Longitudinal validation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale in a nationwide United States sample: An item response theory model across three inflection points of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic's global emergence/spread caused widespread fear. Measurement/tracking of COVID-19 fear could facilitate remediation. Despite the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S)'s validation in multiple languages/countries, nationwide United States (U.S.) studies are scarce. Cross-sectional classical test theory-based validation studies predominate. Our longitudinal study sampled respondents to a 3-wave, nationwide, online survey. We calibrated the FCV-19S using a unidimensional graded response model. Item/scale monotonicity, discrimination, informativeness, goodness-of-fit, criterion validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were assessed. Items 7, 6, and 3 consistently displayed very high discrimination. Other items had moderate-to-high discrimination. Items 3, 6, and 7 were most (items 1 and 5 the least) informative. [Correction added on 18 May 2023, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the term 'items one-fifth least' has been changed to 'items 1 and 5 the least'.] Item scalability was 0.62-0.69; full-scale scalability 0.65-0.67. Ordinal reliability coefficient was 0.94; test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient 0.84. Positive correlations with posttraumatic stress/anxiety/depression, and negative correlations with emotional stability/resilience supported convergent/divergent validity. The FCV-19S validly/reliably captures temporal variation in COVID-19 fear across the U.S.

Intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines in the united states: Sociodemographic factors and personal experiences with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Information regarding vaccination and the association with individuals' characteristics, experiences, and information sources is important for crafting public health campaigns to maximize uptake. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with intentions for COVID-19 vaccination among a sample of U.S. adults using a population-based cross-sectional survey. METHOD: Data were collected via an online questionnaire administered nationwide from January 4, to January 7, 2021 following the emergency use authorization for two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccines. RESULTS: Of 936 U.S. adult respondents, 66% stated an intention to be vaccinated once a COVID-19 vaccine was available to them; 14.7% responded "maybe" and 19.6% "no." Unadjusted and multivariate associations revealed "no/maybe" vaccination intentions were associated with younger age, female, Black race, lower income, history of not receiving the influenza vaccine, lower fear of COVID-19, suffering moderate to severe reduction in access to food/nutrition, and lower trust in health care authorities, personal health care providers, and/or traditional news media as sources of COVID-19 information. Of respondents "maybe" intending to be vaccinated, 65% reported "a lot" of trust in personal health care providers as sources of COVID-19 information. Respondents stating "no" intention to be vaccinated were skeptical of all COVID-19 information sources considered. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm observations predating COVID-19 vaccine availability regarding sociodemographic characteristics associated with vaccine hesitancy in the United States. We further identify personal health care providers as the most trusted information source among people who "maybe" intend to get vaccinated and demonstrate the challenge in reaching people not intending to be vaccinated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The relationship between stigma and mental health in a population of individuals with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Illness stigma has been observed across previous outbreaks including Ebola, SARS, HIV/AIDS, and now COVID-19. Although both the stigma of having COVID-19 as well as mental health impacts of COVID-19 have been studied, limited research exists regarding the relationship of stigma and mental health in this population. Thus, the primary purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between stigma and mental health in adults with COVID-19. METHOD: Adult respondents with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (N = 632) completed an online questionnaire distributed between April 17, 2020, and April 18, 2021. The study measures included the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7), and the 8-Item Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness (SSCI-8) tailored to measure perceived stigmatization from a COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: Participants (mean age = 51) were mostly female (71%), White (73%), married (70%), obese (56%), and had a chronic health condition (56%). Female sex, education status, working from home or not working owing to COVID-19, previous mental health diagnosis, history of chronic illness, and being a current/former smoker were associated with higher stigma scores, whereas older age and Black race were associated with lower stigma scores. CONCLUSIONS: Greater stigma and psychological distress was observed in females with a previously diagnosed psychiatric illness and/or chronic health condition. Our findings suggest a disproportionate burden of mental health/psychiatric symptoms/sequelae, including stigma and PTSD, among COVID-19 survivors with a history of mental illness. Further studies are needed to fully characterize COVID-19 related stigma and subsequent mental health experiences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor-Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis.

PURPOSE: Psychometric validity/reliability of 10-item and 2-item abbreviations of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; CD-RISC-2) was investigated via item response theory and classic approaches. METHODS: We sampled 5023 adult American participants in a June/July 2020 survey on the COVID-19 pandemic's psychological effects. Our questionnaire incorporated the CD-RISC-10 with other validated measures. CD-RISC-10 items were ranked on item-to-scale correlations, loadings on a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model, and item slope/threshold parameters plus information curves from a unidimensional graded response model. Concurrent validity of the highest ranked item pair was evaluated vis-à-vis the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2. Internal consistency, based on average variance extracted (AVE) and multiple reliability coefficients, was also compared. Convergent/divergent validity was tested by correlating anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, anxiety sensitivity, coping, and personality measures with both scales and the highest ranked item pair. Binary agreement/classification indexes assessed inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Items 2 and 9 from CD-RISC-10 ranked the highest. Reliability coefficients were > 0.93, > 0.72, and > 0.82 for the CD-RISC-10, CD-RISC-2, vs summation of items 2 and 9. AVEs were 0.66, 0.67, and 0.77. CD-RISC abbreviations and the summation of items 2 and 9 correlated negatively with anxiety (> - 0.43), depression (> - 0.42), and fear of COVID-19 (> - 0.34); positively with emotional stability (> 0.53) and conscientiousness (> 0.40). Compared to the CD-RISC-2, summative scores of items 2 and 9 more efficiently classified/discriminated high resilience on the CD-RISC-10. CONCLUSION: We confirmed construct validity/reliability of copyrighted CD-RISC abbreviations. The CD-RISC-10's items 2 and 9 were psychometrically more salient than the CD-RISC-2.

Psychological differences in adults with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence is emerging regarding the broad societal and psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but little is known about whether infected individuals are differently affected. AIM: We evaluated psychological differences between individuals who do vs. do not report testing positive for COVID-19. METHODS: An online survey was offered to adults (≥18 years) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by a provider within a large integrated-delivery healthcare system, enrolled in COVID-19-related clinical trials at the healthcare system, or responded to targeted local distribution. Measures assessed included the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale, and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5. RESULTS: Of 487 respondents, 43% reported testing positive for COVID-19, including 11% requiring hospitalization. Overall rates of general anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress were 34% and 16%, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Prevalence of depression was higher among respondents reporting a positive COVID-19 test (52% vs. 31%). This difference persisted after controlling for respondent characteristics (odds ratio = 3.7, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: People who report testing positive for COVID-19, even those not requiring hospitalization, have increased risk for depression. Mental health care screening and services should be offered to individuals testing positive, facilitating early intervention.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery delays and survival in breast, lung and colon cancers: Implication for surgical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of cancer surgeries were delayed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines if surgical delays impact survival for breast, lung and colon cancers. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Articles evaluating the relationship between delays in surgery and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) were included. RESULTS: Of the 14,422 articles screened, 25 were included in the review and 18 (totaling 2,533,355 patients) were pooled for meta-analyses. Delaying surgery for 12 weeks may decrease OS in breast (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.28-1.65), lung (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02-1.06) and colon (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.12-1.38) cancers. When breast cancers were analyzed by stage, OS was decreased in stages I (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.16-1.40) and II (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.02-1.24) but not in stage III (HR 1.20, 95%CI 0.94-1.53). CONCLUSION: Delaying breast, lung and colon cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease survival.