Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Eur Psychiatry ; 65(1): e41, 2022 Jun 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910386

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mental illness is known to come along with a large mortality gap compared to thegeneral population and it is a risk for COVID-19 related morbidity andmortality. Achieving high vaccination rates in people with mental illness is therefore important. Reports are conflicting on whether vaccination rates comparable to those of the general population can be achieved and which variables represent risk factors for nonvaccination in people with mental illness. METHODS: The COVID Ψ Vac study collected routine data on vaccination status, diagnostic groups, sociodemographics, and setting characteristics from in- and day-clinic patients of 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany in August 2021. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine risk factors for nonvaccination. RESULTS: Complete vaccination rates were 59% (n = 776) for the hospitalized patients with mental illness versus 64% for the regionally and age-matched general population. Partial vaccination rates were 68% (n = 893) for the hospitalised patients with mental illness versus 67% for the respective general population and six percentage (n = 74) of this hospitalized population were vaccinated during the hospital stay. Rates showed a large variation between hospital sites. An ICD-10 group F1, F2, or F4 main diagnosis, younger age, and coercive accommodation were further risk factors for nonvaccination in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination rates were lower in hospitalized people with mental illness than in the general population. By targeting at-risk groups with low-threshold vaccination programs in all health institutions they get in contact with, vaccination rates comparable to those in the general population can be achieved.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mentally Ill Persons , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Humans , Vaccination
2.
Front Psychiatry ; 13: 855040, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847223

ABSTRACT

Psychiatric inpatient treatment, an important pillar of mental health care, is often of longer duration in Germany than in other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic called for infection prevention and control measures and thereby led to shifts in demand and inpatient capacities. The Germany-wide COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey surveyed department heads of German psychiatric inpatient institutions. It assessed changes in utilization during the first two high incidence phases of the pandemic (spring 2020 and winter 2020/21) and also consequences for care, telemedicine experiences, hygiene measures, treatment of patients with mental illness and co-occuring SARS-CoV-2, and coercive measures in such patients. A total of n = 71 psychiatric departments (of 346 contacted) participated in the survey. The results showed a median decrease of inpatient treatment to 80% of 2019 levels and of day hospital treatment to 50% (first phase) and 70% (second phase). Reductions were mainly due to decreases in elective admissions, and emergency admissions remained unchanged or increased in 87% of departments. Utilization was reduced for affective, anxiety, personality, and addiction disorders but appeared roughly unaffected for psychotic disorders. A lack of integration of patients into their living environment, disease exacerbations, loss of contact, and suicide attempts were reported as problems resulting from reduced capacities and insufficient outpatient treatment alternatives. Almost all departments (96%) treated patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring SARS-CoV-2 infection. The majority established special wards and separate areas for (potentially) infectious patients. Telephone and video consultations were found to provide benefits in affective and anxiety disorders. Involuntary admissions of persons without mental illness because of infection protection law violations were reported by 6% of the hospitals. The survey showed high adaptability of psychiatric departments, which managed large capacity shifts and introduced new services for infectious patients, which include telemedicine services. However, the pandemic exacerbated some of the shortcomings of the German mental health system: Avoidable complications resulted from the lack of cooperation and integrated care sequences between in- and outpatient sectors and limited options for psychiatric hospitals to provide outpatient services. Preventive approaches to handle comparable pandemic situations in the future should focus on addressing these shortcomings.

3.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-335636

ABSTRACT

Recently, cross-sectional relationships between psycho-social resilience factors (RFs) and resilience, operationalized as an outcome of low reactivity of mental health to stressor exposure (low ‘stressor reactivity’) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, were reported. Extending these findings, we here examine prospective relationships and weekly dynamics between the same RFs and stressor reactivity in a longitudinal sample during the aftermath of the first wave in several European countries. Over five weeks of app-based assessments, participants weekly reported stressor exposure, mental health problems, RFs, and demographic data, in one of six different languages. As (partly) preregistered, hypotheses were tested cross-sectionally at baseline (N=558) and longitudinally (N=200), using mixed effects models and mediation analyses. RFs at baseline, including positive appraisal style, optimism, self-efficacy, perceived good stress recovery, and perceived social support, were negatively associated with stressor reactivity (SR) scores, not only cross-sectionally (baseline SR scores) but also prospectively (average SR scores across subsequent weeks). In both analyses, positive appraisal style mediated the effects of perceived social support on SR. In the analyses of weekly RF-SR dynamics, RFs positive appraisal (of stressors generally and specifically of the Corona crisis) and general self-efficacy were negatively associated with SR in a contemporaneous, but not lagged fashion. We identify psychological RFs which prospectively predict resilience and co-fluctuate with weekly stressor reactivity within individuals. The prospective results endorse that the previously reported RF-SR associations do not exclusively reflect mood-congruency or other temporal bias effects. We further confirm an important role for positive appraisal in resilience.

