Differences in the Association of Anxiety, Insomnia and Somatic Symptoms between Medical Staff and the General Population During the Outbreak of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), occupational differences were recognized with respect to psychological issues, but there are no reports regarding the insomnia and anxiety comorbidities and their related factors among the general public and medical staff. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of anxiety and anxiety with insomnia, as well as the relationship between different psychological symptoms between the two groups. METHODS: A total of 605 medical staff and 1091 public respondents were assessed through an online questionnaire survey, including the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the somatization subscale of Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R), and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7). RESULTS: Compared with the general public, medical staff had a higher incidence of anxiety (45.5% vs 32.4%). The incidence of insomnia in anxious participants was 52.7% in medical staff and 44.6% in the general public, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). The GAD-7 score and somatization subscore of the SCI-90 were independently associated with insomnia among anxiety participants in both groups (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that during the epidemic period of COVID-19, medical staff experienced more anxiety and anxiety with insomnia. Somatization, anxiety and insomnia are highly correlated among medical staff and the general public.

Comparison of prevalence and risk factors of somatization between Chinese health care workers and non-health care workers during COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare prevalence and risk factors of somatization (SOM) between health care workers and non-health care workers during COVID-19 outbreak in China. METHODS: From 14 February to 29 March 2020, an online survey was performed in both 605 health care workers and 1151 non-health care workers. Based on the somatization dimension score of the Symptom Checklist-90, participants were divided into non-SOM group and SOM group. RESULTS: Health care workers had higher prevalence rate of SOM (p < 0.001) than non-health care workers, with an OR of 1.70 (95% CI, 1.22-2.36, p = 0.002). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that in non-health care workers, the risk factors of SOM included other ethnicities, insomnia, and suicide, while in health care workers, the risk factors included working 6-8 h per day, and working ≥10 h per day during COVID-19 outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that both non-health care workers and health care workers have a relatively high prevalence of somatization. However, the related factors for somatization in both groups are significantly different, showing that medical service-related factors are associated with somatization in health care workers, while demographic and clinical factors are associated with somatization in non-health care workers.

The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms of pregnant and non-pregnant women during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading worldwide, with a staggering number of cases and deaths. However, available data on the psychological impacts of COVID-19 on pregnant women are limited. The purposes of this study were to assess the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms among pregnant women, and to compare them with non-pregnant women. From February 28 to March 12, 2020, a cross-sectional study of pregnant and non-pregnant women was performed in China. The online questionnaire was used to collect information of participants. The mental health status was assessed by patient health questionnaire, generalized anxiety disorder scale, insomnia severity index, somatization subscale of the symptom checklist 90, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist-5. Totally, 859 respondents were enrolled, including 544 pregnant women and 315 non-pregnant women. In this study, 5.3%, 6.8%, 2.4%, 2.6%, and 0.9% of pregnant women were identified to have symptoms of depression, anxiety, physical discomfort, insomnia, and PTSD, respectively. However, the corresponding prevalence rates among non-pregnant women were 17.5%, 17.5%, 2.5%, 5.4%, 5.7%, respectively. After adjusting for other covariates, we observed that pregnancy was associated a reduced risk of symptoms of depression (OR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.12-0.45), anxiety (OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.16-0.42), insomnia (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.58), and PTSD (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.53) during the COVID-19 epidemic. Our results indicate that during the COVID-19 epidemic in China, pregnant women have an advantage of facing mental problems caused by COVID-19, showing fewer depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD symptoms than non-pregnant women.

Prevalence and Correlation of Anxiety, Insomnia and Somatic Symptoms in a Chinese Population During the COVID-19 Epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety has been a common mental state during the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is usually closely related to somatization. However, no study on somatization in anxiety and its relationship with insomnia has been conducted. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the prevalence of anxiety, somatization and insomnia and explore the relationships between different psychological states in the general population during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: A total of 1,172 respondents were recruited from 125 cities in mainland China by an online questionnaire survey. All subjects were evaluated with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale, the somatization subscale of the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R), and the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). RESULTS: The percentages of anxiety, somatization, and insomnia were 33.02%, 7.59%, and 24.66%, respectively. The prevalence of somatization was 19.38% in participants with anxiety. Compared to the anxiety without somatization group, the anxiety with somatization group had a significantly higher percentage of patients with a history of physical disease and insomnia, as well as higher GAD-7 scores and SCL-90 somatization subscores (all p < 0.001). The SCL-90 somatization subscores were positively correlated with age, history of physical disease, GAD-7 scores, and ISI scores (all p < 0.001). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression showed that GAD-7 score, ISI score, and age were risk factors for somatization in the anxious population. CONCLUSIONS: Somatic and psychological symptoms were common in the general population during the COVID-19 outbreak. Somatic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia are closely related, and improving anxiety and sleep quality may help relieve somatic symptoms.

The prevalence and risk factors of psychological disturbances of frontline medical staff in china under the COVID-19 epidemic: Workload should be concerned.

BACKGROUND: To our best knowledge, this was the first time to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of psychological disturbances, including depression, anxiety, somatization symptoms, insomnia and suicide, among frontline medical staff, who were working with the COVID-10 infected patients directly. METHODS: Patient Health Questionnaire Depression (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire scale (GAD-7), Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) somatization, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the suicidal module of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview were used for online survey. RESULTS: A total of 606 frontline hospital staff and1099 general population were recruited. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, somatization symptoms, insomnia, and suicide risk in frontline medical staffs were 57.6%, 45.4%, 12.0%, 32.0% and 13.0%, respectively. Except for suicide risk, the prevalence of other psychological disorders in frontline medical staff were higher than those in general population (all p<0.01). Among the frontline medical staff, the daily working hours were associated with all psychological disturbance (all p<0.01), women with anxiety (p = 0.02), body mass index (BMI) with anxiety and insomnia (p = 0.02, p = 0.03). Age was negatively associated with depression, anxiety, and insomnia (all p<0.01). Finally, years of working and family income were negatively associated with suicide risk (p = 0.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that during the outbreak of COVID-19, the frontline medical staff are more likely to suffer from psychological disturbances than general population. It is noticeable that daily working hours are a risk factor for all measured psychological disturbances, and some other variables may be involved in certain psychological disturbances of frontline medical staff.

Public mental health under the long-term influence of COVID-19 in China: Geographical and temporal distribution.

BACKGROUND: The mental health status caused by major epidemics is serious and lasting. At present, there are few studies about the lasting mental health effects of COVID-19 outbreak. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mental health of the Chinese public during the long-term COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: A total of 1172 online questionnaires were collected, covering demographical information and 8 common psychological states: depression, anxiety, somatization, stress, psychological resilience, suicidal ideation and behavior, insomnia, and stress disorder. In addition, the geographical and temporal distributions of different mental states were plotted. RESULTS: Overall, 30.1% of smokers increased smoking, while 11.3% of drinkers increased alcohol consumption. The prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, mental health problems, high risk of suicidal and behavior, clinical insomnia, clinical post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, moderate-to-high levels of perceived stress were 18.8%, 13.3%, 7.6%, 2.8%, 7.2%, 7.0%, and 67.9%, respectively. Further, the geographical distribution showed that the mental status in some provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities was relatively more serious. The temporal distribution showed that the psychological state of the participants was relatively poorer on February 20, 24 to 26 and March 25, especially on March 25. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional design cannot make causal inferences. The snowball sampling was not representative enough. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the prevalence rate of mental disorders in the Chinese public is relatively low in the second month of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, people's mental state is affected by the geographical and temporal distributions.