUST de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios de Estres Traumatico (ESTSS por sus siglas en ingles). N = 4.607 participantes mayores de 18 anos expuestos a trauma fueron reclutados de la poblacion general de once paises (Austria, Croacia, Georgia, Alemania, Grecia, Italia, Lituania, Paises Bajos, Polonia, Portugal y Suecia) desde junio a noviembre 2020. Evaluamos factores de riesgo y protectores sociodemograficos (p.ej. genero), relacionados con la pandemia (p.ej. consumo de noticias) y relacionados con la salud (p.ej. estado de salud general), estresores relacionados con la pandemia (p.ej. temor a la infeccion) y TEPT probable (PC-PTSD-5 por sus siglas en ingles). Las relaciones entre estas variables se examinaron mediante regresion logistica en multiples conjuntos de datos imputados. Resultados: La prevalencia de TEPT probable fue del 17.7%. Los factores asociados con un mayor riesgo de TEPT fueron edad mas joven, sexo femenino, mas de 3 horas de consumo diario de noticias relacionadas con la pandemia (frente a ningun consumo), un estado de salud satisfactorio, malo o muy malo (frente a un estado muy bueno), un diagnostico de trastorno mental actual o previo y exposicion a un trauma durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Los factores asociados con un riesgo reducido de TEPT incluyeron ingresos medios y altos (frente a ingresos muy bajos), contacto cara a cara menos de una vez a la semana o de 3 a 7 veces por semana (frente a ningun contacto) y contacto social digital menos de una vez a la semana o de 1 a 7 dias a la semana (frente a ningun contacto). Los estresores relacionados con la pandemia asociados con un mayor riesgo de TEPT incluyeron la gestion y comunicacion de crisis gubernamental, recursos restringidos, contacto social restringido y condiciones de vivienda dificiles. Conclusiones: Identificamos factores de riesgo y protectores, asi como estresores que pueden ayudar a identificar a las personas expuestas a traumas en riesgo de TEPT, lo que permite un acceso mas eficiente y rapido a la atencion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Profiles of risk factors for depressive and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent class analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a high burden in the general population. The exposure to an accumulation of risk factors, as opposed to a single risk, may have been associated with higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms during the pandemic. This study aimed to (1) identify subgroups of individuals with distinct constellations of risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) investigate differences in levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. German participants (N = 2,245) were recruited between June-September 2020 through an online survey (ADJUST study). Latent class analysis (LCA) and multiple group analyses (Wald-tests) were conducted to identify profiles of risk factors and examine differences in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-2). The LCA included 14 robust risk factors of different domains, e.g., sociodemographic (e.g., age), health-related (e.g., trauma), and pandemic-related (e.g., reduced income) factors. The LCA identified three risk profiles: High sociodemographic risk (11.7%), high social and moderate health-related risk (18.0%), and low general risk (70.3%). Individuals with high sociodemographic risk reported significantly higher symptom levels of depression and anxiety than the remaining groups. A better understanding of risk factor profiles could help to develop targeted prevention and intervention programs during pandemics.

Profiles of risk factors for depressive and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent class analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a high burden in the general population. The exposure to an accumulation of risk factors, as opposed to a single risk, may have been associated with higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms during the pandemic. This study aimed to (1) identify subgroups of individuals with distinct constellations of risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) investigate differences in levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. German participants (N = 2245) were recruited between June-September 2020 through an online survey (ADJUST study). Latent class analysis (LCA) and multiple group analyses (Wald-tests) were conducted to identify profiles of risk factors and examine differences in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-2). The LCA included 14 robust risk factors of different domains, for example, sociodemographic (e.g., age), health-related (e.g., trauma), and pandemic-related (e.g., reduced income) factors. The LCA identified three risk profiles: High sociodemographic risk (11.7%), high social and moderate health-related risk (18.0%), and low general risk (70.3%). Individuals with high sociodemographic risk reported significantly higher symptom levels of depression and anxiety than the remaining groups. A better understanding of risk factor profiles could help to develop targeted prevention and intervention programs during pandemics.

Coping profiles and differences in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent profile analysis.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, people need to cope with multiple stressors which may affect their well-being. This study aimed (1) to identify latent coping profiles in the German general population, and (2) to investigate differences between these profiles in well-being. In total, N = 2326 German participants were recruited as part of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST study from June to September 2020 using an online survey. Coping strategies were assessed using the Brief-COPE and the Pandemic Coping Scale; well-being was assessed using the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Coping profiles were identified using latent profile analysis; differences between profiles were examined using the automatic BCH method and multiple group analyses. Five coping profiles were identified that included different types and numbers of coping strategies: (1) High functional coping (17.84%), (2) Moderate functional coping (40.63%), (3) High functional and religious coping (9.07%), (4) Low functional coping (22.06%), (5) Moderate functional and dysfunctional coping (10.40%). The identified profiles significantly differed in well-being (χ2  = 503.68, p <0.001). Coping profiles indicating high functional coping were associated with greater well-being compared to coping profiles indicating low (χ2  = 82.21, p <0.001) or primarily dysfunctional (χ2  = 354.33, p <0.001) coping. These results provide insight into how people differ in their coping strategies when dealing with stressors in an early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study indicates higher levels of well-being in coping profiles with more frequent use of functional strategies. To promote well-being in the general population, it might be beneficial to train functional coping strategies in appropriate interventions that are associated with increased well-being.

Risk and protective factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic – findings from a pan-European study Factores de riesgo y protectores para el trastorno de éstres postráumatico en individuos expuestos a trauma durante la pandemia COVID-19 – hallazgos de un estudio paneuropeo COVID-19 疫情期间创伤暴露个体的创伤后应激障碍风险和保护因素——一项泛欧研究的结果

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a health emergency resulting in multiple stressors that may be related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Objective: This study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors, and PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study were used. N = 4,607 trauma-exposed participants aged 18 years and above were recruited from the general populations of eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. We assessed sociodemographic (e.g. gender), pandemic-related (e.g. news consumption), and health-related (e.g. general health condition) risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and probable PTSD (PC-PTSD-5). The relationships between these variables were examined using logistic regression on multiple imputed data sets. Results: The prevalence of probable PTSD was 17.7%. Factors associated with an increased risk for PTSD were younger age, female gender, more than 3 h of daily pandemic-related news consumption (vs. no consumption), a satisfactory, poor, or very poor health condition (vs. a very good condition), a current or previous diagnosis of a mental disorder, and trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a reduced risk for PTSD included a medium and high income (vs. very low income), face-to-face contact less than once a week or 3–7 times a week (vs. no contact), and digital social contact less than once a week or 1–7 days a week (vs. no contact). Pandemic-related stressors associated with an increased risk for PTSD included governmental crisis management and communication, restricted resources, restricted social contact, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusion: We identified risk and protective factors as well as stressors that may help identify trauma-exposed individuals at risk for PTSD, enabling more efficient and rapid access to care. HIGHLIGHTS N =  4,607 trauma-exposed adult participants were recruited from the general population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prevalence for probable posttraumatic stress disorder was 17.7%. We identified risk factors (e.g. poor health condition) and protective factors (e.g. social contact) associated with posttraumatic stress disorder.

The pandemic coping scale - validity and reliability of a brief measure of coping during a pandemic.

This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors. Methods: The PCS was administered to N = 2316 German participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied among random splits of the sample. Global goodness of fit (χ 2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), local goodness of fit (factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity) and additional test quality criteria (internal consistency, item discrimination and difficulty) were evaluated for a four-factor model vs. a four-factor model combined with a second-order general factor. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by Pearson correlations of the PCS subscales with the Brief-COPE subscales; criterion validity was evaluated by correlations with wellbeing (WHO-5), depressive (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2). Results: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution ('Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', 'Daily Structure', 'Prevention Adherence'). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both specified models which did not differ in their fit to the data. Local goodness of fit indices showed moderate to large factor loadings and good factor reliabilities except for the subscale 'Prevention Adherence'. Internal consistencies were good for the PCS total scale (α = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' (α = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' (α = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' (α = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' (α = .52). The four subscales evidenced convergent and divergent validity with the Brief-COPE subscales. The subscales 'Healthy lifestyle', 'Joyful activities' and 'Daily structure' showed criterion validity with wellbeing, depressive and anxiety symptoms. Conclusions: The PCS is a reliable and valid measure to assess pandemic-specific coping behavior in the domains of 'Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', and 'Daily Structure'. The PCS subscale 'Prevention Adherence' might be improved by adding items with varying item difficulties.

Two Years of COVID-19 in Austria-Exploratory Longitudinal Study of Mental Health Outcomes and Coping Behaviors in the General Population.

Since the long-term mental health impact of COVID-19 is not yet fully understood, the present study explored changes in mental health outcomes and pandemic-related coping behaviors across four pandemic stages. The main objective was to gain insights into the dynamics of mental health and coping, considering different pandemic features at different assessment waves. The final sample consisted of N = 243 adults from the Austrian general population. Data were collected at four timepoints (between June 2020 and December 2021) via LimeSurvey, an open-source online survey tool. Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), adjustment disorder (AD), anxiety, and depression were assessed using validated instruments: Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5), AD-New Module 8 (ADNM-8), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4). We also administered the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS) to address pandemic-related coping behaviors. Cochran's Q test and repeated measures ANOVAs were applied to assess changes over time. The results indicated that prevalence rates of AD (χ2(2) = 16.88, p = 0.001), depression (χ2(3) = 18.69, p < 0.001), and anxiety (χ2(3) = 19.10, p < 0.001) significantly changed across four assessment waves. Changes in mean scores of the assessed mental health outcomes were also observed. For pandemic-related coping, we found differences in the subscales: healthy lifestyle: F(3, 651) = 5.11, prevention adherence: F(2.73, 592.35) = 21.88, and joyful activities: F(3, 651) = 5.03. Taken together, our study showed a higher mental health burden in wintertime than in summertime, indicating an increased need for psychosocial support in times of stricter measures, higher incidences, and higher death rates. Furthermore, the observed decrease in adaptive coping behaviors suggests that easy-to-implement coping strategies should be actively promoted in order to maintain mental health during and in the aftermath of pandemics.

You can’t do anything about it, but you can make the best of it: a qualitative analysis of pandemic-related experiences in six European countries Puedes no ser capaz de hacer algo al respecto, pero puedes sacar lo mejor de la situación: Un análisis cualitativo de experiencias relacionadas con la pandemia en seis países europeos 你无能为力，但你可以充分利用它——对六个欧洲国家疫情相关经验的定性分析

Background: The complex system of stressors related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the global population, provoking a broad range of psychological reactions. Although numerous studies have investigated the mental health impact of COVID-19, qualitative research and cross-country comparisons are still rare. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to explore self-perceived challenges and opportunities related to COVID-19 across six European countries. The overall objective was to provide a differentiated picture of individual subjective experiences in the early stages of the pandemic. Method: The present study included 7309 participants from Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Poland, and Portugal. We performed qualitative content analysis according to Mayring analyse open-ended questions regarding stressful events, positive and negative aspects of the pandemic, and recommendations to cope with the pandemic situation. MAXQDA software was used for data management and analysis. Results: Participants’ accounts were moderately consistent across the countries. The most prominent themes regarding stressful and negative pandemic aspects included: Restrictions and changes in daily life, Emotional distress, and Work and finances. Answers about positive pandemic consequences were mainly centred around the themes Reflection and growth, Opportunity for meaningful/enjoyable activities, and Benefits on interpersonal level. Key themes identified from participants’ recommendations to cope with the pandemic included Beneficial behavioural adjustment, Beneficial cognitive–emotional strategies, and Social support. Conclusions: Participants experienced various challenges, but also shared several positive pandemic consequences and recommendations to cope with the pandemic. These first-hand data could inform mental health practices to promote well-being during COVID-19 and similar global challenges in the participating countries and possibly beyond. HIGHLIGHTS We examined COVID-19-related experiences in 7309 adults from six European countries. Besides challenges, participants identified many positive pandemic consequences. Participants’ recommendations to cope with COVID-19 included behavioural and cognitive–emotional strategies.

You can't do anything about it, but you can make the best of it: a qualitative analysis of pandemic-related experiences in six European countries.

Background: The complex system of stressors related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the global population, provoking a broad range of psychological reactions. Although numerous studies have investigated the mental health impact of COVID-19, qualitative research and cross-country comparisons are still rare. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to explore self-perceived challenges and opportunities related to COVID-19 across six European countries. The overall objective was to provide a differentiated picture of individual subjective experiences in the early stages of the pandemic. Method: The present study included 7309 participants from Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Poland, and Portugal. We performed qualitative content analysis according to Mayring analyse open-ended questions regarding stressful events, positive and negative aspects of the pandemic, and recommendations to cope with the pandemic situation. MAXQDA software was used for data management and analysis. Results: Participants' accounts were moderately consistent across the countries. The most prominent themes regarding stressful and negative pandemic aspects included: Restrictions and changes in daily life, Emotional distress, and Work and finances. Answers about positive pandemic consequences were mainly centred around the themes Reflection and growth, Opportunity for meaningful/enjoyable activities, and Benefits on interpersonal level. Key themes identified from participants' recommendations to cope with the pandemic included Beneficial behavioural adjustment, Beneficial cognitive-emotional strategies, and Social support. Conclusions: Participants experienced various challenges, but also shared several positive pandemic consequences and recommendations to cope with the pandemic. These first-hand data could inform mental health practices to promote well-being during COVID-19 and similar global challenges in the participating countries and possibly beyond. HIGHLIGHTS: We examined COVID-19-related experiences in 7309 adults from six European countries.Besides challenges, participants identified many positive pandemic consequences.Participants' recommendations to cope with COVID-19 included behavioural and cognitive-emotional strategies.

Disentangling the associations between past childhood adversity and psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating roles of specific pandemic stressors and coping strategies.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a history of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) display heightened symptoms of psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, no study has investigated what aspects of the pandemic are of particular concern for this population and ways in which strategies to coping with pandemic stressors may exacerbate their clinical symptomatology. OBJECTIVE: This study explores what pandemic stressors and coping strategies are associated with ACEs, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic, before investigating whether the identified chief stressors and coping styles mediate the effects of ACEs on depression and PTSD. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 1107 Greek adults were sampled from the general population. METHODS: Participants completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5, Pandemic Stressor Scale, and Brief Cope Scale. RESULTS: ACEs and depression were both predominantly associated with difficult housing conditions as a stressor (b = 0.079, p < .001 and b = 0.046, p < .001, respectively), whereas PTSD was mainly related to fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus (b = 0.065, p < .001). Self-blame was the main coping strategy associated with both ACEs (b = 0.046, p = .010), depression (b = 0.071, p < .0005), and PTSD (b = 0.088, p < .0005). Difficult housing conditions and self-blame further demonstrated a significant serial mediation effect in the relationship between ACEs with both depression (b = 0.105, 95% CI [0.0607, 0.158]) and PTSD (b = 0.019, 95% CI [0.011, 0.031]). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that policy makers should identify ways of ameliorating challenging housing conditions, and that service providers should target self-blame in the psychological treatment of adults with ACEs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: five lessons from the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Lidiando con la pandemia COVID-19 en Europa: Cinco lecciones de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios del Estrés Traumático 应对欧洲 COVID-19 疫情：欧洲创伤应激研究学会的五个经验教训

The paper provides insights into the mental health consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the Central, Eastern, Nordic, Southern, and Western subregions of Europe, represented by five member countries of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). On the basis of the existing national research and experiences in these countries, we propose five lessons learned. (1) There is no evidence of a mental health pandemic so far in the countries in focus. No increase in severe mental disorders but some increase in the symptoms of common mental health disorders are observable. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the mental health burden of the pandemic. (2) The pandemic affects countries (including the mental health situation) differently, depending on the level of the exposure, management policies, pre-pandemic structural characteristics, and healthcare resources. (3) The pandemic affects people differently: the exposure severity to pandemic-related stressors differs between individuals, as well as individual resources to cope with these stressors. There are winners and losers as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. (4) Besides the negative consequences, the pandemic has had a positive impact. The rapidly applied innovations within the system of healthcare responses provide a window of opportunity for positive changes in mental healthcare policies, strategies, and practices. The increased focus on mental health during the pandemic may contribute to the prioritization of mental health issues at policy-making and organizational levels and may reduce stigma. (5) A stress- and trauma-informed response to COVID-19 is required. The European community of psychotraumatologists under the leadership of ESTSS plays an important role in promoting stress- and trauma-informed healthcare and policies of pandemic management. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a stepped-care public mental health model for the prevention of adverse mental health outcomes during pandemics. HIGHLIGHTS Population mental health is affected differently in the COVID-19 pandemic: there are winners and losers, as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. A stress- and trauma-informed public mental health stepped-care model can address pandemic-related mental health burden in a systematic way.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: five lessons from the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

The paper provides insights into the mental health consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the Central, Eastern, Nordic, Southern, and Western subregions of Europe, represented by five member countries of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). On the basis of the existing national research and experiences in these countries, we propose five lessons learned. (1) There is no evidence of a mental health pandemic so far in the countries in focus. No increase in severe mental disorders but some increase in the symptoms of common mental health disorders are observable. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the mental health burden of the pandemic. (2) The pandemic affects countries (including the mental health situation) differently, depending on the level of the exposure, management policies, pre-pandemic structural characteristics, and healthcare resources. (3) The pandemic affects people differently: the exposure severity to pandemic-related stressors differs between individuals, as well as individual resources to cope with these stressors. There are winners and losers as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. (4) Besides the negative consequences, the pandemic has had a positive impact. The rapidly applied innovations within the system of healthcare responses provide a window of opportunity for positive changes in mental healthcare policies, strategies, and practices. The increased focus on mental health during the pandemic may contribute to the prioritization of mental health issues at policy-making and organizational levels and may reduce stigma. (5) A stress- and trauma-informed response to COVID-19 is required. The European community of psychotraumatologists under the leadership of ESTSS plays an important role in promoting stress- and trauma-informed healthcare and policies of pandemic management. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a stepped-care public mental health model for the prevention of adverse mental health outcomes during pandemics. HIGHLIGHTS: Population mental health is affected differently in the COVID-19 pandemic: there are winners and losers, as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention.A stress- and trauma-informed public mental health stepped-care model can address pandemic-related mental health burden in a systematic way.

Este articulo proporciona información sobre las consecuencias para la salud mental de la pandemia por la COVID-19 en las subregiones Central, Oriental, Nórdica, Meridional y Occidental de Europa, representadas por cinco países miembros de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios del Estrés Traumático (ESTSS). Sobre la base de las investigaciones y experiencias nacionales existentes en estos países, proponemos cinco lecciones aprendidas: 1. No hay evidencia de una pandemia de salud mental hasta el momento en los países en estudio. No se observa un aumento de los trastornos mentales severos, pero sí un aumento de los síntomas de los trastornos de salud mental comunes. Se necesitan más estudios longitudinales de alta calidad para entender la carga de salud mental de la pandemia; 2. La pandemia afecta a los países (incluida la situación de salud mental) en forma diferente según el nivel de exposición, las políticas de gestión, las características estructurales previas a la pandemia y los recursos de atención en salud; 3. La pandemia afecta a las personas de distintas maneras: la severidad de exposición a los estresores relacionados con la pandemia difiere entre las personas, así como los recursos individuales para hacer frente a estos factores estresantes. Hay ganadores y perdedores así como grupos de riesgo identificables que necesitan atención especial; 4. Además de las consecuencias negativas, la pandemia ha tenido un impacto positivo. Las innovaciones aplicadas rápidamente dentro del sistema de respuestas de atención de la salud son una ventana de oportunidad para cambios positivos en las políticas, estrategias y prácticas de atención de la salud mental. El aumento del enfoque en la salud mental durante la pandemia puede contribuir a la priorización de problemas de salud mental en los niveles organizacionales y de formulación de políticas y podría reducir el estigma; 5. Se requieren respuestas frente a la COVID-19 informadas en estrés y en trauma. La comunidad europea de psicotraumatólogos, bajo el liderazgo de la ESTSS, juega un papel importante en la promoción de la atención en salud informada en estrés y trauma y las políticas de gestión de pandemias. Basados en las lecciones aprendidas, proponemos un modelo de salud mental pública de atención escalonada para la prevención de las consecuencias adversas de salud mental durante las pandemias.

The Pandemic Stressor Scale: factorial validity and reliability of a measure of stressors during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic. METHODS: The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria. RESULTS: The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 'Problems with Childcare', Factor 2 'Work-related Problems', Factor 3 'Restricted Face-to-Face Contact', Factor 4 'Burden of Infection ', Factor 5 'Crisis Management and Communication', Factor 6 'Difficult Housing Condition', Factor 7 'Fear of Infection', Factor 8 'Restricted Access to Resources', Factor 9 'Restricted Activity'). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ2 (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ2 (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ2 (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor. CONCLUSION: The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Racism, Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, and Racial Disparity in the U.S. COVID-19 Syndemic.

The COVID-19 syndemic, with a disproportionately higher adverse impact on communities of color (i.e., COVID-19 infection and death), will likely exacerbate the existing health disparities in trauma-related symptoms between people of color (POC) and White Americans. However, no studies have examined the racial disparity in posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) during COVID-19. Grounded in ecological theory and racial trauma framework, we investigated racial disparity in PTSS and three possible mechanisms, 1) COVID stress, 2) direct racism, and 3) indirect racism, for these disparities using a large U.S. national sample. Results indicated that POC reported higher levels of PTSS than White Americans. The PTSS racial disparity was accounted more by direct and indirect racism than by the COVID-19-specific stressors, after controlling for age, gender, education, income, parent status, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and intimate partner violence (IPV). Additional fine-grained analyses for Hispanic/Latinx Americans, Black/African Americans, and Asian American and Pacific Islanders by and large corroborated the above findings. Our findings highlighted the deleterious impact of the ongoing racism pandemic on the POC community as a public health crisis in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic.Supplemental data for this article is available online at at http://doi:10.1080/08964289.2021.2006131.

Associations of Depressive Symptoms, COVID-19-Related Stressors, and Coping Strategies. A Comparison Between Cities and Towns in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a wide range of stressors related to depressive symptoms. Prevention measures like physical distancing have burdened the general population, especially in highly urbanized areas. However, little is known about the associations between pandemic-related stressors, coping strategies, and depressive symptoms in highly urbanized vs. less urbanized environments. METHODS: Participants were recruited in a cross-sectional online survey in Germany. Propensity score matching yielded a matched sample of city (n = 453) and town (n = 453) inhabitants. Depressive symptoms, COVID-19-related stressors, and coping strategies were compared between cities and towns. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine associations between pandemic-related stressors and depressive symptoms for the two groups separately. RESULTS: City inhabitants showed significantly higher depression scores than town inhabitants (t = 2.11, df = 897.95, p = 0.035). Seven coping strategies were more often used by the city sample. Depressive symptoms were associated with "restricted physical social contact" and "difficult housing conditions" (adjusted R 2= 0.19, F [9,443] = 12.52, p < 0.001) in city inhabitants, and with "fear of infection" and "difficult housing conditions" (adjusted R 2= 0.20, F [9,443] = 13.50, p < 0.001) in town inhabitants. LIMITATIONS: The data were collected at the end of the first wave and represent a snapshot without causal inferences. Pandemic-related stressors were measured with a newly developed scale. CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms, perceived stressors, and approach/avoidance coping strategies differed between city vs. town inhabitants. These differences should be considered in policy-making and mental health care.