Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 283
Filter
1.
J Occup Health ; 64(1): e12356, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2084961

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This prospective study aimed to examine the association of psychosocial working conditions with adverse reactions after receiving COVID-19 vaccination in a sample of employees in Japan. METHODS: The data were retrieved from an online panel of full-time employees (E-COCO-J). The analysis included participants who were employed and were not vaccinated at baseline (June 2021) but received vaccination at a 4-month follow-up (October 2021). An 11-item scale measured the adverse reactions. Four types of psychosocial working conditions (i.e., job demands, job control, and supervisor and coworker support) were measured using the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between the psychosocial working conditions and adverse reactions of COVID-19 vaccines, adjusting for socioeconomic variables, chronic disease, the number of vaccination, type of vaccine, anxiety for adverse reactions, fear and worry about COVID-19, and psychological distress at baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 747 employees were included in the analysis. The average number of adverse reactions was 3.8 (standard deviation = 2.2): Arm pain (81.1%), fatigues (64.1%), muscle pains (63.3%), and fever (37.5°C+) (53.5%) were reported more frequently. Coworker support score was significantly and negatively associated with the numbers of adverse reactions (standardized ß = -0.100, P = .023). Women, young age, second-time vaccination, Moderna, and high psychological distress were significantly associated with adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Employees with low coworker support may be more likely to have adverse reactions after vaccinations. The findings of this study could support that increasing workplace support may reduce adverse reactions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Workplace , Female , Humans , Workplace/psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Prospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Japan/epidemiology , Social Support , Surveys and Questionnaires , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
3.
Nurs Stand ; 37(11): 44-50, 2022 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2056283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Moral distress arises when a person is aware of the right course to take but is prevented from acting on it by institutional constraints. While this concept has been considered by nursing ethicists for many years, it has been particularly associated with the unprecedented healthcare conditions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. AIM: To investigate the level of moral distress affecting advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: This was a mixed-methods study in which a bespoke cross-sectional survey was sent to 243 APNs from across the UK who had been recruited to a broader longitudinal cohort study. The survey asked about their experiences, well-being and moral distress. Open-ended questions asked about their concerns regarding the health and well-being of their patients and colleagues. FINDINGS: A total of 97 APNs completed the survey, yielding a 40% response rate. Levels of moral distress were significantly higher among APNs working in secondary care (P=0.026) compared with those working in primary care. All of the respondents expressed concerns about patients due to delayed care and about the mental well-being of their colleagues, particularly those who were redeployed to COVID-19 wards. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused moral and psychological distress for APNs. However, the type of distress and its direct causes varied among these practitioners. Tailored support is required to address moral distress and subsequently improve staff retention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Longitudinal Studies , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Morals
4.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 58(9)2022 Sep 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2033054

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Empathy is an important attribute of a healthy doctor-patient relationship. Although multiple studies have assessed empathy in different countries, little is known about its levels among Saudi residents and its association with perceived stress. Objectives: To assess the levels of empathy and to identify if there is an association with stress in general and across the demographic and training characteristics of residents. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was carried out from December 2020 to March 2021 among residents training at a tertiary academic center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Empathy and perceived stress were measured using the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Results: A total of 229 residents participated. The mean JSE score was 105.25 ± 15.35. The mean JSE scores were significantly higher among residents training in pediatrics (mean difference (MD) = 17.35, p < 0.001), family medicine (MD = 12.24, p = 0.007), and medical specialties (MD = 11.11, p = 0.012) when compared with surgical specialties and anesthesia. In addition, residents who worked 1-4 on-calls per month had a higher mean JSE score (MD = 11.23, p = 0.028) compared with those who worked 7 or more on-calls. Lastly, no correlation between empathy and perceived stress was detected in the whole sample (r = -0.007, p = 0.913); however, there was a correlation among residents training in medical specialties (r = -0.245, p = 0.025). Conclusion: Residents in our study had empathy levels comparable with Asian but lower than Western residents. We recommend qualitative studies that explore potential factors that might affect empathy among residents and studying the association between empathy and perceived stress among medical residents. Postgraduate curricula should incorporate interventions that foster a more empathetic doctor-patient relationship.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Empathy , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Physician-Patient Relations , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(18)2022 Sep 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2032956

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic induced long-term damages that weigh on the national health systems of various countries in terms of support and care. This review aimed to highlight the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in pregnant women. We first report data on the immune system physiopathology and the main viral infections in pregnancy, including COVID-19. Then, the attention is focused on the main factors that affect the mental health of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as (1) the fear of being infected and transmitting the infection to the fetus, (2) the cancellation of checkups and pre-child courses, and (3) confinement and the inability to have close friends or a partner at the time of delivery or in the first days after delivery, as well as family tensions. Because of all this, pregnant women find themselves in a stressful condition independent of the pregnancy, and thus experience anxiety, depression, insomnia, hostility, delirium, and an alteration of the mother-baby relationship. Several studies have shown an involvement of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis in response to the pandemic. We propose a possible involvement of the neuroendocrine system as a mediator of the psychological symptoms of pregnant women induced by COVID-19-related stress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System , Pandemics , Pituitary-Adrenal System , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology
6.
J Affect Disord ; 317: 79-83, 2022 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2004179

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women themselves are at higher risk for psychological symptoms. The impact of ongoing COVID-19 may increase the risk. However, it is uncertain whether COVID-19 affects pregnant women's psychological symptoms directly or indirectly being mediated. METHODS: This survey was conducted in four obstetrics and gynecology hospitals in Beijing from February 28, 2020, to April 26, 2020. Pregnant women who visited the antenatal-care clinic were mobilized to finish the online questionnaires, including the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Connor-Davidson resilience scale, and Insomnia Severity Index. RESULTS: A total of 828 pregnant women were included in the analysis. The estimated self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and any of the three were 12.2 %, 24.3 %, 13.3 %, and 33.1 %, respectively. Mediating effect analysis showed that pregnant women's response to COVID-19 was not directly associated with psychological symptoms but indirectly through the mediating effect of maternal concerns, which accounted for 32.35 % of the total effect. Stratified analysis by psychological resilience showed that women's attitude toward COVID-19 (OR, 2.68, 95 % CI: 1.16-6.18) was associated with a higher risk of psychological symptoms in those with poor psychological resilience. LIMITATIONS: The study was a non-probability sampling survey, and the causal relationship between maternal concerns and psychological symptoms could not be determined due to the study's design. CONCLUSIONS: Under public health emergencies such as COVID-19, routine antenatal care should still be prioritized, and concerns related to childbirth-related caused by such emergencies should also be addressed, especially for those with weak psychological resilience.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders , Anxiety/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/diagnosis , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Int J Ment Health Nurs ; 31(6): 1492-1502, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001654

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pandemic has had a great impact worldwide, specially affecting mental health and has undoubtedly taken part in human behaviour modification, increasing global health burden and with stress, anxiety and depression being the main contributors to this load. Because of the importance of this issue, the objective of this study was the creation of an explanatory model for the causal relationship of the main psychological variables: stress, anxiety and depression in the COVID-19 pandemic context. A cross-sectional study was carried out with a sample of 709 volunteers, sociodemographic variables and psychological symptoms were measured through a virtual DASS-21 questionnaire, during the COVID-19 pandemic, dated from November 2 to 6, 2020. A structural equation model using the weighted least squares means and the adjusted variance was employed for the creation and adjustment of the explanatory relational model. The results showed the presence of stress, anxiety and depression symptoms among the general population. The model showed an adequate fit (CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.06; P = 0.000) and was able to explain more than 80% of depressive symptoms (R2 = 0.86) and more than 70% of anxiety symptoms (R2 = 0.72), in addition to showing a unidirectional causal relationship of long-term stress on anxiety, and anxiety on depressive symptoms, showing a linked behaviour of the same, in the adjusted model. It was also outlined that this model was characterized by being expressed mainly in women, with lower quality of sleep and at a younger age.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology
9.
Hu Li Za Zhi ; 69(4): 20-26, 2022 Aug.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1964511

