Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 246
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 768, 2021 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528682

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women face unique challenges and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus far, no studies have explored the factors associated with increased levels of worry in this population globally. The current study sought to assess the frequency and sources of worry during the COVID-19 pandemic in an international sample of pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey in 64 countries between May and June 2020. The survey was available in 12 languages and hosted on the Pregistry platform for COVID-19 studies. Participants were sought mainly on social media platforms and online parenting forums. The survey included questions related to demographics, level of worry, support, stress, COVID-19 exposure, frequency of media usage, and mental health indicators. RESULTS: The study included 7561 participants. Eighty-three percent of all participants indicated that they were either 'somewhat' or 'very' worried. Women 13-28 weeks pregnant were significantly more likely to indicate that they were 'very worried' compared to those who were postpartum or at other stages of pregnancy. When compared with women living in Europe, those in Africa, Asia and Pacific, North America and South/Latin America were more likely to have increased levels of worry, as were those who more frequently interacted with social media. Different forms of support and stress also had an impact upon level of worry, while indicators of stress and anxiety were positively associated with worry level. CONCLUSION: Pregnant and postpartum women are vulnerable to the changes in societal norms brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the factors associated with levels of worry within this population will enable society to address potential unmet needs and improve the current and future mental health of parents and children.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , Pregnancy Complications/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Health Surveys , Humans , Logistic Models , Odds Ratio , Postpartum Period/psychology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications/psychology , Risk Factors , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Young Adult
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2134803, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1516698

ABSTRACT

Importance: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with fatigue and sleep problems long after the acute phase of COVID-19. In addition, there are concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection causing psychiatric illness; however, evidence of a direct effect is inconclusive. Objective: To assess risk of risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue, or sleep problems following SARS-CoV-2 infection and to analyze changes according to demographic subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assembled matched cohorts using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, a UK primary care registry of 11 923 499 individuals aged 16 years or older. Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from February 1 to December 9, 2020. Individuals with less than 2 years of historical data or less than 1 week follow-up were excluded. Individuals with positive results on a SARS-CoV-2 test without prior mental illness or with anxiety or depression, psychosis, fatigue, or sleep problems were matched with up to 4 controls based on sex, general practice, and year of birth. Controls were individuals who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Data were analyzed from January to July 2021. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined via polymerase chain reaction testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue, or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking, and body mass index. Results: Of 11 923 105 eligible individuals (6 011 020 [50.4%] women and 5 912 085 [49.6%] men; median [IQR] age, 44 [30-61] years), 232 780 individuals (2.0%) had positive result on a SARS-CoV-2 test. After applying selection criteria, 86 922 individuals were in the matched cohort without prior mental illness, 19 020 individuals had prior anxiety or depression, 1036 individuals had psychosis, 4152 individuals had fatigue, and 4539 individuals had sleep problems. After adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between positive SARS-CoV-2 test results and psychiatric morbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.66-2.02), fatigue (aHR, 5.98; 95% CI, 5.33-6.71), and sleep problems (aHR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.64-3.78). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.65-1.77) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.55-5.75). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals registered at an English primary care practice during the pandemic, there was consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of fatigue and sleep problems. However, the results from the negative control analysis suggest that unobserved confounding may be responsible for at least some of the positive association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Fatigue/etiology , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Sleep , Adult , Anxiety/drug therapy , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Depression/drug therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , England/epidemiology , Fatigue/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Primary Health Care , Psychotic Disorders/drug therapy , Psychotic Disorders/epidemiology , Psychotic Disorders/etiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
5.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 50(3): 189-198, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466864

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to compare the emotional effects of COVID-19 among three different groups, namely: health personnel, medical students, and a sample of the general population. METHODS: 375 participants were recruited for this study, of which 125 were medical students (preclinical studies, 59; clinical studies, 66), 125 were health personnel (COVID-19 frontline personnel, 59; personnel not related with COVID-19, 66), and 125 belonged to the general population. The PHQ-9, GAD-7, and CPDI scales were used to assess the emotional impact. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to measure differences between groups, considering potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Regarding CPDI values, all other groups showed reduced values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. However, the general population, preclinical and clinical medical students showed increased PHQ-9 values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. Finally, confounding factors, gender and age correlated negatively with higher CPDI and PHQ-9 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Being frontline personnel is associated with increased COVID-19-related stress. Depression is associated, however, with other groups not directly involved with the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Female gender and younger age correlated with COVID-19-related depression and stress.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/etiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Students, Medical/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Peru/epidemiology , Psychological Tests , Risk Factors , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
Placenta ; 115: 37-44, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401783

