Importance: There has been increasing concern about the burden of mental health problems among youth, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends in mental health-related emergency department (ED) visits are an important indicator of unmet outpatient mental health needs. Objective: To estimate annual trends in mental health-related ED visits among US children, adolescents, and young adults between 2011 and 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 2011 to 2020 in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual cross-sectional national probability sample survey of EDs, was used to examine mental health-related visits for youths aged 6 to 24 years (unweighted = 49â¯515). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mental health-related ED visits included visits associated with psychiatric or substance use disorders and were identified by International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM; 2011-2015) and ICD-10-CM (2016-2020) discharge diagnosis codes or by reason-for-visit (RFV) codes. We estimated the annual proportion of mental health-related pediatric ED visits from 2011 to 2020. Subgroup analyses were performed by demographics and broad psychiatric diagnoses. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses estimated factors independently associated with mental health-related ED visits controlling for period effects. Results: From 2011 to 2020, the weighted number of pediatric mental health-related visits increased from 4.8 million (7.7% of all pediatric ED visits) to 7.5 million (13.1% of all ED visits) with an average annual percent change of 8.0% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.1%; P < .001). Significant linearly increasing trends were seen among children, adolescents, and young adults, with the greatest increase among adolescents and across sex and race and ethnicity. While all types of mental health-related visits significantly increased, suicide-related visits demonstrated the greatest increase from 0.9% to 4.2% of all pediatric ED visits (average annual percent change, 23.1% [95% CI, 19.0%-27.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 10 years, the proportion of pediatric ED visits for mental health reasons has approximately doubled, including a 5-fold increase in suicide-related visits. These findings underscore an urgent need to improve crisis and emergency mental health service capacity for young people, especially for children experiencing suicidal symptoms.
Subject(s)Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Services Needs and Demand , Mental Disorders , Mental Health , Suicide , Adolescent , Child , Humans , Young Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health/trends , Pandemics , United States/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand/trends , Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Suicide/psychology , Suicide/statistics & numerical data
BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.
Subject(s)COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Mental Health/trends , Public Health/trends , Quarantine/psychology , Adult , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Mental Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Middle Aged , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom
Inequalities in mental healthcare and lack of social support during the COVID-19 pandemic have lowered quality of life and increased overall burden of disease in people with Parkinson's (PWP). Although the pandemic has brought attention to these inequalities, they are long standing and will persist unless addressed. Lack of awareness of mental health issues is a major barrier and even when recognized disparities based on race, gender, and socioeconomic factors limit access to already scarce resources. Stigma regarding mental illness is highly prevalent and is a major barrier even when adequate care exists. Limited access to mental healthcare during the pandemic and in general increases the burden on caregivers and families. Historically, initiatives to improve mental healthcare for PWP focused on interventions designed for specialty and academic centers generally located in large metropolitan areas, which has created unintended geographic disparities in access. In order to address these issues this point of view suggests a community-based wellness model to extend the reach of mental healthcare resources for PWP.
Subject(s)Healthcare Disparities/trends , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mental Health/trends , Parkinson Disease/therapy , Social Support/trends , Health Resources/trends , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Parkinson Disease/epidemiology , Parkinson Disease/psychology , Social Support/psychology
Subject(s)Adaptation, Psychological , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Global Health/trends , Mental Health/trends , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Psychiatry/trends , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Emotions , Empathy , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
BACKGROUND: Most research evaluating telehealth psychiatric treatment has been conducted in outpatient settings. There is a great lack of research assessing the efficacy of telehealth treatment in more acute, intensive treatment settings such as a partial hospital. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of behavioral health treatment has transitioned to a virtual format. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined the effectiveness of our partial hospital program (PHP). METHOD: The sample included 207 patients who were treated virtually from May 2020 to September 2020 and a comparison group of 207 patients who were treated in the in-person partial program a year earlier. Patients completed self-administered measures of patient satisfaction, symptoms, coping ability, functioning, and general well-being. RESULTS: For both the in-person and telehealth methods of delivering partial hospital level of care, patients were highly satisfied with treatment and reported a significant reduction in symptoms and suicidality from admission to discharge. On the modified Remission from Depression Questionnaire, the primary outcome measure, both groups reported a significant (P < .01) improvement in functioning, coping ability, positive mental health, and general well-being. A large effect size of treatment (Cohen d > 0.8) was found in both treatment groups. The only significant difference in outcome between the patients treated in the different formats was a greater length of stay (mean ± SD of 13.5 ± 8.1 vs 8.5 ± 5.0 days, t = 7.61, P < .001) and greater likelihood of staying in treatment until completion (72.9% vs 62.3%, χ2 = 5.34, P < .05) in the virtually treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth partial hospital treatment was as effective as in-person treatment in terms of patient satisfaction, symptom reduction, suicidal ideation reduction, and improved functioning and well-being. The treatment completion rate was higher in the telehealth cohort, and several patients who were treated virtually commented that they never would have presented for in-person treatment even if there was no pandemic. Telehealth PHPs should be considered a viable treatment option even after the pandemic has resolved.
