Relationship between sleep quality and the psychological status of patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: We explored the sleep quality of patients who required mental health and clinical interventions in our hospital after being diagnosed with COVID-19. METHOD: We enrolled 189 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in April and May of 2020, of whom 78 were female and 111 male. We evaluated sleep quality and related factors in terms of demographic characteristics, the duration of hospitalisation, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale scores. RESULTS: All participants were divided into two groups according to PSQI score: n = 102 (54%) patients with PSQI scores ≥5 and n = 87 (46%) patients with PSQI scores <5. No significant between-group difference was evident in terms of age, gender, marital status, educational level, or chronic disease history. The duration of hospitalisation (p = 0.002) and the depression rate (p = 0.010) were higher in the group exhibiting poor sleep quality (PSQI score ≥5). CONCLUSION: The duration of hospitalisation was longer in patients experiencing poor sleep quality. Therefore, improvement in sleep quality will reduce the length of hospital and intensive care unit stays.

Sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic: not one size fits all.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic imposes a long period of stress on people worldwide and has been shown to significantly affect sleep duration across different populations. However, decreases in sleep quality rather than duration are associated with adverse mental health effects. Additionally, the one third of the general population suffering from poor sleep quality was underrepresented in previous studies. The current study aimed to elucidate effects of the COVID -19 pandemic on sleep quality across different levels of pre-pandemic sleep complaints and as a function of affect and worry. METHOD: Participants (n = 667) of the Netherlands Sleep Registry (NSR) were invited for weekly online assessment of the subjective severity of major stressors, insomnia, sleep times, distress, depression, and anxiety using validated scales. ANALYSIS: To investigate the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sleep quality of people with and without a history of insomnia, we performed a mixed model analysis using pre-pandemic insomnia severity, negative affect, and worry as predictors. RESULTS: The effect of COVID -19 on sleep quality differs critically across participants, and depends on the pre-pandemic sleep quality. Interestingly, a quarter of people with pre-pandemic (clinical) insomnia experienced a meaningful improvement in sleep quality, whereas 20% of pre-pandemic good sleepers experienced worse sleep during the lockdown measures. Additionally, changes in sleep quality throughout the pandemic were associated with negative affect and worry. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that there is no uniform effect of the lockdown on sleep quality. COVID-19 lockdown measures more often worsened sleep complaints in pre-pandemic good sleepers, whereas a subset of people with pre-pandemic severe insomnia symptoms underwent a clinically meaningful alleviation of symptoms in our sample.

Prevalence of psychological morbidities among general population, healthcare workers and COVID-19 patients amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This review was done to synthesize the existing evidence on the prevalence of various psychological morbidities among general public, healthcare workers and COVID-19 patients amidst this pandemic situation. Systematic searches were conducted in various databases and search engines such as Medline, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, Cochrane library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until 22 April 2020. Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).A total of 50 studies were included in the review. Only seven studies (14%) had low risk of bias. Pooled prevalence rate of psychological morbidities includes poor sleep quality (40%), stress (34%), psychological distress (34%), insomnia (30%), post-traumatic stress symptoms (27%), anxiety (26%), depression (26%). Pooled prevalence rate of psychological morbidities with respect to impact of event due to COVID-19 pandemic was 44% (95%CI-42% to 47%). The burden of these psychological morbidities was highest among the COVID-19 patients followed by healthcare workers and general population.

The mental health of frontline and non-frontline medical workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new infectious disease with high transmissibility and morbidity. It has caused substantial mental distress to medical professionals. We aimed to compare the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak between frontline and non-frontline medical workers in China. METHODS: This case-control study recruited 1173 frontline and 1173 age- and sex-matched non-frontline medical workers during the COVID-19 outbreak (February 11 to 26, 2020). A set of online questionnaires were used to measure mental problems (i.e., anxiety, insomnia, and depressive symptoms), and help-seeking behavior and treatment for these mental problems. RESULTS: Frontline medical workers had higher rates of any mental problem (52.6% vs. 34.0%, adjusted OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.57-2.25), anxiety symptoms (15.7% vs. 7.4%, adjusted OR=1.95, 95% CI=1.46-2.61), depressed mood (marginally insignificant; 14.3% vs. 10.1%, adjusted OR=1.32, 95% CI=0.99-1.76) and insomnia (47.8% vs. 29.1%, adjusted OR=1.96, 95% CI=1.63-2.36) than non-frontline medical workers. No significant difference was observed in terms of suicidal ideation (12.0% vs. 9.0%, adjusted OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.92-1.71), help-seeking (4.5% vs. 4.5%, adjusted OR=1.00, 95% CI=0.53-1.87) or treatment (3.4% vs. 2.3%, adjusted OR=1.38, 95% CI=0.54-3.52) for mental problems. LIMITATIONS: The case-control nature of the data precludes causal inferences, and there is a possibility of bias related to self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline medical workers had more mental problems but comparable help-seeking behaviors and treatment for these problems than non-frontline medical workers. These findings highlight the timely mental support and intervention for medical workers, especially for those on the frontline.