ABSTRACT

Cervical cancer, uterus cancer, and ovarian cancer are three common gynecological cancers. After diagnosis, the three therapeutic modalities available for treating gynecological cancers include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. During the diagnostic and treatment periods, these patients usually suffer from physical and psychologic distresses, including menopausal symptoms, infertility, sexual dysfunction, incontinence, anxiety, depression, and relationship changes, among others. Support from family members and significant others has the potential to buffer the psychological distress perceived by patients with gynecological cancers. However, those patients who undergo invasive treatment modalities or have intimate issues such as brachytherapy, the need to use a vaginal dilator, and sexual dysfunction tend to conceal relevant information from their families or friends, which may increase self-perceived loneliness when facing the impacts of the disease and treatments. Healthcare providers may help alleviate patients' psychological stresses by providing psychological support in a timely manner, initiating discussions of intimate issues, and fulfilling patient needs for related information. In addition, healthcare providers may provide one-on-one counseling and individualized care information to increase patients' understanding of their health status. Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients may self-isolate to avoid becoming infected or to recuperate from a COVID-19 infection, causing social isolation or delays of cancer treatment. Healthcare providers may further place caring phone calls and provide treatment information to increase patients' social support and lessen their psychological distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Psychological Distress , Female , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology
10.
Curr Med Sci ; 42(4): 885-894, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1959093

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether perceived stress mediated the relationship between hope and anxiety/depression symptoms among patients with COVID-19 during the epidemic. In addition, the potential moderating effect of coping styles was examined. METHODS: From February 26 to March 10, 2020, patients with COVID-19 were asked to complete a questionnaire online, which included demographic characteristics, as well as the SCL-90-Anxiety, SCL-90-Depression, Chinese Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS), Herth Hope Index (HHI), and Trait Coping Style Questionnaire (TCSQ). Hierarchical linear regression was performed to explore independent factors of anxiety/depression. A multi-group structural equation modeling with the collected data from patients in the Negative Coping style (NC) group and Positive Coping style (PC) group was used to test the hypothesized mechanism. RESULTS: In total, 382 valid questionnaires of patients were obtained, including 96 from NC patients and 286 from PC patients. In the hierarchical linear regression, hope and perceived stress were independent risk factors for both anxiety and depression in the total sample and PC group. However, hope was not independently related to anxiety/depression in the NC group. As hypothesized, the hope of patients had significant and negative indirect effects on both anxiety and depression that were mediated by perceived stress, However, the direct effect from stress on anxiety and depression was stronger for NC patients than for PC patients. Besides, hope had significant direct effects on anxiety/depression in PC patients, but not in NC patients. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 epidemic, perceived stress could mediate the relationship between hope and anxiety/depression symptoms among COVID-19 patients, with coping style moderating this cultivation process.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depression , Adaptation, Psychological , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Humans , Stress, Psychological/etiology
11.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 72: 103279, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1945121

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe critical care nurses' perception of moral distress during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving a questionnaire was conducted. Participants responded to the Italian version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised, which consists of 14 items divided in dimensions Futile care (three items), Ethical misconduct (five items), Deceptive communication (three items) and Poor teamwork (three items). For each item, participants were also invited to write about their experiences and participants' intention to leave a position now was measured by a dichotomous question. The data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. The study followed the checklist (CHERRIES) for reporting results of internet surveys. SETTING: Critical care nurses (n = 71) working in Swedish adult intensive care units. RESULTS: Critical care nurses experienced the intensity of moral distress as the highest when no one decided to withdraw ventilator support to a hopelessly ill person (Futile care), and when they had to assist another physician or nurse who provided incompetent care (Poor teamwork). Thirty-nine percent of critical care nurses were considering leaving their current position because of moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, critical care nurses, due to their education and experience of intensive care nursing, assume tremendous responsibility for critically ill patients. Throughout, communication within the intensive care team seems to have a bearing on the degree of moral distress. Improvements in communication and teamwork are needed to reduce moral distress among critical care nurses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nurses , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Critical Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Morals , Pandemics , Perception , Pilot Projects , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
12.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 8445, 2022 05 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931473