4.
Frontiers in psychiatry ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1837933

ABSTRACT

Psychiatric inpatient treatment, an important pillar of mental health care, is often of longer duration in Germany than in other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic called for infection prevention and control measures and thereby led to shifts in demand and inpatient capacities. The Germany-wide COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey surveyed department heads of German psychiatric inpatient institutions. It assessed changes in utilization during the first two high incidence phases of the pandemic (spring 2020 and winter 2020/21) and also consequences for care, telemedicine experiences, hygiene measures, treatment of patients with mental illness and co-occuring SARS-CoV-2, and coercive measures in such patients. A total of n = 71 psychiatric departments (of 346 contacted) participated in the survey. The results showed a median decrease of inpatient treatment to 80% of 2019 levels and of day hospital treatment to 50% (first phase) and 70% (second phase). Reductions were mainly due to decreases in elective admissions, and emergency admissions remained unchanged or increased in 87% of departments. Utilization was reduced for affective, anxiety, personality, and addiction disorders but appeared roughly unaffected for psychotic disorders. A lack of integration of patients into their living environment, disease exacerbations, loss of contact, and suicide attempts were reported as problems resulting from reduced capacities and insufficient outpatient treatment alternatives. Almost all departments (96%) treated patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring SARS-CoV-2 infection. The majority established special wards and separate areas for (potentially) infectious patients. Telephone and video consultations were found to provide benefits in affective and anxiety disorders. Involuntary admissions of persons without mental illness because of infection protection law violations were reported by 6% of the hospitals. The survey showed high adaptability of psychiatric departments, which managed large capacity shifts and introduced new services for infectious patients, which include telemedicine services. However, the pandemic exacerbated some of the shortcomings of the German mental health system: Avoidable complications resulted from the lack of cooperation and integrated care sequences between in- and outpatient sectors and limited options for psychiatric hospitals to provide outpatient services. Preventive approaches to handle comparable pandemic situations in the future should focus on addressing these shortcomings.

5.
Psychol Med ; : 1-11, 2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-323265

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. While increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. In order to gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (March 22nd to April 19th) in a convenience sample of N=15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p<0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p<0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics.

7.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 10(11): e29712, 2021 Nov 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1542259

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Physical activity alleviates chronic stress. The latest research suggests a relationship between resilience and physical fitness. Beneficial adaptations of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, sympathetic nervous system, endocannabinoid system, and tryptophan pathway, which are induced by an active lifestyle, are considered to be conducive to resilience. However, detailed knowledge on the molecular link between the effects of acute and chronic physical exercise and improved resilience to stress in humans is missing. Moreover, the relationship between innate and acquired aerobic capacity and resilience is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to implement a human exercise intervention trial addressing the following main hypotheses: a high innate aerobic capacity is associated with high resilience to stress, and web-based physical exercise training improves aerobic capacity of physically inactive adults, which is accompanied by improved resilience. In this setting, we will analyze the relationship between resilience parameters and innate and acquired aerobic capacity as well as circulating signaling molecules. METHODS: A total of 70 healthy, physically inactive (<150 minutes/week of physical activity) adults (aged 18-45 years) will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group will receive weekly training using progressive endurance and interval running adapted individually to their remotely supervised home training performance via web-based coach support. A standardized incremental treadmill exercise test will be performed before and after the intervention period of 8 weeks to determine the innate and acquired aerobic capacity (peak oxygen uptake). Before and after the intervention, psychological tests and questionnaires that characterize parameters implicated in resilience will be applied. Blood and saliva will be sampled for the analysis of cortisol, lactate, endocannabinoids, catecholamines, kynurenic acid, and further circulating signal transducers. Statistical analysis will provide comprehensive knowledge on the relationship between aerobic capacity and resilience, as well as the capacity of peripheral factors to mediate the promoting effects of exercise on resilience. RESULTS: The study was registered in October 2019, and enrollment began in September 2019. Of the 161 participants who were initially screened via a telephone survey, 43 (26.7%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Among the 55% (17/31) of participants in the intervention group and 45% (14/31) of participants in the control group who completed the study, no serious adverse incidents were reported. Of 43 participants, 4 (9%) withdrew during the program (for individual reasons) and 8 (19%) have not yet participated in the program; moreover, further study recruitment was paused for an indeterminate amount of time because of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study aims to further define the physiological characteristics of human resilience, and it may offer novel approaches for the prevention and therapy of mental disorders via an exercise prescription. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29712.

8.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(17)2021 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390609

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is posing a global public health burden. These consequences have been shown to increase the risk of mental distress, but the underlying protective and risk factors for mental distress and trends over different waves of the pandemic are largely unknown. Furthermore, it is largely unknown how mental distress is associated with individual protective behavior. Three quota samples, weighted to represent the population forming the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study (24 March and 26 May 2020, and 9 March 2021 with >900 subjects each), were used to describe the course of mental distress and resilience, to identify risk and protective factors during the pandemic, and to investigate their associations with individual protective behaviors. Mental distress increased slightly during the pandemic. Usage of cognitive reappraisal strategies, maintenance of a daily structure, and usage of alternative social interactions decreased. Self-reported resilience, cognitive reappraisal strategies, and maintaining a daily structure were the most important protective factors in all three samples. Adherence to individual protective behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) was negatively associated with mental distress and positively associated with frequency of information intake, maintenance of a daily structure, and cognitive reappraisal. Maintaining a daily structure, training of cognitive reappraisal strategies, and information provision may be targets to prevent mental distress while assuring a high degree of individual protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effects of the respective interventions have to be confirmed in further studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Nervenarzt ; 92(6): 579-590, 2021 Jun.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1233241

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with extensive changes in the public and private life in Germany. Healthcare personnel are particularly exposed to additional stressors. OBJECTIVE: To identify the mental burden, resilience, tendency towards absenteeism and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Data on sociodemographics, occupational situation, contact to COVID-19 patients, mental burden, stressors, resilience, risk and protective factors were assessed among a convenience sample of healthcare personnel in spring 2020 (5 April 2020-7 May 2020). A comparison with the general population in Germany before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. RESULTS: After the evaluation of 650 completed questionnaires, an increased mental burden was found compared to the German general population before the pandemic, while the mental burden was reduced compared to the general population during the pandemic. The self-reported resilience was slightly higher compared to the general population before and during the pandemic. The COVID-19-related stressors and worries were the most important risk factors, self-efficacy and optimism the most important protective factors. The mental burden was moderately correlated with the intention to change the profession and the tendency towards absenteeism. CONCLUSION: Mental burden in healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher tendency towards taking sick leave. In order to support healthcare personnel interventions that foster resources, such as self-efficacy and optimism should be offered to particularly vulnerable groups .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Absenteeism , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
10.
Nervenarzt ; 92(6): 562-570, 2021 Jun.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231893

ABSTRACT

AIM: To assess the structural performance of psychiatric hospitals in Germany during the COVID(coronavirus disease)-19 pandemic, a nationwide survey was launched in March 2020, in which the corona-related changes in care structures during the first wave of the pandemic were collated. METHODS: Data on the care situation were collected by means of a survey in 38 out of 388 contacted psychiatric and psychotherapy hospitals in Germany over the course of 1 month. The changes and adaptations of the care structures, the type of therapy measures applied and care options for people with mental disorders and a COVID-19 infection as well as the legal basis underlying the care for patients unable to consent were documented. RESULTS: On average, the inpatient treatment capacity of psychiatric hospitals in Germany decreased by approximately 40% compared with prepandemic periods. Day clinic and outpatient services were also only available in a limited form or were even discontinued completely. Specialized wards for patients with COVID-19 infections were available in most of the surveyed clinics (84%). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric hospitals were already able to respond quickly and adequately to the crisis situation in the first wave of the pandemic, e.g. by setting up COVID wards; however, the reduction in treatment capacity to 60% has significantly worsened the care situation for people with mental illnesses. Therefore, further efforts should urgently be made to adapt mental health care to the requirements of the pandemic in the long term.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitals, Psychiatric , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Global Health ; 17(1): 34, 2021 03 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1158211

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Health , Pandemics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Protective Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
12.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(5)2021 02 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1121362

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to identify interventions targeting children and their caregivers to reduce psychosocial problems in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and comparable outbreaks. The review was performed using systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and COVID-19-specific databases, including the CDC COVID-19 Research Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Database on COVID-19 Research and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) up to 25th September 2020. The search yielded 6657 unique citations. After title/abstract and full text screening, 11 study protocols reporting on trials planned in China, the US, Canada, the UK, and Hungary during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Four interventions targeted children ≥10 years directly, seven system-based interventions targeted the parents and caregivers of younger children and adolescents. Outcome measures encompassed mainly anxiety and depressive symptoms, different dimensions of stress or psychosocial well-being, and quality of supportive relationships. In conclusion, this systematic review revealed a paucity of studies on psychosocial interventions for children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should be encouraged in light of the expected demand for child mental health management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Mental Health , Pandemics , Adolescent , Anxiety , Canada , Caregivers , Child , China , Clinical Trials as Topic , Depression , Humans , Hungary , Parents , Social Support , Stress, Psychological , United Kingdom , United States
13.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0244748, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1061038

