ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: College and university students are a population vulnerable to mental disorders, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their mental health has been affected by confinement, difficulties in the development of academic activities, and the demands of new pedagogical modalities. We aimed to respond to the question: what are the actions around a) promotion and prevention, b) mental symptoms care, and c) pedagogical adaptations that can be developed in order to improve the mental health of college and university students? METHODS: We conducted a critical synthesis from a systematic review of the literature. A search was made for scientific articles with descriptive, analytical, empirical or evaluative designs, as well as web resources of organisations related to the topic. A synthesis was carried out based on the three aspects of the question by means of a constant comparative method, until the aggregation of actions by similarity in the actors. We anticipated low evidence quality; therefore, a standardised evaluation was not performed. RESULTS: We explored 68 articles and 99 web resources. After reviewing the full text, 12 scientific articles and 11 web resources were included. As general guidelines, we found that the most frequent suggestion is the design of a specific structured mental health programme within universities, one that should be multidisciplinary, inclusive, dynamic and culturally sensitive. All actions taken by the university should be reported and published periodically so that students and other members of the university community are clear about them. Ideally, it is suggested to keep them until the post-pandemic period and include alumni. Regarding a) promotion and prevention, digital psychoeducation was recommended, with information about healthy lifestyles, common emotional reactions to epidemics, coping strategies and warning signs. Peer participation is suggested as a support strategy, as well as spaces for social interaction that focus not only on academic aspects but also on leisure. Screening for mental symptoms is suggested through frequent submission of online forms or mobile applications. In addition to mental health, it is important to inquire about the degree of satisfaction of basic and technology-related needs. For b) the care of mental symptoms, one of the actions commonly identified was a consulting centre that can provide mental health care by telephone, by technology, and even in person --if required --, with permanent availability with rapid response teams for crisis situations, such as suicidal behaviour and domestic violence. For c) pedagogical adaptations, fluent communication is an indispensable requirement; having clear instructions on academic activities can reduce uncertainty and therefore anxiety. The teaching and pedagogical staff at the institution can offer direct advice (via video calls or online group meetings) to provide support in study habits, degree-specific material and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Included resources suggest the creation of a programme that specifically addresses the mental health of students. This synthesis can provide guidelines that facilitate decision-making by the university, without losing sight of the fact that the institution and the student are immersed in a complex context, with circumstances and other actors at various levels that also intervene in mental health. Research is required on the evolution of the mental health situation and the effect of the actions that are being taken.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no specific antiviral therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Since there is no specific therapy against SARS-CoV2, current efforts aim to prevent contagion through public health measures and develop a protective vaccine. While waiting for the latter, it is necessary to evaluate the drugs that at least, in initial studies, suggested some degree of utility in the management of Covid-19 or its complications. The main objective of the study was to describe the clinical manifestations and outcomes of patients with severe Covid-19 Pneumonia treated with corticosteroids and colchicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional study of 301 adult patients with Covid-19 Pneumonia confirmed by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for SARS-CoV2 (RT-PCR SARS-CoV2), Berlin protocol, who required hospitalization in three hospitals in Antioquia, Colombia. Patients were treated according to the institutional protocol (from March 20, 2020 to June 30, 2020) with corticosteroid if the patient required supplemental oxygen. From July 1, 2020, the management protocol changed with the addition of colchicine to all patients admitted to the institutions. The treatment was supervised and monitored by the same specialist in Infectology of the institutions. We describe the clinical manifestations and outcomes of the patients who received these treatments. The information of the patients was analyzed according to the outcome of interest (alive/dead) with univariate, bivariate, and multivariate measures to adjust the variables that presented statistical association. RESULTS: All patients had pneumonia documented by chest computed tomography with ground glass images and presented an alveolar pressure/inspired oxygen fraction (PaFi) less than 300. Three hundred one patients were included, 240 (79.7%) received corticosteroids, within these 145 (48.2%) received colchicine also, and the remaining 61 (20.3%) patients did not receive corticosterioids or colchicine. Mortality in the group that received colchicine was lower compared to the group that did not receive it (9.6 vs 14.6%, p-value = 0.179). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with corticosteroids and colchicine for managing patients with severe Covid-19 Pneumonia was associated with low mortality at the hospital level. Randomized, placebo-controlled studies are required to evaluate the effect of corticosteroids and colchicine on complications or death from Covid-19.