ABSTRACT

Although anxiety is common because of the transitional nature of the perinatal period, particularly high levels of anxiety have been observed in some studies of pregnant women during the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the severity of anxiety among pregnant women during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland, and factors associated with it. Cross-sectional study with a total of 1050 pregnant women recruited via social media in Poland during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 1 until June 1, 2020. The survey included validated psychological measures: the GAD-7 (anxiety), the PREPS (pandemic stress), with two subscales: preparedness and infection stress, and obstetric, sociodemographic and COVID-19 related variables. T-tests, ANOVAs, and hierarchical binary logistic regression for dichotomized GAD-7 scores (minimal or mild vs. moderate or severe) were used. Over a third of respondents experienced moderate or severe levels of anxiety. Predictors of moderate or severe anxiety were non-pandemic related factors like unplanned pregnancy and emotional and psychiatric problems, as well as pandemic related pregnancy stress. Levels of anxiety among pregnant women during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland exceeded pre-pandemic norms. Findings suggest that prior psychiatric conditions, unplanned pregnancy, and elevated pandemic-related pregnancy stress due to concerns about infection or poor preparation for birth contributed to the risk of high anxiety in Polish pregnant women during the pandemic onset. Given the harmful effects of antenatal anxiety on the health and well-being of mothers and their children, psychotherapeutic interventions, efforts to alleviate pregnant women's stress, and training in adaptive ways to cope with stress are vital to reduce the prevalence of maternal anxiety and its potential consequences during this global crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Parturition , Poland/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
13.
Work ; 72(1): 49-58, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875377

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a major cause of stress and anxiety at work. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the support provided to the employees by the workplaces about the depression, anxiety, stress, job satisfaction of the employees during the COVID-19. METHOD: The inclusion criterias were as follows: being between 18 and 65 years old, working at the time of the survey. The study self-administered included Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale (DASS), Organizational Support Perception Scale, Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS). RESULTS: In total, 260 people (mean age 38.17±14.9 years, 148 female) completed the survey. Extremely severe depression displayed on 39.9 %, extremely severe anxiety on 37.1%, and severe stress on 28.3% of the participants. Scores for depression (9.6±9.03), anxiety (7.2±7.04), stress (11.7±7.8) were also high for employees. It was observed that the average of organizational support score was 30.4±7.24, and the average job satisfaction score was 28.6±5.35. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between organizational support and job satisfaction (r = 0.562, p = 0.00). Considering the relationship between organizational support and DASS scale; there was negative correlation between (r =-0.161, p = 0.013). The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 32.9 % of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor, F (2,66)=117.145, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Organizational support are associated with a decline in mental health and job satisfaction. Health-promotion strategies directed at adopting or maintaining positive job organizational support-related behaviors should be utilized to address increases in psychological distress during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Job Satisfaction , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anxiety , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workplace/psychology , Young Adult
14.
Rev Esc Enferm USP ; 56: e20210548, 2022.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862367

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of psychological distress and fear of COVID-19 experienced by undergraduate student nurses who were about to begin their clinical placements. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out with 100 second- and third-year undergraduate student nurses of the University of Zaragoza (Spain). Measures included the Fear of COVID-19 Scale and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. RESULTS: Regularly, student nurses did not think of themselves as vulnerable to COVID-19. However, a significant association was observed between the student nurses' level of psychological distress and cohabiting with relatives or people who were considered vulnerable to the infection (p = 0.035). The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale results revealed a low level of psychological distress in general; the Fear of COVID-19 Scale indicated moderate fear (2.94). CONCLUSION: Student nurses who lived with their relatives experienced higher levels of stress due to the perceived risk of transmission, but were less fearful of loss of work and income. Anxiety in our sample was associated principally with not knowing their upcoming placement location.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Students, Nursing , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/psychology , Fear/psychology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Students, Nursing/psychology
15.
Support Care Cancer ; 30(8): 7005-7014, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1844386