Subject(s)Behavior Therapy , COVID-19 , Emergency Services, Psychiatric , Mental Disorders , Telemedicine , Adult , Behavior Therapy/methods , Behavior Therapy/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Services, Psychiatric/methods , Emergency Services, Psychiatric/trends , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mental Health/trends , Patient Safety , Patient Satisfaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/organization & administration , United States/epidemiology
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has profoundly affected life throughout the world, and it greatly impacted physician assistant (PA) education programs when the virus spread across the New York region 2 years ago. PA programs at Stony Brook University, Hofstra University, and the New York Institute of Technology were located in the epicenter of the pandemic and were forced to transition to online learning during the spring of 2020. The purpose of this study was to explore didactic PA students' perceptions of virtual learning, their mental health status, and the challenges and unexpected benefits they have faced during this historic time. METHODS: A consent form that linked to an 11-question electronic Qualtrics survey was emailed to all didactic students enrolled in the 3 participating PA programs. The survey data were used to conduct a descriptive analysis and a Spearman's ρ correlation analysis using SPSS 24 software. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 39% (89/229). The students perceived it to be more challenging to maintain the same level of academic achievement with virtual learning, although they felt they were able to meet learning objectives and be prepared for clinical clerkships. They reported experiencing greater stress, anxiety, and depression related to decreased socialization and isolation. However, the students said that their PA program provided enough support to assist with student needs, and they noted unexpected benefits of remote learning, including more time to spend with family members, increased schedule flexibility, and lower commuting costs. DISCUSSION: The PA students' education and mental health were negatively affected because of the abrupt transition from in-person to virtual learning. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the students in the 3 participating PA programs in New York were affected by the change to remote learning and the subsequent lack of socialization. PA students experienced both challenges and benefits during this unscheduled virtual learning period. While students noted increases in mental health issues, they felt supported by faculty members and prepared to start clinical rotations.
Subject(s)COVID-19/complications , Mental Health/trends , Physician Assistants/education , Physician Assistants/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Students, Health Occupations/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Mental Health/standards , New York City/epidemiology , Pandemics
BACKGROUND: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, causative agent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has necessitated widespread lockdown to mitigate the pandemic. This study examines the influence of resilience on the impact of COVID-related stress and enforced lockdown on mental health, drug use, and treatment adherence among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Argentina. SETTING: PLWH residing predominantly in Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area and urban regions of Argentina were identified from a private clinic electronic database. METHODS: Participants completed an anonymous online survey to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on economic disruption, resilience, mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, stress, and loneliness), adherence to HIV treatment, and substance use. We performed ordinary least squares and logistic regressions to test whether resilient coping buffered the impact of economic disruption on mental health and drug use during quarantine. RESULTS: A total of 1336 PLWH aged 18-82 were enrolled. The impact of economic disruption on mental health ΔF(1,1321) = 8.86, P = 0.003 and loneliness ΔF(1,1326) = 5.77, P = 0.016 was buffered by resilience. A 3-way interaction between resilient buffering, stress, and sex was significant ΔF(1,1325) = 4.76, P = 0.029. Participants reported less than excellent adherence to medication (33%), disruption to mental health services (11%), and disruption to substance abuse treatment (1.3%) during lockdown. DISCUSSION: The impact of COVID-stress and lockdown on emotional distress seemed mitigated by resilience coping strategies, and the buffering impact of resilience on perceived stress was greater among women. Results highlight PLWH's capacity to adhere to treatment in challenging circumstances and the importance of developing resilience skills for better coping with stress and adversity.
Subject(s)Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , HIV Infections/psychology , Mental Health/trends , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Argentina , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , HIV Infections/complications , Humans , Intimate Partner Violence/trends , Least-Squares Analysis , Logistic Models , Loneliness , Male , Mental Health Services/standards , Middle Aged , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Resilience, Psychological , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Social Isolation/psychology , Social Support , Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute/etiology , Substance-Related Disorders/etiology , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Adherence and Compliance , Young Adult
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Health Services Accessibility , Mental Health/trends , Policy , Public Health , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Adolescent , Female , Humans , Male
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has inundated the entire world disrupting the lives of millions of people. The pandemic has stressed the healthcare system of India impacting the psychological status and functioning of health care workers. The aim of this study is to determine the burnout levels and factors associated with the risk of psychological distress among healthcare workers (HCW) engaged in the management of COVID 19 in India. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 September 2020 to 30 November 2020 by telephonic interviews using a web-based Google form. Health facilities and community centres from 12 cities located in 10 states were selected for data collection. Data on socio-demographic and occupation-related variables like age, sex, type of family, income, type of occupation, hours of work and income were obtained was obtained from 967 participants, including doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, emergency response teams, lab personnel, and others directly involved in COVID 19 patient care. Levels of psychological distress was assessed by the General health Questionnaire -GHQ-5 and levels of burnout was assessed using the ICMR-NIOH Burnout questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the risk of psychological distress. The third quartile values of the three subscales of burnout viz EE, DP and PA were used to identify burnout profiles of the healthcare workers. RESULTS: Overall, 52.9% of the participants had the risk of psychological distress that needed further evaluation. Risk of psychological distress was significantly associated with longer hours of work (≥ 8 hours a day) (AOR = 2.38, 95% CI(1.66-3.41), income≥20000(AOR = 1.74, 95% CI, (1.16-2.6); screening of COVID-19 patients (AOR = 1.63 95% CI (1.09-2.46), contact tracing (AOR = 2.05, 95% CI (1.1-3.81), High Emotional exhaustion score (EE ≥16) (AOR = 4.41 95% CI (3.14-6.28) and High Depersonalisation score (DP≥7) (AOR = 1.79, 95% CI (1.28-2.51)). About 4.7% of the HCWs were overextended (EE>18); 6.5% were disengaged (DP>8) and 9.7% HCWs were showing signs of burnout (high on all three dimensions). CONCLUSION: The study has identified key factors that could have been likely triggers for psychological distress among healthcare workers who were engaged in management of COVID cases in India. The study also demonstrates the use of GHQ-5 and ICMR-NIOH Burnout questionnaire as important tools to identify persons at risk of psychological distress and occurrence of burnout symptoms respectively. The findings provide useful guide to planning interventions to mitigate mental health problems among HCW in future epidemic/pandemic scenarios in the country.
Subject(s)Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Adult , Aged , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Interviews as Topic , Male , Mental Health/trends , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surveys and Questionnaires
The pandemic caused by Covid-19 has been an unprecedented social and health emergency worldwide. This is the first study in the scientific literature reporting the psychological impact of the Covid-19 outbreak in a sample of the Spanish population. A cross-sectional study was conducted through an online survey of 3480 people. The presence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was evaluated with screening tests from 14 March. Sociodemographic and Covid-19-related data was collected. Additionally, spiritual well-being, loneliness, social support, discrimination and sense of belonging were assessed. Descriptive analyses were carried out and linear regression models compiled. The 18.7% of the sample revealed depressive, 21.6% anxiety and 15.8% PTSD symptoms. Being in the older age group, having economic stability and the belief that adequate information had been provided about the pandemic were negatively related to depression, anxiety and PTSD. However, female gender, previous diagnoses of mental health problems or neurological disorders, having symptoms associated with the virus, or those with a close relative infected were associated with greater symptomatology in all three variables. Predictive models revealed that the greatest protector for symptomatology was spiritual well-being, while loneliness was the strongest predictor of depression, anxiety and PTSD. The impact on our mental health caused by the pandemic and the measures adopted during the first weeks to deal with it are evident. In addition, it is possible to identify the need of greater psychological support in general and in certain particularly vulnerable groups.
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Mental Health/trends , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depressive Disorder/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
This study reports the physical health, mental health, anxiety, depression, distress, and job satisfaction of healthcare staff in Iran when the country faced its highest number of total active COVID-19 cases. In a sample of 304 healthcare staff (doctors, nurses, radiologists, technicians, etc.), we found a sizable portion reached the cutoff levels of disorders in anxiety (28.0%), depression (30.6%), and distress (20.1%). Age, gender, education, access to PPE (personal protective equipment), healthcare institutions (public vs. private), and individual status of COVID-19 infection each predicted some but not all the outcome variables of SF-12, PHQ-4, K6, and job satisfaction. The healthcare workers varied greatly in their access to PPE and in their status of COVID-19 infection: negative (69.7%), unsure (28.0%), and positive (2.3%). The predictors were also different from those identified in previous studies of healthcare staff during the COVID-19 crisis in China. This study helps to identify the healthcare staff in need to enable more targeted help as healthcare staff in many countries are facing peaks in their COVID-19 cases.
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/psychology , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Iran , Job Satisfaction , Male , Mental Health/trends , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/trends , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/ethnology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Mental Health/trends , Pneumonia, Viral/ethnology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
The deadliest coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is taking thousands of lives worldwide and presents an extraordinary challenge to mental resilience. This study assesses mental health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors among informal waste workers in Bangladesh. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in June 2020 among 176 informal waste workers selected from nine municipalities and one city corporation in Bangladesh. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to assess respondents' mental health. The study found that 80.6% of the individuals were suffering from psychological distress; 67.6% reported anxiety and depression, 92.6% reported social dysfunction, and 19.9% reported loss of confidence. The likelihood of psychological distress (Risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.48) was significantly higher for female than male. Multiple COVID-19 symptoms of the family members (RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.41), unawareness about COVID-19 infected neighbor (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.04-1.41), income reduction (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.06-2.41) and daily household meal reduction (RR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.03-1.73) were also found to be associated with psychological distress. These identified factors should be considered in policy-making and support programs for the informal waste workers to manage the pandemic situation as well as combating COVID-19 related psychological challenges.
