The COVID Psychosocial Impacts Scale: A Reliable and Valid Tool to Examine the Psychosocial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This paper reports on the development and validation of the COVID Psychosocial Impacts Scale (CPIS), a self-report measure that comprehensively examines both positive and negative psychosocial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is the first part of the program of work in which the CPIS was administered and compared with a measure of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, K-10) and wellbeing (World Health Organization Well-Being Index, WHO-5). The data were obtained online in 2020 and 2022 at two distinct time points to capture different exposures to the pandemic in the New Zealand population to a non-representative sample of 663 and 687 adults, respectively. Two hundred seventy-one participants took part in both surveys. Findings indicate a unidimensional structure within CPIS subscales and inter-relatedness among CPIS stress-related subscales. The scatter plots and correlation matrix indicate CPIS having a positive moderate correlation with K10 and a negative moderate correlation with WHO-5, indicative of construct validity. The paper outlines contextual factors surrounding CPIS development and makes suggestions for future iterations of CPIS. Further work will examine its psychometric properties across cultures.

Examining the psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: an international cross-sectional study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed people to significant and prolonged stress. The psychosocial impacts of the pandemic have been well recognised and reported in high-income countries (HICs) but it is important to understand the unique challenges posed by COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where limited international comparisons have been undertaken. This protocol was therefore devised to study the psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in seven LMICs using scales that had been designed for or translated for this purpose. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cross-sectional study uses an online survey to administer a novel COVID Psychosocial Impacts Scale (CPIS) alongside established measures of psychological distress, post-traumatic stress, well-being and post-traumatic growth in the appropriate language. Participants will include adults aged 18 years and above, recruited from Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Somalia and Turkey, with a pragmatic target sample size of 500 in each country.Data will be analysed descriptively on sociodemographic and study variables. In addition, CPIS will be analysed psychometrically (for reliability and validity) to assess the suitability of use in a given context. Finally, within-subjects and between-subjects analyses will be carried out using multi-level mixed-effect models to examine associations between key sociodemographic and study variables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Human Ethics Committee, University of Otago, New Zealand (Ref. No. 21/102). In addition, international collaborators obtained local authorisation or ethical approval in their respective host universities before data collection commenced.Participants will give informed consent before taking part. Data will be collected and stored securely on the University of Otago, New Zealand Qualtrics platform using an auto-generated non-identifiable letter-number string. Data will be available on reasonable request. Findings will be disseminated by publications in scientific journals and/or conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05052333.

Carer distress among community living older adults with complex needs in the pre- and post-COVID-19 era: a national population study.

Carer distress is one important negative impact of caregiving and likely exacerbated by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet little population-based epidemiological information exists. Using national data from repeated standardized comprehensive geriatric needs assessments, this study aims to: describe the pattern of caregiver distress among those providing informal care to community-living adults aged ≥ 65 years with complex needs in New Zealand over time; estimate the COVID-19 effect on this temporal pattern; and, investigate relationships between participants' sociodemographic and selected health measures on caregiver distress. Fractional polynomial regression and multivariable multilevel mixed-effects models were employed. Overall, 231,277 assessments from 144,358 participants were analysed. At first assessment, average age was 82.0 years (range 65-107 years), and 85,676 (59.4%) were female. Carer distress prevalence increased from 35.1% on 5 July 2012 to a peak of 48.5% on 21 March 2020, when the New Zealand Government announced a national lock-down. However, the population attributional fraction associated with the COVID-19 period was small, estimated at 0.56% (95% CI 0.35%, 0.77%). Carer distress is common and has rapidly increased in recent years. While significant, the COVID-19 impact has been relatively small. Policies and services providing efficacious on-going strategies to support caregivers deserves specific attention.

An eight country cross-sectional study of the psychosocial effects of COVID-19 induced quarantine and/or isolation during the pandemic.

Forced quarantine and nationwide lockdowns have been a primary response by many jurisdictions in their attempt at COVID-19 elimination or containment, yet the associated mental health burden is not fully understood. Using an eight country cross-sectional design, this study investigates the association between COVID-19 induced quarantine and/or isolation on probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive episode (MDE) psychological outcomes approximately eight months after the pandemic was declared. Overall, 9027 adults participated, and 2937 (32.5%) were indicated with GAD and/or MDE. Reported quarantine and/or isolation was common, with 1199 (13.8%) confined for travel or health requirements, 566 (6.5%) for being close contact, 720 (8.3%) for having COVID-19 symptoms, and 457 (5.3%) for being COVID-19 positive. Compared to those not quarantining or isolating, the adjusted estimated relative risks of GAD and/or MDE associated with quarantine and/or isolation was significant (p < 0.001), ranging from 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07, 1.43) for travel/health to 1.37 (95% CI 1.19, 1.59) for COVID-19 symptom isolation reasons. While almost universally employed, quarantine and/or isolation is associated with a heavy mental health toll. Preventive strategies are needed, such as minimizing time-limits imposed and providing clear rationale and information, together with additional treatment and rehabilitation resources.

