Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 509
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Lancet ; 398(10303): 920-930, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1593950

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened interest in how physician mental health can be protected and optimised, but uncertainty and misinformation remain about some key issues. In this Review, we discuss the current literature, which shows that despite what might be inferred during training, physicians are not immune to mental illness, with between a quarter and a third reporting increased symptoms of mental ill health. Physicians, particularly female physicians, are at an increased risk of suicide. An emerging consensus exists that some aspects of physician training, working conditions, and organisational support are unacceptable. Changes in medical training and health systems, and the additional strain of working through a pandemic, might have amplified these problems. A new evidence-informed framework for how individual and organisational interventions can be used in an integrated manner in medical schools, in health-care settings, and by professional colleagues is proposed. New initiatives are required at each of these levels, with an urgent need for organisational-level interventions, to better protect the mental health and wellbeing of physicians.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Physicians/psychology , Suicide/statistics & numerical data , Burnout, Professional , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/prevention & control , Pandemics , Physicians, Women/psychology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Suicide/prevention & control , Work Schedule Tolerance
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(24)2021 12 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598579

ABSTRACT

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) represent a major public health concern and are particularly prevalent in people experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation. Primary care is the first point of contact for people with CMDs. Pharmaceutical interventions, such as antidepressants, are commonly used in the treatment of CMDs; however, there is concern that these treatments are over-prescribed and ineffective for treating mental distress related to social conditions. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as psychological therapies and "social prescribing", provide alternatives for CMDs. Little is known, however, about which such interventions reduce social inequalities in CMD-related outcomes, and which may, unintentionally, increase them. The aim of this protocol (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021281166) is to describe how we will undertake a systematic review to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on CMD-related outcomes and social inequalities. A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods primary studies will be undertaken and reported according to the PRISMA-Equity guidance. The following databases will be searched: Assia, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus. Retrieved records will be screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria and synthesised using a narrative approach, with meta-analysis if feasible. The findings of this review will guide efforts to commission more equitable mental health services.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders , Mental Health , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Primary Health Care , Qualitative Research , Socioeconomic Factors , Systematic Reviews as Topic
3.
Psychiatry Res ; 307: 114334, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1562021

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes a pulmonary disease (COVID-19) which spread worldwide generating fear, anxiety, depression in the general population as well as among subjects affected by mental disorders. Little is known about which different psychopathological changes the pandemic caused among individuals affected by different psychiatric disorders, which represents the aim of the present study. Specific psychometric scales were administered at three time points: T0 as outbreak of pandemic, T1 as lockdown period, T2 as reopening. Descriptive analyses and linear regression models were performed. A total of 166 outpatients were included. Overall, psychometric scores showed a significant worsening at T1 with a mild improvement at T2. Only psychopathology in schizophrenia (SKZ) patients and obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms did not significantly improve at T2. Subjects affected by personality disorders (PDs) resulted to be more compromised in terms of general psychopathology than depressed and anxiety/OC ones, and showed more severe anxiety symptoms than SKZ patients. In conclusion, subjects affected by PDs require specific clinical attention during COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the worsening of SKZ and OC symptoms should be strictly monitored by clinicians, as these aspects did not improve with the end of lockdown measures. Further studies on larger samples are needed to confirm our results. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04694482.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Anxiety/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Eur J Psychotraumatol ; 12(1): 2001192, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559108

ABSTRACT

This systematic review aims to summarize the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in the general adult population and healthcare workers (HCWs) in several key regions worldwide during the first year of the COVID pandemic. Several literature databases were systemically searched for meta-analyses published by 22 September 2021 on the prevalence rates of mental health symptoms worldwide. The prevalence rates of mental health symptoms were summarized based on 388 empirical studies with a total of 1,067,021 participants from six regions and four countries. Comparatively, Africa and South Asia had the worse overall mental health symptoms, followed by Latin America. The research effort on mental health during COVID-19 has been highly skewed in terms of the scope of countries and mental health outcomes. The mental health symptoms are highly prevalent yet differ across regions, and such evidence helps to enable prioritization of mental health assistance efforts to allocate attention and resources based on the regional differences in mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Adult , Africa/epidemiology , Asia/epidemiology , Asia, Southeastern/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Europe, Eastern/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Latin America/epidemiology , Prevalence , Spain/epidemiology
5.
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm ; 9(1)2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546818

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the course of recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and to determine its predictors, including patients' pre-COVID-19 physical and mental health status. METHODS: This prospective and longitudinal cohort study recruited patients with MS who reported COVID-19 from March 17, 2020, to March 19, 2021, as part of the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR) COVID-19 study. Participants used online questionnaires to regularly update their COVID-19 symptoms, recovery status, and duration of symptoms for those who fully recovered. Questionnaires were date stamped for estimation of COVID-19 symptom duration for those who had not recovered at their last follow-up. The UKMSR holds demographic and up-to-date clinical data on participants as well as their web-based Expanded Disability Status Scale (web-EDSS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores. The association between these factors and recovery from COVID-19 was assessed using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 7,977 patients with MS who participated in the UKMSR COVID-19 study, 599 reported COVID-19 and prospectively updated their recovery status. Twenty-eight hospitalized participants were excluded. At least 165 participants (29.7%) had long-standing COVID-19 symptoms for ≥4 weeks and 69 (12.4%) for ≥12 weeks. Participants with pre-COVID-19 web-EDSS scores ≥7, participants with probable anxiety and/or depression (HADS scores ≥11) before COVID-19 onset, and women were less likely to report recovery from COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Patients with MS are affected by postacute sequelae of COVID-19. Preexisting severe neurologic impairment or mental health problems appear to increase this risk. These findings can have implications in tailoring their post-COVID-19 rehabilitation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Multiple Sclerosis/epidemiology , Registries , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Risk , Time Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
7.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 8(5): 444-450, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537216

ABSTRACT

Psychiatric disorders, and especially severe mental illness, are associated with an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. People with severe mental illness should therefore be prioritised in vaccine allocation strategies. Here, we discuss the risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable group, the effect of severe mental illness and psychotropic medications on vaccination response, the attitudes of people with severe mental illness towards vaccination, and, the potential barriers to, and possible solutions for, an efficient vaccination programme in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/methods , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Mental Disorders/psychology , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination Coverage , Vulnerable Populations/psychology
8.
Pediatrics ; 148(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533449

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Depression is common, and suicide rates are increasing. Adolescent depression screening might miss those with unidentified suicide risk. Our primary objective in this study was to compare the magnitude of positive screen results across different approaches. METHODS: From June 2019 to October 2020, 803 mostly Medicaid-enrolled adolescents aged ≥12 years with no recent history of depression or self-harm were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-9A) and the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) across 12 primary care practices. Two PHQ-9A screening strategies were evaluated: screening for any type of depression or other mental illness (positive on any item) or screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) (total score ≥10). RESULTS: Overall, 56.4% of patients screened positive for any type of depression, 24.7% screened positive for MDD, and 21.1% screened positive for suicide risk. Regardless of PHQ-9A screening strategy, the ASQ identified additional subjects (eg, 2.2% additional cases compared with screening for any type of depression or other mental illness and 8.3% additional cases compared with screening positive for MDD). Of those with ≥6 month follow-up, 22.9% screened positive for any type of depression (n = 205), 35.6% screened positive for MDD (n = 90), and 42.7% with a positive ASQ result (n = 75) had a depression or self-harm diagnosis or an antidepressant prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk screening identifies cases not identified by depression screening. In this study, we underscore opportunities and challenges in primary care related to the high prevalence of depression and suicide risk. Research is needed regarding optimal screening strategies and to help clinicians manage the expected number of screening-identified adolescents.


Subject(s)
Depression/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods , Primary Health Care/methods , Suicide/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Child , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/drug therapy , Depressive Disorder, Major/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Depressive Disorder, Major/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Loneliness , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation , Suicide/prevention & control , Young Adult
9.
J Health Care Poor Underserved ; 32(4): 1752-1763, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528708

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected marginalized individuals with multiple vulnerabilities, including those experiencing serious mental illness and homelessness. This population is adversely affected by the pandemic due to loss of opportunities for social connection and support, decreased engagement with community services, and increased risk of mental and physical health deterioration. Multidisciplinary street outreach teams have employed an instrumental service model in the provision of community-based, comprehensive care for individuals experiencing homelessness, often with concurrent challenges with mental illness and addictions. However, during this period of unprecedented and additional vulnerability, street outreach teams must adapt their existing practices to meet the evolving needs of their client population. This article aims to highlight the impact of COVID-19 on people with serious mental illness experiencing homelessness, and then share lessons learned and recommendations for action to optimize care and support to this vulnerable population amidst COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Homeless Persons , Mental Disorders , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2134315, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1513768

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on health care workers and disrupted childcare and schooling arrangements in unprecedented ways. As substantial gender inequalities existed in medicine before the pandemic, physician mothers may be at particular risk for adverse professional and psychological consequences. Objective: To assess gender differences in work-family factors and mental health among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included 276 US physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study since their first year of residency training. Physicians who had participated in the primary study as interns during the 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 academic years and opted into a secondary longitudinal follow-up study were invited to complete an online survey in August 2018 and August 2020. Exposures: Work-family experience included 3 single-item questions and the Work and Family Conflict Scale, and mental health symptoms included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were work-to-family and family-to-work conflict and depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms during August 2020. Depressive symptoms between 2018 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) were compared by gender. Results: Among 215 physician parents who completed the August 2020 survey, 114 (53.0%) were female and the weighted mean (SD) age was 40.1 (3.57) years. Among physician parents, women were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% [95% CI, 19.0%-30.2%] vs 0.8% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.1%]; P < .001) and household tasks (31.4% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 7.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-10.9%]; P < .001) during the pandemic compared with men. Women were also more likely than men to work primarily from home (40.9% [95% CI, 35.1%-46.8%] vs 22.0% [95% CI, 17.2%-26.8%]; P < .001) and reduce their work hours (19.4% [95% CI, 14.7%-24.1%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 6.0%-12.8%]; P = .007). Women experienced greater work-to-family conflict (ß = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.59; P = .03), family-to-work conflict (ß = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.18-4.99; P = .02), and depressive (ß = 1.76; 95% CI, 0.56-2.95; P = .046) and anxiety (ß = 2.87; 95% CI, 1.49-4.26; P < .001) symptoms compared with men. We observed a difference between women and men in depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 5.05 [6.64] vs 3.52 [5.75]; P = .009) that was not present before the pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 3.69 [5.26] vs 3.60 [6.30]; P = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found significant gender disparities in work and family experiences and mental health symptoms among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may translate to increased risk for suicide, medical errors, and lower quality of patient care for physician mothers. Institutional and public policy solutions are needed to mitigate the potential adverse consequences for women's careers and well-being.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Parents , Sex Factors , Work-Life Balance/standards , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Family Relations/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Psychometrics/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Work-Life Balance/statistics & numerical data
12.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(21)2021 Oct 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488589

ABSTRACT

The first Italian lockdown imposed to fight the spread of COVID-19 caused important disruptions in families' everyday lives. The main aim of this research was to investigate the predictors of psychopathology in children aged 5-10 years, immediately after the national 2-month lockdown. A total of 158 Italian parents (148 mothers, 10 fathers, mean age = 41 years) were recruited and asked to complete an online research concerning their 158 children (76 boys, mean age = 7.4 years). Parents completed questionnaires on parent-child conflict, resilience, temperament, behavior, and previous adverse childhood experiences. Hierarchical regressions showed that children's psychopathology was predicted by low child resilience, high novelty seeking and harm avoidance, adverse experiences, and high flooding levels. Moreover, girls exposed to adverse experiences appeared more vulnerable to psychopathology. The recruitment of a convenience sample, the small sample size, and the cross-sectional design of our study limit the generalizability and interpretation of the present findings. Nonetheless, this research extends our knowledge of children's functioning in such an exceptional period. Shedding light on predictors of children's psychopathology following prolonged quarantine can indeed guide effective psychological interventions now and in future similar situations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Adult , Child , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mothers , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Child Adolesc Ment Health ; 26(4): 375-377, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488185

ABSTRACT

In this edition of CAMH, Boege and colleague's 4-year follow-up study supports intensive home-based treatment as a viable alternative to inpatient hospitalization. Youth receiving home-based multimodal treatment fared just as well as those who remained hospitalized longer, with higher parental satisfaction. This study contributes to a sparse evidence base regarding longitudinal outcomes of psychiatric inpatient and intensive outpatient treatments for children and adolescents. Although mental illness is prevalent and increasing among youth, existing systems of care are often inadequate to provide flexible, effective, interdisciplinary team-based treatments, and supports for children and their families. Innovative approaches to providing evidence-based care and tracking outcomes are needed to strengthen the continuum of care.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Mental Disorders , Adolescent , Ambulatory Care , Child , Continuity of Patient Care , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/therapy
15.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(21)2021 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480741

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents could not leave their house freely, meet up with friends, or attend school; previous literature showed that youths under enforced confinement or quarantine were five times more likely to suffer from psychopathological symptoms and use social networks sites (SNs) greatly. This study aimed to verify whether the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship could predict youths' psychopathological symptoms and their SN use during the pandemic, and to evaluate the possible moderator role of their the capacity to be alone. Seven hundred and thirty-nine (n = 739) adolescents were recruited from the general population during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy, and they were administered The Capacity to be Alone Scale, The BSMAS, the YSR, and the Perceived Filial Self-efficacy Scale. Our results confirmed a direct effect of the perceived filial self-efficacy on the psychopathological symptoms so that a poorer perceived quality of the relationship with the caregivers predicted higher psychopathological symptoms in youths. Moreover, greater social networks use was predictive of psychopathological symptoms in adolescents. Our results also showed a significant interaction effect between adolescents' perceived filial efficacy and the capacity to be alone on SN use and on psychopathological symptoms. These results suggest that youths' response to the confinement during the pandemic is influenced both by individual characteristics (the capacity to be alone) and by relational variables (the perceived filial self-efficacy).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Adolescent , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Networking
16.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258916, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480461

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are particularly vulnerable to the negative consequences of antipsychotic exposure and are disproportionally affected by higher mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our goal was to determine whether concurrent antipsychotic medication use was associated with increased COVID-19 mortality in older patients with preexisting behavioral health problems. We also report on findings from post-COVID follow-ups. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients at a geriatric psychiatric clinic in New York City. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic and clinical data including medication, diagnosis and Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) scales on outpatients who had COVID-19 between February 28th and October 1st 2020 were extracted from the electronic health records (EHR) from the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 (mean age 76 years; median age 75 years) and 13 (23.2%) died. We found an increased mortality risk for patients who were prescribed at least one antipsychotic medication at the time of COVID-19 infection (Fisher's exact test P = 0.009, OR = 11.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-96.0). This result remains significant after adjusting for age, gender, housing context and dementia (Logistic regression P = 0.035, Beta = 2.4). Furthermore, we found that most patients who survived COVID-19 (88.4%) recovered to pre-COVID baseline in terms of psychiatric symptoms. Comparison of pre- and post-COVID assessments of CGI-S for 33 patients who recovered from COVID-19 were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: We observed a higher COVID-19 mortality associated with concurrent antipsychotics use in older patients receiving behavioral health services. The majority of patients in our geriatric clinic who recovered from COVID-19 appeared to return to their pre-COVID psychiatric function. More precise estimates of the risk associated with antipsychotic treatment in older patients with COVID-19 and other underlying factors will come from larger datasets and meta-analyses.


Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Mental Disorders , Outpatients , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antipsychotic Agents/administration & dosage , Female , Geriatric Psychiatry , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/drug therapy , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/mortality , New York City/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
18.
Acta Biomed ; 92(S6): e2021442, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472543

ABSTRACT

A well-known insidious obstacle for patients with mental illness is stigma, linked to feelings of incomprehensibility, incurability, and dangerousness. The COVID-19 pandemic represented a relevant additional barrier for these patients, which contributed to their marginalization, quality of life reduction and diminished treatments feasibility. As part of a cross-sectional multidisciplinary project conducted in the psychiatric service of Biella, a northern Italy province, preliminary data were collected by frontline clinicians during the COVID-19 first wave regarding the vicious cycle that may have been created between stigma and psychiatric patients in COVID-19 time. Therefore, we tried to frame the observed changes not in the dual literature paradigms stigma-mental illness or stigma-social consequences in COVID-19 time, but in the mental illness-stigma-COVID-19 three-way paradigm. The protection of this vulnerable segment of population, including a rapid access to COVID-19 vaccination, needs to be recognized as a real public health priority. The role of mental health services in providing information and activating supportive interventions for patients with mental illness is also crucial. Particularly, a multidisciplinary therapeutic team including mental health providers, general practitioners, hospital physicians, and social services would be needed to ensure adequate networks and cares continuity. Actions to contrast stigma can be arduous and exhausting because they must counteract the gravitational pull of customs, prejudices, and ingrained cultural beliefs, and may therefore appear to be moving in an "unnatural" direction, like the water in Escher's lithograph entitled "Waterfall". Nevertheless, there is no less strenuous way to go against the grain.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
19.
J Affect Disord ; 297: 102-111, 2022 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472016

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Subjects with mental disorders are at a higher risk of various pandemic, but no specific studies concerning on screening and comparing the risk factors of COVID-19 for subjects with and without mental disorders, and the role of different classes of mental disorders with respect to the COVID-19. METHODS: This study comprised 42,264 subjects with mental disorders and 431,694 subjects without. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations of exposure factors with COVID-19 risk. Interaction terms were employed to explore the potential interaction effect between mental disorders and each exposure factor on COVID-19 risk. RESULTS: Mental disorders increased 1.45-fold risk of COVID-19 compared with non-mental disorders. There were significant interaction effects between mental disorders and age, sex, ethnicity, health ratings, socioeconomic adversity, lifestyle habits or comorbidities on COVID-19 risk. Subjects with and without mental disorders shared some overlapping risk factors of COVID-19, including the non-white ethnicity, socioeconomic adversity and comorbidities. Subjects without mental disorders carry some specific risk and protective factors. Among subjects with mental disorders, the COVID-19 risk was higher in subjects with a diagnosis of organic/symptomatic mental disorders, mood disorders, and neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders than that of their counterparts. Age, amount of alcohol consumption, BMI and Townsend deprivation showed non-linear increase with COVID-19 risk. LIMITATIONS: Absence of replication. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with mental disorders are vulnerable populations to whom more attention should be paid. Public health guidance should focus on reducing the COVID-19 risk by advocating healthy lifestyle habits and preferential policies in populations with comorbidities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Bull Menninger Clin ; 85(3): 254-270, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470682

ABSTRACT

Sleep problems among frontline medical staff during the COVID-19 epidemic require attention. A total of 249 frontline medical staff who were recruited to support Wuhan completed this cross-sectional study. A web-based questionnaire about insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue was used to assess mental health status. The prevalence of sleep disorders among frontline medical staff was 50.6%. More time spent in Wuhan and a history of insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue were associated with a higher risk of insomnia. People who stayed in Wuhan for a long time with a history of insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue symptoms might be at high risk of insomnia.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , China , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...