Transcultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale: a cross-sectional study during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Thailand.

This study aimed to examine the transcultural adaptation, construct validity, and psychometric properties of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) among the general population and college students through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Thailand. We invited the 4004 participants to complete sets of anchor-based measurement tools, including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, well-being, and perceived social support. The scale factor structure of the Thai-BRCS was assessed using factor analysis, and nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. The psychometric properties of the Thai-BRCS for validity (convergent and discriminant) and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were assessed. Based on the construct validity testing, factor analysis, and nonparametric IRT analysis reaffirmed the unidimensionality with a one-factor structure of the Thai-BRCS version. For convergent validity, the scale was significantly correlated with all sets of anchor-based measurement tools (all P < 0.001). The discriminant validity was satisfactory with a group of medium and low resilience and the risk of adverse mental outcomes. For scale reliability, it revealed excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.84, omega = 0.85) and reproducibility (intraclass correlation = 0.91). The Thai-BRCS version fulfills transcultural adaptation with satisfactory psychometric properties to measure psychological resilience in the Thai population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

Psychological Resilience and Adverse Mental Health Issues in the Thai Population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

In light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the enormous amount of uncertainty caused by it, mental health issues have become a great concern. Evidence regarding the effects of psychological resilience on the Thai population is scarce. We evaluated psychological resilience during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with the risk of mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, stress, and health-related well-being. This cross-sectional study was a part of the HOME-COVID-19 project, which conducted an online survey of 4004 members of the general population in Thailand using the Brief Resilience Coping Scale. Logistic regression was performed to identify the association between psychological resilience and mental health issues and well-being. Groups with prevalence rates of 43.9%, 39.2%, and 16.9% were classified as low, moderate, and high resilient copers, respectively. Using high resilient copers as a reference group, the low resilient copers had a higher chance of having mental health adversities. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.56; p < 0.001) for depression, 2.13 (95% CI, 1.45-3.14; p < 0.001) for anxiety, 4.61 (95% CI, 3.30-6.45; p < 0.001) for perceived stress, and 3.18 (95% CI, 2.31-4.38; p < 0.001) for low well-being. For the medium resilient copers, only low well-being was found to be statistically significant (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.16-2.20; p = 0.004). It is important that resilience be considered in the development of strategies for managing the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent or reduce adverse mental health outcomes.

Disparities and Factors Associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019-Related Public Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Study in Thailand.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related public stigma is a major challenge, with scarce available evidence. This study aimed to determine the disparities and factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma in the Thai population. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a voluntary online survey in Thailand from 21 April 2020 to 4 May 2020. We invited 4004 participants to complete a series of questionnaires, including the validated COVID-19 public stigma scale and questions on relevant COVID-19-related psychosocial issues. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma. The prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma was 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2-26.2) for no/minimal, 35.5% (95% CI, 33.4-37.6) for moderate, and 40.3% (95% CI, 38.2-42.4) for high. We observed disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma according to participant characteristics and psychosocial factors. Using the no/minimal group as a reference group, the six predominant risk factors significantly associated with a moderate and high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were middle-aged or older adults, male, divorced/widowed/separated, current quarantine status, moderate/severe fear of COVID-19, and medium/high perceived risk of COVID-19. Additional risk factors significantly related to a high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were religion (Buddhist), region of residence (non-capital city), and exposure to COVID-19-related information. Disparities in COVID-19-related public stigma due to sociodemographic and psychosocial issues are frequent in the Thai population. To reduce public stigmatization, early identification of vulnerable groups and the development of tailored mitigation strategies should be implemented during the pandemic.

Disparities and Factors Associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019-Related Public Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Study in Thailand

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related public stigma is a major challenge, with scarce available evidence. This study aimed to determine the disparities and factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma in the Thai population. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a voluntary online survey in Thailand from 21 April 2020 to 4 May 2020. We invited 4004 participants to complete a series of questionnaires, including the validated COVID-19 public stigma scale and questions on relevant COVID-19-related psychosocial issues. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma. The prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma was 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2–26.2) for no/minimal, 35.5% (95% CI, 33.4–37.6) for moderate, and 40.3% (95% CI, 38.2–42.4) for high. We observed disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma according to participant characteristics and psychosocial factors. Using the no/minimal group as a reference group, the six predominant risk factors significantly associated with a moderate and high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were middle-aged or older adults, male, divorced/widowed/separated, current quarantine status, moderate/severe fear of COVID-19, and medium/high perceived risk of COVID-19. Additional risk factors significantly related to a high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were religion (Buddhist), region of residence (non-capital city), and exposure to COVID-19-related information. Disparities in COVID-19-related public stigma due to sociodemographic and psychosocial issues are frequent in the Thai population. To reduce public stigmatization, early identification of vulnerable groups and the development of tailored mitigation strategies should be implemented during the pandemic.