Patterns of Suicide Ideation Across Eight Countries in Four Continents During the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Repeated Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and countries' response measures have had a globally significant mental health impact. This mental health burden has also been fueled by an infodemic: an information overload that includes misinformation and disinformation. Suicide, the worst mental health outcome, is a serious public health problem that can be prevented with timely, evidence-based, and often low-cost interventions. Suicide ideation, one important risk factor for suicide, is thus important to measure and monitor, as are the factors that may impact on it. OBJECTIVE: This investigation had 2 primary aims: (1) to estimate and compare country-specific prevalence of suicide ideation at 2 different time points, overall and by gender and age groups, and (2) to investigate the influence of sociodemographic and infodemic variables on suicide ideation. METHODS: A repeated, online, 8-country (Canada, the United States, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Philippines, and New Zealand), cross-sectional study was undertaken with adults aged ≥18 years, with measurement wave 1 conducted from May 29, 2020 to June 12, 2020 and measurement wave 2 conducted November 6-18, 2021. Self-reported suicide ideation was derived from item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Age-standardized suicide ideation rates were reported, a binomial regression model was used to estimate suicide ideation indication rates for each country and measurement wave, and logistic regression models were then employed to relate sociodemographic, pandemic, and infodemic variables to suicide ideation. RESULTS: The final sample totaled 17,833 adults: 8806 (49.4%) from measurement wave 1 and 9027 (50.6%) from wave 2. Overall, 24.2% (2131/8806) and 27.5% (2486/9027) of participants reported suicide ideation at measurement waves 1 and 2, respectively, a difference that was significant (P<.001). Considerable variability was observed in suicide ideation age-standardized rates between countries, ranging from 15.6% in Belgium (wave 1) to 42.9% in Hong Kong (wave 2). Frequent social media usage was associated with increased suicide ideation at wave 2 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.47, 95% CI 1.25-1.72; P<.001) but not wave 1 (AOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96-1.23; P=.16). However, having a weaker sense of coherence (SOC; AOR 3.80, 95% CI 3.18-4.55 at wave 1 and AOR 4.39, 95% CI 3.66-5.27 at wave 2; both P<.001) had the largest overall effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide ideation is prevalent and significantly increasing over time in this COVID-19 pandemic era, with considerable variability between countries. Younger adults and those residing in Hong Kong carried disproportionately higher rates. Social media appears to have an increasingly detrimental association with suicide ideation, although having a stronger SOC had a larger protective effect. Policies and promotion of SOC, together with disseminating health information that explicitly tackles the infodemic's misinformation and disinformation, may importantly reduce the rising mental health morbidity and mortality triggered by this pandemic.

The Evolution in Anxiety and Depression with the Progression of the Pandemic in Adult Populations from Eight Countries and Four Continents.

Nearly a year after the classification of the COVID-19 outbreak as a global pandemic, it is clear that different factors have contributed to an increase in psychological disorders, including public health measures that infringe on personal freedoms, growing financial losses, and conflicting messages. This study examined the evolution of psychosocial impacts with the progression of the pandemic in adult populations from different countries and continents, and identified, among a wide range of individual and country-level factors, which ones are contributing to this evolving psychological response. An online survey was conducted in May/June 2020 and in November 2020, among a sample of 17,833 adults (Phase 1: 8806; Phase 2: 9027) from eight countries/regions (Canada, the United States, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, the Philippines, New Zealand). Probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive episode (MDE) were assessed. The independent role of potential factors was examined using multilevel logistic regression. Probable GAD or MDE was indicated by 30.1% and 32.5% of the respondents during phases 1 and 2, respectively (a 7.9% increase over time), with an important variation according to countries/regions (range from 22.3% in Switzerland to 38.8% in the Philippines). This proportion exceeded 50% among young adults (18-24 years old) in all countries except for Switzerland. Beyond young age, several factors negatively influenced mental health in times of pandemic; important factors were found, including weak sense of coherence (adjusted odds ratio aOR = 3.89), false beliefs (aOR = 2.33), and self-isolation/quarantine (aOR = 2.01). The world has entered a new era dominated by psychological suffering and rising demand for mental health interventions, along a continuum from health promotion to specialized healthcare. More than ever, we need to innovate and build interventions aimed at strengthening key protective factors, such as sense of coherence, in the fight against the adversity caused by the concurrent pandemic and infodemic.

One Virus, Four Continents, Eight Countries: An Interdisciplinary and International Study on the Psychosocial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic among Adults.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about several features that increased the sense of fear and confusion, such as quarantine and financial losses among other stressors, which may have led to adverse psychosocial outcomes. The influence of such stressors took place within a broader sociocultural context that needs to be considered. The objective was to examine how the psychological response to the pandemic varied across countries and identify which risk/protective factors contributed to this response. An online survey was conducted from 29 May 2020-12 June 2020, among a multinational sample of 8806 adults from eight countries/regions (Canada, United States, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Philippines, New Zealand). Probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression episode (MDE) were assessed. The independent role of a wide range of potential factors was examined using multilevel logistic regression. Probable GAD and MDE were indicated by 21.0% and 25.5% of the respondents, respectively, with an important variation according to countries/regions (GAD: 12.2-31.0%; MDE: 16.7-32.9%). When considered together, 30.2% of the participants indicated probable GAD or MDE. Several factors were positively associated with a probable GAD or MDE, including (in descending order of importance) weak sense of coherence (SOC), lower age, false beliefs, isolation, threat perceived for oneself/family, mistrust in authorities, stigma, threat perceived for country/world, financial losses, being a female, and having a high level of information about COVID-19. Having a weak SOC yielded the highest adjusted odds ratio for probable GAD or MDE (3.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.73-3.77). This pandemic is having an impact on psychological health. In some places and under certain circumstances, however, people seem to be better protected psychologically. This is a unique opportunity to evaluate the psychosocial impacts across various sociocultural backgrounds, providing important lessons that could inform all phases of disaster risk management.