Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(10)2023 05 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20242617

ABSTRACT

The effects of the pandemic on mental health can be studied through different variables, such as the number of COVID-19 stressors, the stressor types, and the stress responses. Understanding the sources of mental strain is crucial for developing effective interventions. The present study analyzed the relationship between these COVID-19-related variables and positive and negative mental health. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 666 individuals from the Portuguese general population, mostly females (65.5%) between 16-93 years old. They completed self-report measures regarding the number of COVID-19 stressors, the stressor types, the stress responses (IES-R), and positive (MHC-SF) and negative mental health (BSI-18). The results demonstrated that a higher number of COVID-19-experienced stressors and more stress responses were related to worse mental health. Regarding stressor types, experiences not related to the COVID-19 infection (e.g., tension at home) presented the largest effects on mental health. The strongest predictor was the stress responses for negative (ß = 0.50) and positive mental health (ß = -0.17). The predictors explained more about negative mental health than positive. These findings support the idea that individual appraisals play a crucial role in mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , Female , Humans , Adolescent , Young Adult , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Male , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnicity , Pandemics
2.
Global Health ; 19(1): 25, 2023 04 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2293445

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Identifying common factors that affect public adherence to COVID-19 containment measures can directly inform the development of official public health communication strategies. The present international longitudinal study aimed to examine whether prosociality, together with other theoretically derived motivating factors (self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19, perceived social support) predict the change in adherence to COVID-19 containment strategies. METHOD: In wave 1 of data collection, adults from eight geographical regions completed online surveys beginning in April 2020, and wave 2 began in June and ended in September 2020. Hypothesized predictors included prosociality, self-efficacy in following COVID-19 containment measures, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19 and perceived social support. Baseline covariates included age, sex, history of COVID-19 infection and geographical regions. Participants who reported adhering to specific containment measures, including physical distancing, avoidance of non-essential travel and hand hygiene, were classified as adherence. The dependent variable was the category of adherence, which was constructed based on changes in adherence across the survey period and included four categories: non-adherence, less adherence, greater adherence and sustained adherence (which was designated as the reference category). RESULTS: In total, 2189 adult participants (82% female, 57.2% aged 31-59 years) from East Asia (217 [9.7%]), West Asia (246 [11.2%]), North and South America (131 [6.0%]), Northern Europe (600 [27.4%]), Western Europe (322 [14.7%]), Southern Europe (433 [19.8%]), Eastern Europe (148 [6.8%]) and other regions (96 [4.4%]) were analyzed. Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that prosociality, self-efficacy, perceived susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 were significant factors affecting adherence. Participants with greater self-efficacy at wave 1 were less likely to become non-adherence at wave 2 by 26% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.77; P < .001), while those with greater prosociality at wave 1 were less likely to become less adherence at wave 2 by 23% (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.79; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that in addition to emphasizing the potential severity of COVID-19 and the potential susceptibility to contact with the virus, fostering self-efficacy in following containment strategies and prosociality appears to be a viable public health education or communication strategy to combat COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Female , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/prevention & control , Longitudinal Studies , Europe , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(24)2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572373

ABSTRACT

A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted during the first COVID-19 wave, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on mental health using an anonymous online survey, enrolling 9565 individuals in 78 countries. The current sub-study examined the impact of the pandemic and the associated lockdown measures on the mental health, and protective behaviors of cancer patients in comparison to non-cancer participants. Furthermore, 264 participants from 30 different countries reported being cancer patients. The median age was 51.5 years, 79.9% were female, and 28% had breast cancer. Cancer participants reported higher self-efficacy to follow recommended national guidelines regarding COVID-19 protective behaviors compared to non-cancer participants (p < 0.01). They were less stressed (p < 0.01), more psychologically flexible (p < 0.01), and had higher levels of positive affect compared to non-cancer participants. Amongst cancer participants, the majority (80.3%) reported COVID-19, not their cancer, as their priority during the first wave of the pandemic and females reported higher levels of stress compared to males. In conclusion, cancer participants appeared to have handled the unpredictable nature of the first wave of the pandemic efficiently, with a positive attitude towards an unknown and otherwise frightening situation. Larger, cancer population specific and longitudinal studies are warranted to ensure adequate medical and psychological care for cancer patients.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL