University students' mental health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia.

AIMS: We aimed to identify the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and suicidality and identify relevant risk and protecting factors among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey (n = 984, convenience sample by approaching all universities in Georgia and some student organizations) using valid instruments (e.g., STAI to assess anxiety, CES-D for depression, and RASS to assess suicidality). We calculated frequencies and prevalence and applied regression analysis and Chi-square tests to identify risk and protecting factors. FINDINGS: Respondents' mental health had been significantly affected (with a high prevalence of depression (46.7%) and anxiety (79%)) during the pandemic (which coincided with political turmoil and caused an economic crisis) in Georgia. Some of the critical factors affecting mental health were: female sex (p = .000), bad general health condition (anxiety p = .001, depression p = .004), finances (anxiety and depression p < .001), reduced physical activity (anxiety p < .001, depression p = .014), and a history of self-harming (suicidality p < .001). Less family conflicts (anxiety and depression p < .05), absence of nightmares (anxiety and depression p < .001), moderate or low fears of COVID-19 (anxiety p < .001), and lower substance use (anxiety p = .023) were among the potentially protective factors. International students coped better, despite vulnerability. Medical students had a lower risk of depression. CONCLUSIONS: In the complex socioeconomic context, mental health of students in Georgia suffered a lot during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring thorough planning and delivery of student support services in higher educational institutions during and after the pandemic.

The Approach to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Georgia-A Health Policy Analysis.

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze key COVID-19 pandemic-related policies and national strategic responses in light of Georgia's political, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Methods: We applied a policy triangle framework for policy analysis, performed document and media content analysis, and described pandemic trends statistically. Results: Early introduction of stringent restrictive measures largely prevented a first wave in March-May 2020. This was communicated as a success story, prompting a public success perception. With unpopular restrictions lifted and hesitancy to embrace evidence-informed policymaking ahead of nationwide parliamentary elections, SARS-CoV-2 infection spread rapidly and was met with an insufficiently coordinated effort. Facing health system capacity saturation an almost complete lockdown was re-introduced in late 2020. Factors as delayed immunization campaign, insufficient coordination and, again, little evidence-informed policymaking eventually led to another devastating COVID-19 wave in summer of 2021. Conclusion: Georgia's pandemic health policy response was adversely impacted by a volatile political environment. National pandemic preparedness and response might benefit from an independent body with appointment procedures and operations shielded from political influences to effectively inform and communicate evidence-based pandemic policy.