Features of the mental state of doctors of various specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden on healthcare professionals at all levels has increased significantly, especially those who are at the forefront of the fight for patients' lives. Physicians directly caring for COVID-19 patients are exposed to excessive stress and significant biological and psychosocial risk. Objective. To identify the features of the mental state of doctors of various specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods. The study included 85 doctors of the Arkhangelsk region: 41 anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians (mean age 32.4+/-5.0 years) and 44 general practitioners (mean age 38.9+/-4.2 years). The study was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (from May to June 2021). We used the following study methods: questionnaire, psychological testing (K. Maslach and S. Jackson Burnout Inventory (MBI), Beck's Depression Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, World Health Organisation-Five Well-Being Index), mathematical and statistical processing of empirical data. Results and discussion. Analysis of the results showed that about half of the surveyed general practitioners and only 3 (7.3%) of the anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians had a history of COVID-19, having contracted it while performing professional duties. Manifestations of maladaptation, such as low professional competence, lack of soft skills, aggressiveness, introversion, risktaking, recklessness, and family problems, are more pronounced in anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians. They were more likely to have negative emotions and feelings, were less satisfied with themselves and life in general, and had a lower well-being index than general practitioners. General practitioners overestimated their professional burnout severity and more often complained about their state of health. Correlation analysis of the examination results for anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians allowed us to identify direct relationships between the level of perceived stress, overstrain and depression, low mood, difficulties in relationships with relatives and colleagues, dissatisfaction with various aspects of life, inverse relationships between the level of perceived stress and the well-being index. In general practitioners, direct relationships were established between perceived stress and overexertion, and inverse relationships were established between the level of perceived stress, the well-being index, and the reduction of personal achievements. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians more than general practitioners, causing negative emotions and maladaptation. In primary care physicians, the pandemic increases mobilization processes to address emerging professional challenges. Therefore, special attention should be paid to psychological support for anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians.Copyright © 2023, Media Sphera Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Features of the mental state of doctors of various specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden on healthcare professionals at all levels has increased significantly, especially those who are at the forefront of the fight for patients' lives. Physicians directly caring for COVID-19 patients are exposed to excessive stress and significant biological and psychosocial risk. Objective. To identify the features of the mental state of doctors of various specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods. The study included 85 doctors of the Arkhangelsk region: 41 anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians (mean age 32.4+/-5.0 years) and 44 general practitioners (mean age 38.9+/-4.2 years). The study was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (from May to June 2021). We used the following study methods: questionnaire, psychological testing (K. Maslach and S. Jackson Burnout Inventory (MBI), Beck's Depression Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, World Health Organisation-Five Well-Being Index), mathematical and statistical processing of empirical data. Results and discussion. Analysis of the results showed that about half of the surveyed general practitioners and only 3 (7.3%) of the anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians had a history of COVID-19, having contracted it while performing professional duties. Manifestations of maladaptation, such as low professional competence, lack of soft skills, aggressiveness, introversion, risktaking, recklessness, and family problems, are more pronounced in anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians. They were more likely to have negative emotions and feelings, were less satisfied with themselves and life in general, and had a lower well-being index than general practitioners. General practitioners overestimated their professional burnout severity and more often complained about their state of health. Correlation analysis of the examination results for anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians allowed us to identify direct relationships between the level of perceived stress, overstrain and depression, low mood, difficulties in relationships with relatives and colleagues, dissatisfaction with various aspects of life, inverse relationships between the level of perceived stress and the well-being index. In general practitioners, direct relationships were established between perceived stress and overexertion, and inverse relationships were established between the level of perceived stress, the well-being index, and the reduction of personal achievements. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians more than general practitioners, causing negative emotions and maladaptation. In primary care physicians, the pandemic increases mobilization processes to address emerging professional challenges. Therefore, special attention should be paid to psychological support for anesthesiologists/intensive care physicians.Copyright © 2023, Media Sphera Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

The impact of COVID-19 Epidemic on Teaching and Learning

Recently articles in Newspapers, University News Bulletins and Scientific Literature report about negative aspects of the wellbeing of students caused by COVID-19 epidemic. Half of the students have mental problems and don't participate in the teaching learning process anymore. In the Netherlands, Universities are surveyed by questionnaires, researching the mental health problems of students. In this paper we focus on students of Delft University of Technology. It proved from surveys, that many students complain about loneliness, fear, sleep deprivation and lack of study motivation. In this paper we report about experiments at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, how students can be activated, motivated and socialized via study activities presented at the website of one of the Study Societies and via study-buddy groups. Students were personally invited to take part in discussions via a Forum, to enroll in group activities and to visit special lectures. A special COVID-19 didactics has been developed to stimulate students to make assignments in Calculus and Programing via Massive Open Online Courses developed in the framework EdX, an online learning destination and MOOC provider. © 2022 Owner/Author.

WORKING from HOME in PATIENTS with RMDS during the COVID-19 PANDEMIC in EUROPE. RESULTS from the REUMAVID STUDY (PHASE 1 and 2)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced signifcant changes in the workplace, implementing teleworking as an effective solution to reduce contagion Objectives: We sought to explore the impact of working from home on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: REUMAVID is an international cross-sectional study collecting data through an online survey in seven European countries led by the Health & Territory Research group of the University of Seville, together with a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives, rheumatologists, and health researchers. Data were collected in two phases, the frst (P1) between April-July 2020 and the second (P2) between February-April 2021. Demographics, health behaviors, employment status, access to healthcare services, disease characteristics, WHO-5 Well-Being Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were collected. Workplace conditions including internet connection, computer, workstation, webcam, telephone, light, noise, calmness, and temperature were assessed (on a scale of 0 to 5, being 5 the best condition). Pearson's Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test were used to explore association with working from home. Results: There were a total of 3,802 participants across both phases (mean age 52.6 (P1) vs. 55.0 years (P2);80.2% female (P1) vs 83.7% (P2);69.6% married (P1) vs 68.3% (P2), 48.6% university educated (P1) vs 47.8% (P2), 34.7% employed (P1) vs 38.1 (P2)). Most prevalent RMD was axial spondyloarthritis in P1 (37.2%), and rheumatoid arthritis in P2 (53.1%). Rates of working from home were consistent (P1: 39.8% vs P2: 39.9%). In P2, 37.4% of those working from home had a home office, while 38.5% worked from their living room or kitchen. Work-related aspects at home were assessed, with the worst rated being the workplace (3.2) and the best being the computer (4.0). Compared to patients with good well-being and without anxiety and depression, patients with poorer well-being and at higher risk of anxiety or depression reported more frequently poorer rating of work from home issues, such as workplace (3.0 vs. 3.5;2.9 vs. 3.6;2.9 vs. 3.4;p<0.001), light (3.6 vs. 4.0;3.6 vs. 4.0;3.5 vs. 4.0;p<0.001), noise (3.3 vs. 3.8;3.2 vs. 3.9;3.2 vs. 3.8;p<0.001) and calmness (3.3 vs. 4.0;3.2 vs. 3.9;3.1 vs. 3.9;p<0.001;Table 1). Conclusion: Patients with poorer well-being, at higher risk of anxiety or depression reported poorer ratings of workspace-related aspects. Therefore, although work from home has helped to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions under which RMD patients work from home must be considered, as these may affect the well-being and mental health of an already vulnerable group. It is necessary to assess the conditions of home-based workspaces-especially for workers with chronic diseases such as RMD patients-to ensure that it is feasible to work from home and that employers provide the necessary equipment for healthy work.

IMPACT of the COVID-19 PANDEMIC on HEALTHCARE UTILIZATIONS of RMD PATIENTS in EUROPE. RESULTS from the REUMAVID STUDY (PHASE 1 and 2)

Background: The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a collapse of healthcare systems that was difficult to manage. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RMD patients' healthcare utilization. Methods: REUMAVID is an international cross-sectional study collecting data through an online survey on RMD in seven European countries led by the Health & Territory Research group of the University of Seville, together with a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives, rheumatolo-gists, and health researchers. Data were collected in two phases, the frst (P1) between April-July 2020 and the second (P2) between February-April 2021. Demographics, health behaviours, employment status, access to healthcare services, disease characteristics, WHO-5 Well-Being Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were collected in the survey. Healthcare utilization includes scheduled appointments and attendance at the rheumatol-ogist, consultation of possible treatment effects if COVID-19 is contracted with the rheumatologist, primary health care and psychological care. Descriptive analysis and Mann-Whitney test was used to explore association with healthcare utilization in both phases of REUMAVID. Results: There were a total of 2,002 participants across both phases with comparable demographic characteristics [mean age 52.6 (P1) vs. 55.0 years (P2);80.2% female (P1) vs 83.7% (P2);69.6% married (P1) vs 68.3% (P2), 48.6% university educated (P1) vs 47.8% (P2)]. Most prevalent RMD was axial spondyloarthritis in P1 (37.2%), and rheumatoid arthritis in P2 (53.1%). Only 39.2% could have a scheduled appointment with their rheumatologist during P1, compared to 72.5% of patients in P2 (p<0.001). In this sense, only 41.6% of participants in the P1 attended such an appointment while in P2 this figure was 61.5% (p<0.001). The majority of patients (83%) had their scheduled face-to-face appointment changed to an online or telephone phone in the P2, although this proportion was lower in the P1 (54.4%). The most frequent reason for canceling the face-to-face appointment was the alternative of making it by phone or online (54.4% in P1 vs. 83.0% in P2, p<0.001). Although, in P1, 38.1% of participants could contact with their rheumatolo-gist by phone or online, this proportion was 64.3% in P2 (p<0.001). In P1, 64.0% of patients were able to consult with their rheumatologist about the possible effects of treatment in case of contracting COVID-19 (vs. 41.2% in P2;p<0.001). With respect to general practitioners, 57.6% of patients in P1 declared to had accessed primary care or general practitioner (vs. 77.5% in P2;p<0.001). Furthermore, in P2, a higher proportion of participants (63.2%) were able to continue their psychological or psychiatric therapy either online or by phone (vs. 48.3% in P1;p<0.001;Figure 1) Conclusion: During the frst year of COVID-19 pandemic, RMD patients had easier access to the healthcare system, specifcally to their rheumatologist. This access was improved through phone and online care. In addition, access to primary care as well as psychological care improved during the second year of pandemic.

HOW FEARS and HOPES HAVE EVOLVED in PATIENTS with RMDS THROUGHOUT the COVID-19 PANDEMIC? RESULTS from the REUMAVID STUDY (PHASE 1 and 2)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated uncertainties and concerns along with expectations and hopes that may be of relevance to patients with rheumatic diseases. Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess changes in the fears and hopes of patients with rheumatic diseases throughout the two phases of REUMAVID. Methods: REUMAVID is an international cross-sectional study collecting data through an online survey in seven European countries led by the Health & Territory Research group of the University of Seville, together with a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives, rheumatologists, and health researchers. Data were collected in two phases: Phase 1 (P1) between April-July 2020 and Phase 2 (P2) between February-April 2021. Demographics, health behaviours, employment status, access to healthcare services, disease characteristics, WHO-5 Well-Being Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Participants rated a series of fears (infection, medication consequences, lack of medication, impact on healthcare, lost job, civil disorder) on a scale from zero ('no concern at all') to five ('extremely concerned') and hopes (treatment/vaccine availability, going outside, travel, economic situation, treatment continuation, health status) on a scale from zero ('no hopeful at all') to five ('extremely hopeful'). Descriptive analysis and Mann-Whitney test were used to explore fears and hopes in both phases of REUMAVID. Results: A total of 3,802 participants were recruited across both phases in REU-MAVID with comparable demographic characteristics: mean age 52.6 (P1) vs. 55.0 years (P2), 80.2% female (P1) vs. 83.7% (P2), 69.6% married (P1) vs. 68.3% (P2), and 48.6% university educated (P1) vs. 47.8% (P2). Most prevalent RMD was axial spondyloarthritis in P1 (37.2%), and rheumatoid arthritis in P2 (53.1%). In P1 and P2 the major concern was the impact on healthcare in the future (3.1 and 3.2 out of 5, p=0.051). Compared to P1, patients in P2 had less fears about RMD medications not reaching the country (2.4 vs. 1.9, p<0.001), civil disorders (2.0 vs. 1.8, p=0.001), or losing their jobs (1.4 vs. 1.5, p=0.003). Comparing hopes with P1, patients in P2 had greater hopes about availability of treatments or vaccines suitable for COVID-19 (3.2 vs. 3.9, p<0.001), to be able to go out as before the pandemic (3.1 vs. 3.5, p<0.001), to be able to travel as before the pandemic (2.8 vs. 3.3, p<0.001), maintain and even improve the current economic situation after the pandemic (2.6 vs. 3.0, p<0.001), and to be able to continue their treatment as usual (3.8 vs. 3.8, p=0.049;Table 1) Conclusion: During the frst phase of REUMAVID at the beginning of the pandemic, patients with RMDs were more fearful and less hopeful compared to the second phase. These fears were notable in terms of lack of medication for their RMD, while during the second phase, patients were hopeful of a treatment or vaccine against COVID-19, and of being able to go out and travel as before.

THERAPEUTIC ALLIANCE AND WELL-BEING FROM USE OF A GLOBAL DIGITAL MENTAL HEALTH BENEFIT DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background: Digital mental health services leverage technology to increase access to care, yet less is known about how quality therapeutic relationships form in a virtual setting. This study examined therapeutic alliance (a mechanism underlying successful treatment) and its association with well-being among registrants of a digital mental health platform. Method: Adults (n=3,087, M age=36±9 years, 54% female) engaged in videoconference sessions with a licensed therapist (18%), certified coach (65%), or both (17%) between 9/29/20-10/12/21. Members completed 2 adapted items of the Working Alliance Inventory (goal and bond) after each session and we averaged ratings across visits (?=.72). We used the WHO-5 to measure changes in well-being. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, paired samples t-tests, and linear regressions to examine: (1) average alliance ratings;(2) differences in alliance by member demographics and provider type;and (3) if alliance was related to changes in well-being over time. Results: Members completed a median of 3 digital sessions over a median of 28 days. Median therapeutic alliance was 4.8 (range=1-5) and did not differ by age, country, or baseline well-being (ps>.07). Females reported higher alliance than males (4.88 vs. 4.67, p=.01). Members in coaching reported higher alliance than those in therapy or both modalities (4.83 v. 4.75, p=.004), though effect sizes were negligible. Members reported an average WHO-5 increase of 4.14 points (95% CI [3.44, 4.83], p<.001), a 10% improvement in well-being (d=0.22). Therapeutic alliance predicted greater well-being at follow-up (b=2.17, 95% CI [1.07, 3.28]) after controlling for age, sex, and baseline WHO-5 (R2=.22, p<.001). This association did not differ by provider type (p=.78). Conclusion: Members of a global digital mental health benefit formed a high therapeutic alliance with their providers, both coaches and therapists. Higher alliance was associated with greater well-being improvements, providing evidence that it is a key mechanism in virtual care outcomes as it is in face-to-face care. Continued focus on the quality of therapeutic relationships will ensure digital mental health services are patient-tailored as these platforms expand equitable access to evidence-based care.

Psychometric Properties of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index among Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Countries.

Nurses' well-being has been increasingly recognised due to the ongoing pandemic. However, no validation scales measuring nurses' well-being currently exist. Thus, we aimed to validate the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in a sample of nurses. A cross-sectional multinational study was conducted, and a total of 678 nurses who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain (36.9%), Chile (40.0%) and Norway (23.1%) participated in this study. The nurses completed the WHO-5, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and three questions about the quality of life (QoL). The WHO-5 demonstrated good reliability and validity in the three countries. Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.81 to 0.90. High correlations were found between the WHO-5 and the psychological well-being dimension of QoL, and negative correlations between the WHO-5 and PHQ-2. The unidimensional scale structure was confirmed in all the countries, explaining more than 68% of the variance. The item response theory likelihood ratio model did not show discernible differences in the WHO-5 across the countries. To conclude, the WHO-5 is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring nurses' well-being during a pandemic. The scale showed strong construct validity for cross-cultural comparisons; however, more research is required with larger sample sizes.

Well-being and Perspective of Second Year MBBS Students on Online Pharmacology Classes Held during Covid-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Background: COVID-19 pandemic shifted all the classroom teaching to virtual online platforms. The overnight change in the teaching structure posed serious challenges especially for medical education. This study aims to assess the well-being of medical students undergoing online medical education during COVID-19 pandemic and their perspective on online pharmacology classes. Description: We implemented several measures like formative assessments, quiz competitions, zoom polls, student chosen revision topics, student presentations, pharmaco-mnemonic competition, etc. WHO-5 Well-Being Index was used to assess well-being of students. An internally validated questionnaire was used to assess student's perspective on online pharmacology classes. The questionnaire was administered to eligible consenting students online through Google forms. The data obtained was analysed in SPSS software. Outcome: The mean wellness score (percentage) for all participants (n=118) was 48.87%. The mean wellness score for males (58.67%) was higher than for females (42.41%). The average score for overall benefit of conducting online pharmacology classes was 3.32 out of 5. Objectively assessed online interactions like formative assessment, polls and quiz were rated higher than subjective interactions like debate. Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive disruption in the life of many people. In our study, we report a decreased well-being score in medical students attending virtual classes. The findings on well-being of students have implications on planning redressal mechanism in such extreme situations. Our analysis of student's perspective about online interactions has implications beyond online classes. Some of the interactions can be instituted into regular curriculum increasing the student's participation.

Anxiety and Wellbeing Among Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic

Covid-19 pandemic has impacted the lives of everyone in one way or another. The healthcare workers being the group directly or indirectly working with the covid patients are at higher risk which can lead to increased anxiety among them. This is a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study among healthcare workers who were involved with patient care during the initial stages of the pandemic. Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment scale (GAD-7 scale) and WHO-5 wellbeing scale were distributed among healthcare workers through an online survey as a google form. Out of 95 participants who consented about 80% were frontline workers among which the majority (82%) were doctors and nursing staff (11.6%). The mean GAD-7 score observed was 6.06 ± 5.12 with a majority of the participants having minimal anxiety (44.44%). The mean WHO-5 wellbeing score was 55.83 ± 26.57. The present study showed a majority of the health care worker has minimal anxiety but the low mood was prevalent in many which could be due to increased workload and stress.

The Impact of the COVID-19 "Infodemic" on Well-Being: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis in the world of information and digital literacy. The amount of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 that has circulated through social media (SM) since January 2020 is notably significant and has been linked to rising levels of anxiety and fear amongst SM users. AIM: This study aimed to assess SM practices during COVID-19 and investigated their impact on users' well-being. METHODS: An online survey was distributed between June 10 and July 31 2020 via different SM platforms in the United Arab Emirates and other Arabic-speaking countries. Adults above 18 years of age who spoke Arabic or English were invited to complete the survey which covered multiple domains, use and practices related to social media platforms and mental health questions, including the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. RESULTS: Out of 993 participants, 73% were females, 76% were non-Emirati, 91% were university graduates, and 50% were employed in various occupations, of which 20% were health care professionals. Participants indicated that they acquired COVID-19 related information primarily from social media and messaging applications of which WhatsApp was the most used. Most participants reported sharing information after verification. The mean well-being score was 12.6 ±5.6, with 49% of participants reporting poor well-being (WHO-5 score <12.5). Adjusted linear regression showed that Facebook usage was negatively associated with well-being scores. Additionally, high time use was associated with poorer well-being. When adjusting for other factors, including low confidence in information around COVID-19 and poor knowledge overall, SM usage was significantly associated with poorer well-being. CONCLUSION: The study sheds light on the use of SM during the pandemic and its impact on well-being throughout the novel coronavirus pandemic. Social media practices during emergencies and disasters may impact public well-being. Authorities are advised to step in to minimize the spread of misinformation and more frequent use of social media as it may influence well-being. Public health specialists, information technology and communication experts should collaborate to limit the infodemic effect on communities.

Psychological Well-Being and Mental Health in Migrant Job-Seekers with Disabilities

Introduction: Migrant workers seeking employment in a host country often face a variety of stressors that affect their mental health. Studies have shown that depression, insomnia and fear are more likely reported in migrant workers during Sars-Cov-19 pandemic and lockdown process. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a 10-week job-coaching programme for migrant job-seekers with disabilities related to their psychological well-being or mental health. Materials and Methods: A single-group pre-test and-post-test research design type was used. The preliminary baseline results included 21 migrant job seekers with disabilities. The following reliable, validated and internationally accepted scales were used: Short Form Survey Instrument, WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-9). Results: The mean age of the participants was 49 ± 9. The participants were unemployed for an average of 2.5 ± 0.8 years and lived in Belgium for a total of 17.9 ± 6.5 years. The majority of the participants experienced language barrier problems (85.7%);57.1% of the participants had worked as cleaners in the past. A statistically significant negative and high correlation was found between WHO-5 quality of life scores and PHQ-9 depression scores (p < 0.01;r = 0.715). Conclusion: In the baseline measurements, migrant job seekers had moderate depression levels and negative quality of life and well-being. We now will investigate whether psychological health problems of migrant job seekers will increase during the Sars-Cov-19 pandemic period.

Long commuting time and depressive symptoms among South Korean workers

COVID-19 has changed the way we live and made the future come faster. Although changes such as work from home are changing how we commute, studies on the association between commuting time and mental health are lacking. We used the Korean Working Condition Survey, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. A total of 23,415 waged workers in 20-59 years of age were selected. It was investigated that the association between commuting time and depressive symptoms which were measured by the World Health Organisation- Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Compared with the shortest commuting time (< 30 min), those who spent 60 min or longer commuting had a significantly higher odd ratio (OR) for depressive symptoms (1.16;95% CI: 1.04, 1.29). Among males, workers aged 40–49, in the lowest income quartile, unmarried, not having children, having white-collar jobs, working standard hours groups, and without shiftwork showed a significant association between long commuting time and increased depressive symptoms. Among females, workers aged 20–29, in the lowest income quartile, having 2 or more children, and shiftwork showed higher ORs for the association between long commuting time and depressive symptoms. In our study, long commuting time was associated with increased depressive symptoms measured by the WHO-5 well-being index. In the future, it is not expected that changes in commuting will equally and simultaneously be applied to workers with various socio-economical statuses. Our study implies that an approach to mental health according to the characteristics is necessary.