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The reported effects of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes are conflicting; studies frequently overlook the placenta, which is critical for the health of the mother and infant(s). This study aimed to determine the effect of pandemic stress ± SARS CoV-2 infection on placental histopathology. METHODS: Women were recruited in Canada (n = 69); France (n = 21) or in the UK (n = 25), between March and October 2020. Historic controls (N = 20) were also included. Placenta and fetal membrane samples were collected rapidly after delivery and were fixed and stained for histopathological analysis. Maternal demographical data and obstetric outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Over 80% of the placentas from SARS-CoV-2+ pregnancies had histopathological abnormalities: predominantly structural (71-86%) or inflammatory (9-22%), depending on geographical location. Excessive fibrin was seen in all sites, whereas deciduitis (Canada), calcifications (UK), agglutinations and chorangiosis (France) predominated in different locations. The frequency of abnormalities was significantly higher than in SARS-CoV-2 negative women (50%, p < 0.05). Demographic and obstetric data were similar in the SARS-CoV-2+ women across all sites - characterised by predominantly Black/Middle Eastern women, and women with elevated body mass index. DISCUSSION: Overall, the frequency of placental abnormalities is increased in SARS-CoV-2+ women, but the incidence of placental abnormalities is also higher in SARS-CoV-2- women that gave birth during the pandemic, which highlights the importance of appropriate control groups to ascertain the roles of pandemic stress and SARS-CoV-2 infection on the placenta and pregnancy outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Placenta Diseases/etiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Stress, Psychological/complications , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Canada/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Male , Maternal-Fetal Relations/psychology , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Placenta/pathology , Placenta/virology , Placenta Diseases/epidemiology , Placenta Diseases/pathology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/pathology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/psychology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/psychology , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/pathology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
Anim Sci J ; 92(1): e13624, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1378029

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 epidemic and government intervention measures may have adverse effects on people's mental health. To explore the influence of pets on the intervention of people's psychological problems during the COVID-19 epidemic, an online survey was carried out between April 9 and April 29, 2020. A total of 756 participants replied to this questionnaire. Mental health variables were assessed, and the comparison of behavior changes among pet owners and pets on positive mental well-being during COVID-19 epidemic. Comparative analysis was performed; compared with individuals without pets (n = 575), pet owners (n = 181) had a higher prevalence of insomnia (p = 0.006). Living in Wuhan city was a risk factor for people with psychological stress (p < 0.05). Dog owners exhibited lower than average scores of insomnia and uncertainty of infection than cat owners (p = 0.004). People with more than one pet exhibited lower than average scores of depression than having one pet (p = 0.040). For analysis of psychological effects of pets on people, the role of pets in subjective feeling and positive psychological changes of pet owner was significantly different. Pet owners relieve that psychological pressure through behavioral changes towards their pets in early stage. Pets provided positive subjective well-being and psychological effects for their owners.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , Human-Animal Bond , Ownership , Pets , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Animals , Cats , Child , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dogs , Emotions , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Middle Aged , Ownership/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors , Young Adult
9.
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol ; 42(2): 108-114, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373503

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected many people's mental health with increased symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population. Anxiety and depression can have negative effects on pregnant women and result in poor neonatal outcomes. Therefore, we analyzed stress, anxiety and depression in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study of pregnant women during COVID-19 compared to pregnant women before COVID-19. Pregnant women were recruited through social media platforms from 21 May 2020 to 22 June 2020. Pregnant women ≥ 18 years of age, who master the Dutch language were included. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) were analyzed. Demographic features were summarized using descriptive statistics. Possible differences in demographic variables between groups were compared using Mann Whitney U test and Chi-squared test. Significant demographic differences between groups were controlled for using logistical regression analysis or an independent one-way analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Thousand hundred and two pregnant women completed the questionnaires during COVID-19, and 364 pregnant women before COVID-19. We found no differences in clinically high levels of anxiety (HADS-A ≥ 8) and depression (HADS-D ≥ 8) in women during COVID-19 (19.5% and 13.2%, respectively) and women before COVID-19 (23.1% and 15.7%, respectively). A question was implemented whether participants related their stress level to COVID-19. Women who related their stress to the COVID-19 pandemic reported significantly higher overall stress levels on the PSS-10 compared to women with stress unrelated to COVID-19 (mean, 15.62; standard deviation [SD], 6.44 vs. mean, 10.28; SD, 5.48; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In contrast to previous studies, COVID-19 did not increase anxiety and depression levels in Dutch pregnant women. Women who related their perceived stress to the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher stress levels than women who did not relate their stress to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that interventions that specifically aim to reduce COVID-19 stress, may help to reduce overall stress levels in pregnant women during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Depression/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnant Women , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Young Adult
10.
Epilepsia ; 62(10): 2322-2332, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1371818

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the care of all patients around the world. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) COVID-19 and Telemedicine Task Forces examined, through surveys to people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers, and health care professionals, how the pandemic has affected the well-being, care, and services for PWE. The ILAE included a link on their website whereby PWE and/or their caregivers could fill out a survey (in 11 languages) about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to health services and impact on mental health, including the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. An anonymous link was also provided whereby health care providers could report cases of new-onset seizures or an exacerbation of seizures in the context of COVID-19. Finally, a separate questionnaire aimed at exploring the utilization of telehealth by health care professionals since the pandemic began was available on the ILAE website and also disseminated to its members. Seventeen case reports were received; data were limited and therefore no firm conclusions could be drawn. Of 590 respondents to the well-being survey (422 PWE, 166 caregivers), 22.8% PWE and 27.5% caregivers reported an increase in seizure frequency, with difficulty in accessing medication and health care professionals reported as barriers to care. Of all respondents, 57.1% PWE and 21.5% caregivers had severe psychological distress (k score >13), which was significantly higher among PWE than caregivers (p<0.01). An increase in telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by health care professionals, with 40% of consultations conducted by this method. Although 74.9% of health care providers thought that this impacted positively, barriers to care were also identified. As we move forward, there is a need to ensure ongoing support and care for PWE to prevent a parallel pandemic of unmet health care needs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epilepsy/therapy , Pandemics , Caregivers , Communication , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Epilepsy/psychology , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Psychological Distress , Seizures/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine
11.
Malawi Med J ; 33(1): 54-58, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1369850

ABSTRACT

Background: Several studies have been published on the topic of COVID-19 and pregnancy over recent months. However, few studies have evaluated the impact of this pandemic on maternal mental health, particularly in low-resource settings. Aim: To determine the prevalence and predictors of COVID-19-related depression, anxiety and stress symptoms among pregnant women. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that involved 456 pregnant women attending prenatal care at Abakaliki, Nigeria, during the COVID-19 lockdown. These patients were screened for psychological morbidities using the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Results: Severe and extremely severe depression were reported in 7.2% (n=33) and 6.4% (n=29) of participants, respectively. Analysis also revealed that 3.3% (n=15) and 7.7% (n=35) of women had severe and extremely severe anxiety, respectively. In total, 23% (n=105) of the participating women had severe stress while 16.7% (n=76) reported extremely severe stress. Multiparity (2-4) and occupation, such as trading and farming, were predictors of depression whereas grand-multiparity, urban residence, and trading, were identified as predictors of anxiety and stress. Conclusion: Symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress were relatively common among pregnant women during the COVID-19 lockdown in Abakaliki, Nigeria. There is a clear need to integrate screening for depression, anxiety and stress, in existing antenatal care programs so as to identify and prevent long-term adverse psychological outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Maternal Health , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Quarantine , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Anxiety Disorders/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/etiology , Female , Humans , Nigeria/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology
12.
Sch Psychol ; 36(5): 335-347, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354081

ABSTRACT

Early research on the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated differential impact on the Latinx community. There has been limited research exploring the mental health outcomes of the pandemic on Latinx youth. This study explores the severity of pandemic-related stress on Latinx youth considering their resilience factors and previous adverse childhood events (ACEs). Adolescents (n = 142) ages 13-18 completed measures related to exposure to the pandemic, pandemic stress, number of ACEs, resilience factors, and general demographic information. Results of multiple regression analysis found that exposure to the pandemic, ACEs, gender, and resilience factors predicted the levels of stress that youth experienced. No differences in pandemic-related stress were found between Latinx youth and their non-Latinx counterparts. Implications are discussed related to how school psychologists can support all students with culturally sensitive practices as we continue through the pandemic and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).


Subject(s)
Adverse Childhood Experiences/psychology , COVID-19 , Hispanic Americans/psychology , Resilience, Psychological , Stress, Psychological/ethnology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Adolescent , Female , Humans , Male , Schools
13.
Pediatr Diabetes ; 22(7): 1071-1080, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348165

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The current study explored pre-pandemic sociodemographics, medical characteristics, social/family support, and mood symptoms, and current COVID-19 experiences as predictors of mood, positive/negative diabetes-specific experiences, and COVID-19-specific distress among parents of children with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that parents from marginalized backgrounds, youth with higher pre-pandemic A1c and no CGM use, parents with lower pre-pandemic social/family support and more pre-pandemic mood/anxiety symptoms, and those with more negative COVID-19 experiences would have more depressive symptoms, fewer positive and more negative diabetes-specific experiences, and more COVID-19-specific distress during the initial months of the pandemic. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were parents of early school-age children with type 1 diabetes (n = 100; 65% non-Hispanic, white, 92% mothers, 75% married; Mchild age  = 6.74 ± 1.59 years) who had completed a behavioral intervention trial ≥6 months ago and were re-contacted in June/July 2020 to report on their COVID-19 pandemic experiences and parent psychosocial outcomes. Pre-pandemic parent mood/anxiety symptoms, family/social support, and children's medical characteristics (CGM use; MA1C  = 8.17% ± 1.40%) were assessed M = 1.45 ± 0.59 years prior. RESULTS: More pre-pandemic social support predicted fewer depressive symptoms, more positive diabetes-specific experiences, and less COVID-19-specific distress during the pandemic. More pre-pandemic depressive symptoms predicted more depressive symptoms during the pandemic. More life disruptions due to the pandemic were associated with more negative diabetes-specific experiences and more COVID-19-specific distress. Parents of color had more negative diabetes-specific experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Social support may be particularly important to assess and address through intervention. Pediatric diabetes care providers should monitor parent experiences in relation to children's diabetes management. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02527525.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/psychology , Pandemics , Parents/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Male , Parenting/psychology , Retrospective Studies , Schools , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Time Factors , United States
14.
PLoS One ; 16(8): e0255683, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1341509

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly altered the routine of life and caused unanticipated changes resulting in severe psychological responses and mental health crisis. The study aimed to identify psycho-social factors that predicted distress among Indian population during the spread of novel Coronavirus. METHOD: An online survey was conducted to assess the predictors of distress. A global logistic regression model was built, by identifying significant factors from individual logistic regression models built on various groups of independent variables. The prediction capability of the model was compared with the random forest classifier. RESULTS: The respondents (N = 1060) who are more likely to be distressed, are in the age group of 21-35 years, are females (OR = 1.425), those working on site (OR = 1.592), have pre-existing medical conditions (OR = 1.682), do not have health insurance policy covering COVID-19 (OR = 1.884), have perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (OR = 1.239), have lack of trust in government (OR = 1.246) and whose basic needs' fulfillment are unsatisfactory (OR = 1.592). The ones who are less likely to be distressed, have higher social support and psychological capital. Random forest classifier correctly classified 2.3% and 17.1% of people under lower and higher distress respectively, with respect to logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the prevalence of high distress experienced by Indians at the time of COVID-19 and provides pragmatic implications for psychological health at macro and micro levels during an epidemiological crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Psychological Distress , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
15.
Riv Psichiatr ; 56(4): 205-210, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1325471

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced parents and children to modify their habits with a radical change in the family routine and consequent increase in psychological stress. Children with a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDDs) are particularly vulnerable to new and unexpected situations; moreover, the parents of these children generally show high levels of psychological stress due to the greater commitment that this condition imposes on them. The aim of this study is to evaluate the disease status of NDDs children before and during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to evaluate the psychological effects related to measures of social distancing on these children and their families. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one children with NDDs, were enrolled in this study and followed up at the Child Neuropsychiatry Unit of the University Hospital Consortium Corporation Polyclinic of Bari (Italy) along with their parents. Parents were evaluated before national lockdown (baseline) and recontacted during the SARS-CoV-2 emergency almost after a year. The changes in emotional/behavioral problems of children and parenting stress before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were assessed with Child Behaviour CheckList (CBCL) and Parent Stress Index - short form (PSI). RESULTS: The analysis of the emotional and behavioral problems of children with NDDs did not show statistically significant differences between the before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period. The evaluations conducted on parents highlights an increase in parental stress during the pandemic. Significant differences (p<0.05) were found in three subscales: Parenting Distress (PD) scale, Dysfunctional Interaction Parent-Child (P-CDI) scale and Defensive responding scale (DF). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the increase in parental stress and a more difficult parent-child interaction with NDDs in the period of lockdown due to the pandemic; identification of these risk targets can be useful for interventions in similar situations. Therefore, it is necessary to provide caregivers information to manage and overcome challenges experienced during a pandemic and providing psychological support for caregivers of children with NDDs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Neurodevelopmental Disorders/psychology , Pandemics , Parents/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Caregivers/psychology , Child , Child Behavior , Child Behavior Disorders/etiology , Child Behavior Disorders/psychology , Emotions , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Parent-Child Relations , Psychosocial Support Systems , Quarantine , Severity of Illness Index , Social Isolation , Stress, Psychological/etiology
17.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 515, 2021 Jul 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318278

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In light of the pandemic, pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to increased psychological distress and in need of imperative preventive measures. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on mental health, lifestyle adaptations, and their determinants among pregnant women in the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: A survey was conducted electronically between June and August 2020. Pregnant women were recruited from prenatal clinics in the UAE and invited to participate in an online survey developed on Google Forms. The questionnaire included socio-demographic characteristics, the Impact of Event Scale- Revised, the Perceived Support Scale and lifestyle-related factors. RESULTS: A total of 384 pregnant women completed the questionnaire of whom 20.6% were in their 1st trimester, 46.1% in their 2nd and 33.3% in their 3rd trimester. The mean IES-R score for the respondents was 26.15 ± 13.55, corresponding to a mild stressful impact, which did not differ significantly among trimesters of pregnancy. Pregnant women expressed increased stress from staying home (64%), work (40%), feeling frightened (66%) and apprehensive (59%). Women reported increased support and sharing their feelings with family members (59%), mainly in the 1st and 3rd trimester of pregnancy (P < 0.05). There was a greater attention to mental health (48%), resting time (55.3%), and relaxing time (57.3%); while a decreased amount of time was spent engaging in physical activities (53.6%), which differed significantly between trimesters (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a mild stressful impact among pregnant women in the UAE, braced by strong family support and self-care mental health behaviors.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Physiological , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19 , Pregnant Women/psychology , Adult , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Female , Health Behavior , Humans , Pregnancy , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Arab Emirates
18.
PLoS Med ; 18(6): e1003621, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315878

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Globally, 235 million people are impacted by humanitarian emergencies worldwide, presenting increased risk of experiencing a mental disorder. Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a brief group psychological treatment delivered by trained facilitators without prior professional mental health training in a disaster-prone setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) from November 25, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Participants in both arms were assessed at baseline, midline (7 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 1 week after treatment in the experimental arm), and endline (20 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 3 months posttreatment). The intervention was Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a psychological treatment of 5 weekly sessions, which was compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) consisting of a family psychoeducation meeting with a referral option to primary care providers trained in mental healthcare. The setting was 72 wards (geographic unit of clustering) in eastern Nepal, with 1 PM+ group per ward in the treatment arm. Wards were eligible if they were in disaster-prone regions and residents spoke Nepali. Wards were assigned to study arms based on covariate constrained randomization. Eligible participants were adult women and men 18 years of age and older who met screening criteria for psychological distress and functional impairment. Outcomes were measured at the participant level, with assessors blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was psychological distress assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes included depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, "heart-mind" problems, social support, somatic symptoms, and functional impairment. The hypothesized mediator was skill use aligned with the treatment's mechanisms of action. A total of 324 participants were enrolled in the control arm (36 wards) and 319 in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). The overall sample (N = 611) had a median age of 45 years (range 18-91 years), 82% of participants were female, 50% had recently experienced a natural disaster, and 31% had a chronic physical illness. Endline assessments were completed by 302 participants in the control arm (36 wards) and 303 participants in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). At the midline assessment (immediately after Group PM+ in the experimental arm), mean GHQ-12 total score was 2.7 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 1.7, 3.7, p < 0.001), with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.4 (95% CI: -0.5, -0.2). At 3 months posttreatment (primary endpoint), mean GHQ-12 total score was 1.4 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 0.3, 2.5, p = 0.014), with SMD of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.4, 0.0). Among the secondary outcomes, Group PM+ was associated with endline with a larger proportion attaining more than 50% reduction in depression symptoms (29.9% of Group PM+ arm versus 17.3% of control arm, risk ratio = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4, p = 0.002). Fewer participants in the Group PM+ arm continued to have "heart-mind" problems at endline (58.8%) compared to the control arm (69.4%), risk ratio = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7, 1.0, p = 0.042). Group PM+ was not associated with lower PTSD symptoms or functional impairment. Use of psychosocial skills at midline was estimated to explain 31% of the PM+ effect on endline GHQ-12 scores. Adverse events in the control arm included 1 suicide death and 1 reportable incidence of domestic violence; in the Group PM+ arm, there was 1 death due to physical illness. Study limitations include lack of power to evaluate gender-specific effects, lack of long-term outcomes (e.g., 12 months posttreatment), and lack of cost-effectiveness information. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a 5-session group psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists modestly reduced psychological distress and depression symptoms in a setting prone to humanitarian emergencies. Benefits were partly explained by the degree of psychosocial skill use in daily life. To improve the treatment benefit, future implementation should focus on approaches to enhance skill use by PM+ participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03747055.


Subject(s)
Depression/therapy , Mental Health , Natural Disasters , Problem Solving , Psychotherapy, Brief , Psychotherapy, Group , Relief Work , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/therapy , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Adaptation, Psychological , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Functional Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nepal , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
19.
Nutrients ; 13(7)2021 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1308384

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of people worldwide. An increase in perceived stress can lead to unhealthy behaviors such as increased food consumption. The aim of this study was to find the level of perceived stress and its relationship with increased food consumption during the "third wave" of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. This was a cross-sectional study that employed anonline self-reported frequency of consumption questionnaire and the Perceived Stress Scale-10. A total of 637 subjects participated and 83.6% of respondents had moderate or high stress-more prevalent in the female and young respondents. Moreover, 36.1% of respondents reported that they had increased the frequency of consumption of some foods, mainly nuts, snacks, and jellybeans, along with coffee, tea, cocoa, and soft drinks. Eating between meals was more pronounced in those with high stress (65.1%) than in those with moderate stress (40.4%) and low stress (20.2%). Furthermore, the respondents with high stress reported greater weight gain. Thus, the results show that the level of perceived stress during the 'third wave' of this pandemic increased food consumption.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Eating/psychology , Hyperphagia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Hyperphagia/etiology , Middle Aged , Spain/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Weight Gain , Weight Loss , Young Adult
20.
Epilepsy Behav ; 122: 108184, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305328

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether published studies that identified a causal relationship between psychological stress and seizure worsening in patients with epilepsy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic considered the temporality of Hill's criteria. METHOD: A systematic review approach was used to comprehensively search MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant studies. Studies that reported an association between psychological stress and seizure worsening in patients with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic were included accordingly. The quality of assessments in each study was evaluated and an assessment for considering temporality in the causal relationship between the two events in each study was carried out. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the analysis. Most (14/17) were cross-sectional studies and only four out of these 17 studies (23.5%) considered temporality in the causality. Further, these four studies did not consider temporality in the study design, they only described it as a limitation. CONCLUSION: We found that many articles reported a causal relationship between psychological stress and seizure worsening without considering temporality. As both researchers and readers, we need to consider temporality when interpreting the causal relationship between increased psychological stress and seizure worsening in patients with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epilepsy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Epilepsy/complications , Epilepsy/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Seizures/epidemiology , Seizures/etiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...