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aims to understand the association between positive personal resources (i.e., optimism, hope, courage, trait mindfulness, and self-efficacy), resilience, and psychological distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, stress) in women with breast cancer and breast cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that personal positive resources can directly influence resilience, which in turn prevented psychological distress. METHODS: The research sample consisted of 409 Italian women (49% patients, 51% survivors) who were administered a questionnaire to assess positive resources, resiliency, and distress. structural equation model (SEM) analysis was carried out to confirm the hypothetical-theoretical model. RESULTS: Personal positive resources had a direct positive effect on resilience, which prevented from distress. These results were observed across cancer patients and survivors, and regardless the level of direct exposure to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients and survivors, the relationships between positive personal resources, resilience, and psychological distress is strong enough to be not influenced by the level of exposure to COVID-19 and despite COVID-19 pandemic caused the disruption of active treatment plans and delays in routine check-ups. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Implications of this study suggest the urgency to screen positive resources and to identify women with lower resilience and a potentially higher susceptibility to develop psychological distress. For these women, our findings suggest the implementation of psychological interventions that build resilience.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Courage , Mindfulness , Psychological Distress , Resilience, Psychological , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Self Efficacy , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Survivors
16.
Work ; 72(2): 399-407, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1834307

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Individuals might suffer emotional, psychological, and even bodily challenges as a result of any pandemic. The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on Saudi Arabian University students and faculty members has received little attention. OBJECTIVE: To assess stress during the COVID-19 pandemic among university college students and faculty members of Jouf University, KSA and evaluate the impact of socio- demographic factors on anxiety and depression levels. METHODS: Two hundred and seventeen participants from Jouf University completed an anonymous web-based survey that includes questionnaires about anxiety and depression symptoms. Beck's anxiety inventory (BAI) was used to assess the anxiety levels, and Beck's depression inventory (BDI) was used to determine the depression levels due to COVID 19 pandemic. The research was carried out between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. An ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to explain the odds of observing anxiety and depression. RESULTS: For "moderate anxiety" (22-35), the most frequently observed category of age, nationality, gender, duration spent in lockdown and profession was 20-30 years (n = 15, 65%), Saudis (n = 14, 61%), female (n = 15, 65%),>3 months (n = 17, 74%), and students (n = 15, 65%) respectively. For "moderate depression" (21-30), the most frequently observed category of age, nationality, gender, duration spent in lockdown and profession was 20-30 years (n = 10, 50%), Saudi (n = 15, 65%), female (n = 26, 65%).>3 months (n = 13, 65%), and both students and faculty members, each with an observed frequency of 10 (50%) respectively. Ordinal logistic regression analysis suggested that the observed effects of nationality, gender, and duration spent in lockdown period influenced the anxiety levels among participants. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the lockdown duration was more significant in students than in faculty members and females than in males. Authors recommend the critical need for intervention and prevention strategies to address college students' mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Faculty , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology , Universities
17.
Eur J Psychotraumatol ; 13(1): 2046330, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819742

ABSTRACT

The paper provides insights into the mental health consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the Central, Eastern, Nordic, Southern, and Western subregions of Europe, represented by five member countries of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). On the basis of the existing national research and experiences in these countries, we propose five lessons learned. (1) There is no evidence of a mental health pandemic so far in the countries in focus. No increase in severe mental disorders but some increase in the symptoms of common mental health disorders are observable. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the mental health burden of the pandemic. (2) The pandemic affects countries (including the mental health situation) differently, depending on the level of the exposure, management policies, pre-pandemic structural characteristics, and healthcare resources. (3) The pandemic affects people differently: the exposure severity to pandemic-related stressors differs between individuals, as well as individual resources to cope with these stressors. There are winners and losers as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. (4) Besides the negative consequences, the pandemic has had a positive impact. The rapidly applied innovations within the system of healthcare responses provide a window of opportunity for positive changes in mental healthcare policies, strategies, and practices. The increased focus on mental health during the pandemic may contribute to the prioritization of mental health issues at policy-making and organizational levels and may reduce stigma. (5) A stress- and trauma-informed response to COVID-19 is required. The European community of psychotraumatologists under the leadership of ESTSS plays an important role in promoting stress- and trauma-informed healthcare and policies of pandemic management. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a stepped-care public mental health model for the prevention of adverse mental health outcomes during pandemics. HIGHLIGHTS: Population mental health is affected differently in the COVID-19 pandemic: there are winners and losers, as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention.A stress- and trauma-informed public mental health stepped-care model can address pandemic-related mental health burden in a systematic way.