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Colombia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to compare the emotional effects of COVID-19 among three different groups, namely: health personnel, medical students, and a sample of the general population. METHODS: 375 participants were recruited for this study, of which 125 were medical students (preclinical studies, 59; clinical studies, 66), 125 were health personnel (COVID-19 frontline personnel, 59; personnel not related with COVID-19, 66), and 125 belonged to the general population. The PHQ-9, GAD-7, and CPDI scales were used to assess the emotional impact. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to measure differences between groups, considering potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Regarding CPDI values, all other groups showed reduced values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. However, the general population, preclinical and clinical medical students showed increased PHQ-9 values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. Finally, confounding factors, gender and age correlated negatively with higher CPDI and PHQ-9 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Being frontline personnel is associated with increased COVID-19-related stress. Depression is associated, however, with other groups not directly involved with the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Female gender and younger age correlated with COVID-19-related depression and stress.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mental Health Services , Preventive Health Services/methods , Student Health Services/methods , Students/psychology , Teaching/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Promotion/methods , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Humans , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Health , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Preventive Health Services/organization & administration , Student Health Services/organization & administration , Universities , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is no effective therapy for the severe acute respiratory syndrome by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) responsible for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). To date, dexamethasone has shown a decrease in mortality in patients who require oxygen, especially those with invasive mechanical ventilation. However, it is unknown if another corticosteroid can be used, the optimal dose and its duration, to achieve a better clinical outcome. The objective of the study was to compare the differences in clinical outcome and laboratory results in hospitalized patients with severe SARS-CoV2 Pneumonia treated with dexamethasone at 6 mg doses versus patients treated with high-dose methylprednisolone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ambispective cohort study with survival analysis of 216 patients diagnosed with severe Covid-19 pneumonia confirmed by polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2 by Berlin protocol, who were hospitalized in a high-complexity clinic in Medellín, Colombia. The patients should also have supplementary oxygen and radiological confirmation of Pneumonia by chest tomography. Sample size was not calculated since the total population that met the inclusion criteria was evaluated. 111 patients were treated with the institutional protocol with intravenous dexamethasone 6 mg QD for seven to 10 days if they required oxygen. Since September 15, 2020, the hospitalization protocol of the clinic was modified by the Infectious Diseases and Pulmonology service, recommending a high dose of methylprednisolone of 250 to 500 mg every day for three days with a subsequent change to oral prednisone 50 mg every day for 14 days. The protocol was not applied in the intensive care unit, where dexamethasone continued to be administered. The clinical outcome and differences in laboratory results of the patients who received dexamethasone vs. the prospective cohort that received methylprednisolone from September 15 to October 31, 2020, were evaluated. Follow-up was carried out by outpatient consultation one month after discharge or by telephone, inquiring about readmission or living-dead status. RESULTS: 216 patients had Covid-19 pneumonia documented by ground-glass imaging and alveolar pressure / inspired oxygen fraction (PaFi) less than 300. 111 patients received dexamethasone (DXM) and 105 received methylprednisolone (MTP). Patients in the DXM group evolved to severe ARDS in a higher proportion (26.1% vs 17.1% than the MTP group). Upon completion 4 days of treatment with parenteral corticosteroid, laboratory markers of severity decreased significantly in the group that received MTP, CRP 2.85 (2.3-3.8) vs 7.2 (5.4-9.8), (p-value < 0.0001), D-dimer 691 (612-847) vs 1083 (740-1565) (p-value = 0.04) and DHL 273 (244-289) vs 355 (270.6-422) (p-value = 0.01). After starting the corticosteroid, transfer to the intensive care unit (4.8% vs. 14.4%) and mortality (9,5% vs. 17.1%) was lower in the group that received MTP. Recovery time was shorter in patients treated with MTP, three days (3-4) vs. DXM 6 days (5-8) (p-value < 0.0001). At 30-day follow-up, 88 (92.6%) were alive in MTP vs 58 (63.1%) of those who received dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the treatment of severe Covid-19 Pneumonia with high-dose methylprednisolone for three days followed by oral prednisone for 14 days, compared with 6 mg dexamethasone for 7 to 10 days, statistically significantly decreased the recovery time, the need for transfer to intensive care and the severity markers C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer and LDH. Randomized controlled studies with methylprednisolone are required to corroborate its effect, and studies in a population hospitalized in intensive care wards.