Subject(s)COVID-19/psychology , Mental Health/trends , Working Poor/psychology , Adult , Anxiety , Anxiety Disorders , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression , Depressive Disorder , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sanitary Engineering/methods , Sanitary Engineering/trends , Surveys and Questionnaires
INTRODUCTION: A pandemic may negatively influence psychological well-being in the individual. We aimed to assess the potential influence of the first national lockdown in Denmark (March to June 2020) due to the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being and the content and degree of worries among pregnant women in early pregnancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this hospital-based cross-sectional study based on self-reported data we compared psychological well-being and worries among women who were pregnant during the first phase of the pandemic (COVID-19 group) (n = 685), with women who were pregnant the year before (Historical group) (n = 787). Psychological well-being was measured by the five-item World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5), using a score ≤50 as indicator of reduced psychological well-being. Differences in WHO-5 mean scores and in the prevalence of women with score ≤50 were assessed using general linear and log-binomial regression analyses. The Cambridge Worry Scale was used to measure the content and degree of major worries. To detect differences between groups, Pearson's Chi-square test was used. RESULTS: We found no differences in mean WHO-5 score between groups (mean difference) 0.1 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.6) or in the prevalence of women with WHO-5 score ≤50 (prevalence ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.83-1.29) in adjusted analyses. A larger proportion of women in the COVID-19 group reported major worries about Relationship with husband/partner compared with the Historical group (3% [n = 19] vs 1% [n = 6], p = 0.04), and 9.2% in the COVID-19 group worried about the possible negative influence of the COVID-19 restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that national restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not influence the psychological well-being or the content and degree of major worries among pregnant women. However, a larger proportion of women in the COVID-19 group reported major worries concerning Relationship with husband/partner compared with the Historical group and 9.2% in the COVID-19 group worried about the possible negative influence of the COVID-19 restrictions.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Interpersonal Relations , Mental Health , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Pregnant Women/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health/trends , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/psychology , Pregnancy Trimester, First/psychology , Psychology/methods , Psychology/trends , SARS-CoV-2
OBJECTIVE: Due to the continued spread of COVID-19 and the emergence of novel mutated viral variants, families all over the world are experiencing wide-ranging stressors that threaten not only their financial well-being but also their physical and mental health. The present study assessed the association between excessive electronic media exposure of pandemic-related news and mental health of the residents of Ha'il Province, Saudi Arabia. The present study also assessed the prevalence of perceived stress, fear of COVID-19, anxiety, depression, and loneliness due to COVID-19-related restrictions in the same population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 490 residents of Ha'il Province participated in a cross-sectional online survey during a two-month period (March to April 2021). A validated 38-item self-report survey was used to collect the data. RESULTS: Significant associations were reported between excessive electronic media exposure and the prevalence of perceived stress (χ2=140.56; p<.001), generalized anxiety (χ2=74.55; p<.001), depression (χ2=71.58; p<.001), COVID-19-related fear (χ2=24.54; p<.001), and loneliness (χ2=11.46; p<.001). It was also found that participants without depressive symptoms were 0.28 times less likely to have been exposed to excessive electronic media exposure (AOR: 0.28; C.I. 0.16-0.48; p<.001). Similarly, participants with no stress/mild stress were 0.32 times less likely to have been exposed to excessive electronic media exposure (AOR: 0.32; C.I. 0.19-0.52; p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study suggest an urgent need for educational resilience programs (online and in-person) for susceptible individuals (females, unemployed, urban residents, etc.). Such programs would help them to develop skills to cope with the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)COVID-19/psychology , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Adaptation, Psychological/physiology , Adult , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , Anxiety Disorders/psychology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Fear/psychology , Female , Humans , Loneliness/psychology , Mental Health/trends , Middle Aged , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Mental Health , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Crowdsourcing , Global Health , Humans , Mental Health/ethnology , Mental Health/trends , Physical Distancing , Quarantine/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Environment , Spatio-Temporal Analysis
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Child Health/trends , Education, Distance , Mental Health/trends , Neurodevelopmental Disorders/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Child , Child Health Services/standards , Child Welfare , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Education, Distance/methods , Education, Distance/statistics & numerical data , England/epidemiology , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Male , Mental Health Services/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis
INTRODUCTION: Digital technology has the potential to improve health outcomes and health system performance in fragmented and under-funded mental health systems. Despite this potential, the integration of digital technology tools into mental health systems has been relatively poor. This is a protocol for a synthesis of qualitative evidence that will aim to determine the barriers and facilitators to integrating digital technologies in mental health systems and classify them in contextual domains at individual, organisational and system levels. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodological framework for systematic review of qualitative evidence described in Lockwood et al. will be applied to this review. A draft search strategy was developed in collaboration with an experienced senior health research librarian. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar, as well as hand searching of reference lists and reviews will identify relevant studies for inclusion. Study selection will be carried out independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The quality of selected studies will be assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data will be charted using JBI QUARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. Findings will be defined and classified both deductively in a priori conceptual framework and inductively by a thematic analysis. Results will be reported based on the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research. The level of confidence of the findings will be assessed using GRADE-CERQual. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. The systematic review will inform policy and practices around improving the integration of digital technologies into mental health care systems.