COVID-19 responses and coping in young Malaysians from low-income families.

Introduction: This study aimed to shed light on how young people from low-income families were responding to COVID-19. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited young people aged between 18 and 24 years from the low-income-group communities. A convenience sampling approach was used. Google Surveys were used to gather data from the survey. The questionnaire consisted of an assessment of demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, parent-youth conflict (Parental Environment Questionnaire, PEQ), resilient coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale, BRCS), and psychological distress (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-short form, DASS-21). Results: A total of 561 complete responses were received. The results showed a low level of parent-child conflict in the overall study population, with a median PEQ of 48.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 36-48]. Higher parent-child conflicts were found in females than in males (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.57) and in youth from households with an income below MYR 2000 than those earning MYR 3,001-5,000 (OR = 4.39, 95% CI 2.40-8.03). A low prevalence of depression (12.5%), anxiety (15.2%), and stress (6.4%) was found. Parent-child conflict remains the strongest significant predictor for higher levels of depression (OR = 10.90, 95% CI 4.31-27.57), anxiety (OR = 11.92, 95% CI 5.05-28.14), and stress (OR = 4.79, 95% CI 1.41-16.33) symptoms. Poor resilient coping was the second strongest predictor for depression and anxiety symptoms. Regarding lifestyle factors, a lower level of physical exercise was associated with higher symptoms of depression. By demographics, females reported more severe symptoms of depression and anxiety than males. Young people from low-income households reported greater severity in symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress than those from high-income households. Young people who are employed also reported greater severity of anxiety symptoms than those who are unemployed. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have an unpredictable impact on the lives of vulnerable youth in low-income families that warrants attention in future advocacy efforts.

Evaluation of psychological impact of COVID-19 on anesthesiology residents in the United States.

The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of in-training anesthesiology residents in the United States. A link containing validated survey tools including the Depression-Anxiety-Stress-Scale (DASS-21), the Abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory (aMBI), and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) along with questions related to work environment, and additional personal factors were emailed to 159 Anesthesiology residency programs across the US. 143 responses were received of which 111 were complete. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress and burnout was 42%, 24%, 31% and 71% respectively. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced feelings of personal accomplishment were experienced by 80%, 53%, and 65% of respondents, respectively. The BRCS scale showed 33% of respondents with low, 44% with moderate and 22% with high coping scales. Logistic regression analyses indicated those with a prior mental health diagnosis were 3 times more likely to have a non-normal DASS depression score, 4 times more likely to have a non-normal DASS anxiety score, and 11.74 times more prone to emotional exhaustion. Increased work hours and higher training levels were associated with increased levels of stress. In our survey, prior mental health illness, gender and increased work hours were the main drivers of increased risk.

Reliability of the tools used to examine psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping amongst migrants and non-migrants in Australia.

Study tools examining psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping amongst migrants and non-migrants in Australia are very limited. The aim of this research was to assess the psychometric properties and correlation of the English version of Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCSV-19S), and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) tools during the COVID-19 pandemic situation in Australia. Data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 516) were utilized to examine reliability; 299 (57.9%) were migrants. High internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha, was found for the K-10 (0.92), FCV-19S (0.87) and BRCS (0.66) tools. The corresponding values for migrants and non-migrants were (0.92, 0.87, 0.67) and (0.92, 0.86, 0.63), respectively. Item-total correlations ranged 0.57-0.78 for K-10, 0.62-0.69 for FCV-19S, and 0.39-0.50 for BRCS tools. EFA retained a single factor for each tool with adequate factor loadings. The scoring of K-10 was significantly predicted by the scoring of FCV-19S (r = 0.284, P < 0.001) and BRCS tool (r = 0.132, P < 0.01). Therefore, these tools can be used reliably amongst both migrant and non-migrant population in Australia.