Fear of COVID-19 and Perceived Stress: The Mediating Roles of Neuroticism and Perceived Social Support.

BACKGROUND: Fear of COVID-19 leads to stress and may result in various kinds of mental health problems. Many factors are associated with an individual's perception of stress, including neuroticism and perceived social support. This study aimed to examine the role of neuroticism and perceived social support as mediators of fear of COVID-19 on perceived stress. METHODS: Data from 3299 participants aged ≥18 years from the HOME-COVID-19 survey in 2020 were used for analysis. Measurements used included the Fear of COVID-19 and Impact on Quality of Life Scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, the Neuroticism inventory and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support-12. A parallel mediation model within a structural equation modeling framework with 5000 bootstrapping sampling was used to test the mediating effect. RESULTS: Fear of COVID-19 had a direct effect on perceived stress (B = 0.100, 95% CI = 0.080-0.121, p < 0.001), whereas neuroticism, but not perceived social support, partially mediated the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and perceived stress (B = 0.018, 95% CI = 0.000-0.036). Among all types of social support, only perceived support from friends was a significant mediator (B = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.006-0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Neuroticism and perceived support from friends are critical factors in the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and perceived stress.

Exposure to COVID-19-Related Information and its Association With Mental Health Problems in Thailand: Nationwide, Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on both the physical and mental health of individuals worldwide. Evidence regarding the association between mental health problems and information exposure among Thai citizens during the COVID-19 outbreak is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the relationship between information exposure and mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. METHODS: Between April 21 and May 4, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide online survey of the general population in Thailand. We categorized the duration of exposure to COVID-19-related information as follows: <1 h/day (reference group), 1-2 h/day, and ≥3 h/day. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, and the Insomnia Severity Index for symptoms of depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and insomnia, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between information exposure and the risk of developing the aforementioned symptoms. An ancillary analysis using multivariable multinomial logistic regression models was also conducted to assess the possible dose-response relationship across the severity strata of mental health problems. RESULTS: Of the 4322 eligible participants, 4004 (92.6%) completed the online survey. Of them, 1481 (37.0%), 1644 (41.1%), and 879 (22.0%) participants were exposed to COVID-19-related information for less than 1 hour per day, 1 to 2 hours per day, or 3 or more hours per day, respectively. The major source of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic was social media (95.3%), followed by traditional media (68.7%) and family members (34.9%). Those exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day had a higher risk of developing symptoms of depression (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.76; P=.03), anxiety (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43-2.46; P<.001), and insomnia (adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.97; P=.001) than people exposed to information for less than 1 hour per day. Meanwhile, people exposed to information for 1 to 2 hours per day were only at risk of developing symptoms of anxiety (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.69; P=.008). However, no association was found between information exposure and the risk of perceived stress. In the ancillary analysis, a dose-response relationship was observed between information exposure of 3 or more hours per day and the severity of mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social media is the main source of COVID-19-related information. Moreover, people who are exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day are more likely to develop psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Longitudinal studies investigating the long-term effects of COVID-19-related information exposure on mental health are warranted.

COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS): development, validation, psychometric analysis and interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, social stigma towards COVID-19 infection has become a major component of public discourse and social phenomena. As such, we aimed to develop and validate the COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS). DESIGN AND SETTING: National-based survey cross-sectional study during the lockdown in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: We invited the 4004 adult public to complete a set of measurement tools, including the COVID-PSS, global fear of COVID-19, perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, Bogardus Social Distance Scale, Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index. METHODS: Factor structure dimensionality was constructed and reaffirmed with model fit by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. Psychometric properties for validity and reliability were tested. An anchor-based approach was performed for classifying the proper cut-off scores. RESULTS: After factor analysis, IRT analysis and test for model fit, we created the final 10-item COVID-PSS with a three-factor structure: stereotype, prejudice and fear. Face and content validity were established through the public and experts' perspectives. The COVID-PSS was significantly correlated (Spearman rank, 95% CI) with the global fear of COVID-19 (0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.70), perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (0.79, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.80) and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (0.50, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.53), indicating good convergent validity. The correlation statistics between the COVID-PSS and the Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index were <0.2, supporting the discriminant validity. The reliability of the COVID-PSS was satisfactory, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.85, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) and test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation of 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96). The proposed cut-off scores were as follows: no/minimal (≤18), moderate (19-25) and high (≥26) public stigma towards COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-PSS is practical and suitable for measuring stigma towards COVID-19 in a public health survey. However, cross-cultural adaptation may be needed.

Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a contemporary global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population amid the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We searched electronic databases, preprint databases, grey literature, and unpublished studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2020 (updated on July 11, 2020), with no language restrictions. Observational studies using validated measurement tools and reporting data on mental health issues among the general population were screened to identify all relevant studies. We have included information from 32 different countries and 398,771 participants. The pooled prevalence of mental health issues amid the COVID-19 pandemic varied widely across countries and regions and was higher than previous reports before the COVID-19 outbreak began. The global prevalence estimate was 28.0% for depression; 26.9% for anxiety; 24.1% for post-traumatic stress symptoms; 36.5% for stress; 50.0% for psychological distress; and 27.6% for sleep problems. Data are limited for other aspects of mental health issues. Our findings highlight the disparities between countries in terms of the poverty impacts of COVID-19, preparedness of countries to respond, and economic vulnerabilities that impact the prevalence of mental health problems. Research on the social and economic burden is needed to better manage mental health problems during and after epidemics or pandemics. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD 42020177120.

Association of job loss, income loss, and financial burden with adverse mental health outcomes during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Thailand: A nationwide cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Economic crises during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic severely impacted mental health outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on this issue in Thailand. We aimed to evaluate the association of economic burden during the first phase of the pandemic and the risk of adverse mental health outcomes in the Thai population. METHODS: We recruited 2,303 participants aged 18 years or above with employment/full-time jobs before the national lockdown in April-May 2020. The measures of economic burden were job loss, income loss, and financial problems related to the outbreak. The outcomes included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and perceived stress. The association between economic burden and adverse mental health outcomes was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Individuals who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic had a higher risk of perceived stress compared to those who maintained their job (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-4.51; p = .006). A higher risk of anxiety was observed in individuals with a monthly income loss of 50% (adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.99; p = .035; individuals without income loss, reference group) or over. Self-reported financial problems were significantly associated with adverse mental health outcomes (nonexperienced financial problems, reference group): Adjusted ORs of 1.84 (95% CI, 1.34-2.51; p < .001) for depressive symptoms, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.48-2.71; p < .001) for anxiety, and 2.12 (95% CI, 1.51-2.95; p < .001) for perceived stress. CONCLUSIONS: Economic burden, especially self-reported financial problems, was associated with adverse mental health outcomes. However, long-term studies are needed to address the mental health consequences of COVID-19 and economic downturns.

Mental health circumstances among health care workers and general public under the pandemic situation of COVID-19 (HOME-COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: After the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, upgraded quarantine and physical distancing strategy, strict infection measures, and government's strict lockdown have been abided to confront the spread of the COVID-19 in Thailand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population are now arising. Yet, information on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population have not been comprehensively reported in Thailand. As such, we conduct a cross-sectional study, a national online survey to describe the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand. METHODS: This study is a repeated cross-sectional study, an open online voluntary national-based survey during the wave I (April 21-May 4, 2020) follow-up in the wave II (August 3-16, 2020), wave III (November 15-28, 2020), and a 1-year follow-up survey (wave IV: April 21-May 4, 2021) in Thailand. Health care workers at the hospitals and the adult general population will be invited to participate in the online survey via the SurveyMonkey that limits one-time participation per unique internet protocol address. The target sample size of at least 1182 health care workers and 1310 general populations will be required to complete the online survey for each wave of the survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and a set of measurement tools for mental and psychosocial problems for each subcohort including depression, anxiety, stress, resilient copings, neuroticism, perceived social support, wellbeing, somatic symptoms, insomnia, burnout (for healthcare workers), and public stigma toward COVID-19 infection (for the general population) will be collected. For all estimates of prevalence, we will weigh data for all wave analyses under the complex design of the survey. Subgroup analyses stratified by key characteristics will also be done to analyze the proportion differences. For the repeated cross-sectional survey, we will combine the data from the wave I to wave IV survey to analyze changes in the mental health status. We will perform multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to explore associations with individual-level and region-level/hospital-level predictors. We also plan to perform an ancillary systematic review and meta-analysis by incorporating data from our findings to all available evidence. RESULTS: Our findings will provide information on the short- and long-term mental health status as well as the psychosocial responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in a national sample of health care workers and the general population in Thailand. CONCLUSION: This prospective, nationally based, a repeated cross-sectional study will describe the mental health status and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health and Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University. The findings will be disseminated through public, scientific, and professional meetings, and publications in peer-reviewed journals. THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY (TCTR) REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20200425001.