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute disease outbreaks such as the COVID-19 pandemic cause a high burden of psychological distress in people worldwide. Interventions to enable people to better cope with such distress should be based on the best available evidence. We therefore performed a scoping review to systematically identify and summarize the available literature of interventions that target the distress of people in the face of highly contagious disease outbreaks. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science (January 2000 to May 7, 2020), and reference lists were systematically searched and screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies investigating the effects of psychological interventions before, during, and after outbreaks of highly contagious emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, Ebola, or COVID-19 were included. Study effects were grouped (e.g. for healthcare professionals, community members, people at risk) and intervention contents at the individual and organizational level summarized. We assessed the level of evidence using a modified scheme from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. RESULTS: Of 4030 records found, 19 studies were included (two RCTs). Most interventions were delivered during-exposure and face-to-face, focused on healthcare workers and crisis personnel, and combined psychoeducation with training of coping strategies. Based on two high-quality studies, beneficial effects were reported for resilience factors (e.g. positive cognitive appraisal) and professional attitudes of healthcare workers, with mixed findings for mental health (e.g. depression). Across all studies, there was positive qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. We identified seven ongoing studies mostly using online- and mobile-based deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: There is preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of interventions to enable people to better cope with the distress of highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks. Besides the need for more high-quality studies, the summarized evidence may inform decision makers to plan interventions during the current pandemic and to develop pandemic preparedness plans.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Mental Health , Psychosocial Support Systems , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Resilience, Psychological , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
15.
J Affect Disord ; 282: 381-385, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-988223

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Psychological responses to potentially traumatic events tend to be heterogeneous, with some individuals displaying resilience. Longitudinal associations between resilience and mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to examine the association between resilience and trajectories of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were 6,008 adults from the Understanding America Study, a probability-based Internet-panel representative of the US adult population. Baseline data were collected between March 10 and March 31, 2020, with nine follow-up waves conducted between April 1 and August 4. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the association between date and mental distress, stratified by resilience level (low, normal, or high). RESULTS: In contrast to the high resilience group, participants in the low and normal resilience groups experienced increases in mental distress in the early months of the pandemic (low: OR=2.94, 95% CI=1.93-4.46; normal: OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.55-2.35). Men, middle-aged and older adults, Black adults, and adults with a graduate degree were more likely to report high resilience, whereas adults living below the poverty line were less likely to report high resilience. LIMITATIONS: These associations should not be interpreted as causal, and resilience was measured at only one time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Trajectories of mental distress varied markedly by resilience level during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, with low-resilience adults reporting the largest increases in mental distress during this crisis. Activities that foster resilience should be included in broader strategies to support mental health throughout the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Resilience, Psychological , Aged , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 117(38): 625-630, 2020 09 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-931014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors. METHODS: The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020). RESULTS: 18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience. CONCLUSION: Stress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Resilience, Psychological , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Protective Factors , Risk Factors
17.
Int J Mol Sci ; 21(12)2020 Jun 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-738129

ABSTRACT

Exposure to ambient air pollution is a well-established determinant of health and disease. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health concludes that air pollution is the leading environmental cause of global disease and premature death. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence that links air pollution not only to adverse cardiorespiratory effects but also to increased risk of cerebrovascular and neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite being a relatively new area of investigation, overall, there is mounting recent evidence showing that exposure to multiple air pollutants, in particular to fine particles, may affect the central nervous system (CNS) and brain health, thereby contributing to increased risk of stroke, dementia, Parkinson's disease, cognitive dysfunction, neurodevelopmental disorders, depression and other related conditions. The underlying molecular mechanisms of susceptibility and disease remain largely elusive. However, emerging evidence suggests inflammation and oxidative stress to be crucial factors in the pathogenesis of air pollution-induced disorders, driven by the enhanced production of proinflammatory mediators and reactive oxygen species in response to exposure to various air pollutants. From a public health perspective, mitigation measures are urgent to reduce the burden of disease and premature mortality from ambient air pollution.


Subject(s)
Air Pollutants/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/analysis , Air Pollution/adverse effects , Cerebrovascular Disorders/etiology , Cerebrovascular Disorders/metabolism , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Disorders/metabolism , Oxidative Stress , Animals , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cerebrovascular Disorders/epidemiology , Disease Models, Animal , Disease Susceptibility , Global Health , Humans , Inflammation , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Particulate Matter/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL