ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to mental state worsening. Mental health disorders in pregnancy are known to have adverse outcomes both for mothers and their children. It is the first study in Poland to investigate the impact of the pandemic on stress level and general mental state in pregnant women. METHODS: Three hundred sixteen pregnant women completed an online survey containing four instruments. The main research questions were investigated with Bayesian regression analyses. RESULTS: We found that 37% of pregnant women presented with some mental state disorders and almost 46% with elevated emotional tension. Seventeen % had elevated stress level, 11% elevated intrapsychic stress level and 13% elevated outward stress level. Both 'being scared of lack of social support...' and 'being scared of infection...' have an impact on stress level, however the first factor is a more substantial stressor. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple pregnant women during the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presented with mental state disorders and elevated stress levels. As mental state disorders contribute to adverse neonatal outcomes and maternal mortality, it is imperative to focus on pregnant women's psychological and psychiatric conditions during the pandemic. It seems crucial to use screening tests to make early psychiatric diagnoses.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges for integrated health care worldwide. Our study aimed to describe newly implemented structures and procedures of psychosocial consultation and liaison (CL) services in Europe and beyond, and to highlight emerging needs for co-operation. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey from June to October 2021, using a self-developed 25-item questionnaire in four language versions (English, French, Italian, German). Dissemination was via national professional societies, working groups, and heads of CL services. RESULTS: Of the participating 259 CL services from Europe, Iran, and parts of Canada, 222 reported COVID-19 related psychosocial care (COVID-psyCare) in their hospital. Among these, 86.5% indicated that specific COVID-psyCare co-operation structures had been established. 50.8% provided specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 38.2% for relatives, and 77.0% for staff. Over half of the time resources were invested for patients. About a quarter of the time was used for staff, and these interventions, typically associated with the liaison function of CL services, were reported as most useful. Concerning emerging needs, 58.1% of the CL services providing COVID-psyCare expressed wishes for mutual information exchange and support, and 64.0% suggested specific changes or improvements that they considered essential for the future. CONCLUSION: Over 80% of participating CL services established specific structures to provide COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. Mostly, resources were committed to patient care and specific interventions were largely implemented for staff support. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and inter-institutional exchange and co-operation.