Este articulo proporciona información sobre las consecuencias para la salud mental de la pandemia por la COVID-19 en las subregiones Central, Oriental, Nórdica, Meridional y Occidental de Europa, representadas por cinco países miembros de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios del Estrés Traumático (ESTSS). Sobre la base de las investigaciones y experiencias nacionales existentes en estos países, proponemos cinco lecciones aprendidas: 1. No hay evidencia de una pandemia de salud mental hasta el momento en los países en estudio. No se observa un aumento de los trastornos mentales severos, pero sí un aumento de los síntomas de los trastornos de salud mental comunes. Se necesitan más estudios longitudinales de alta calidad para entender la carga de salud mental de la pandemia; 2. La pandemia afecta a los países (incluida la situación de salud mental) en forma diferente según el nivel de exposición, las políticas de gestión, las características estructurales previas a la pandemia y los recursos de atención en salud; 3. La pandemia afecta a las personas de distintas maneras: la severidad de exposición a los estresores relacionados con la pandemia difiere entre las personas, así como los recursos individuales para hacer frente a estos factores estresantes. Hay ganadores y perdedores así como grupos de riesgo identificables que necesitan atención especial; 4. Además de las consecuencias negativas, la pandemia ha tenido un impacto positivo. Las innovaciones aplicadas rápidamente dentro del sistema de respuestas de atención de la salud son una ventana de oportunidad para cambios positivos en las políticas, estrategias y prácticas de atención de la salud mental. El aumento del enfoque en la salud mental durante la pandemia puede contribuir a la priorización de problemas de salud mental en los niveles organizacionales y de formulación de políticas y podría reducir el estigma; 5. Se requieren respuestas frente a la COVID-19 informadas en estrés y en trauma. La comunidad europea de psicotraumatólogos, bajo el liderazgo de la ESTSS, juega un papel importante en la promoción de la atención en salud informada en estrés y trauma y las políticas de gestión de pandemias. Basados en las lecciones aprendidas, proponemos un modelo de salud mental pública de atención escalonada para la prevención de las consecuencias adversas de salud mental durante las pandemias.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Stress, Psychological/therapy
18.
J Clin Rheumatol ; 28(5): 250-256, 2022 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1806748

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort assembled during the height of mortality-associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in New York City, the objectives of this qualitative-quantitative mixed-methods study were to assess COVID-related stress at enrollment with subsequent stress and clinical and behavioral characteristics associated with successful coping during longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: Patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed rheumatic disease taking immunosuppressive medications were interviewed in April 2020 and were asked open-ended questions about the impact of COVID-19 on psychological well-being. Stress-related responses were grouped into categories. Patients were interviewed again in January-March 2021 and asked about interval and current disease status and how well they believed they coped. Patients also completed the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) measuring physical and emotional health during both interviews. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients had follow-ups; 83% were women, and mean age was 50 years. Patients who reported stress at enrollment had improved PROMIS-29 scores, particularly for the anxiety subscale. At the follow-up, patients reported persistent and new stresses as well as numerous self-identified coping strategies. Overall coping was rated as very well (30%), well (48%), and neutral-fair-poor (22%). Based on ordinal logistic regression, variables associated with worse overall coping were worse enrollment-to-follow-up PROMIS-29 anxiety (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; confidence interval [CI], 1.1-17.3; p = 0.03), not reporting excellent/very good disease status at follow-up (OR, 2.7; CI, 1.1-6.5; p = 0.03), pandemic-related persistent stress (OR, 5.7; CI, 1.6-20.1; p = 0.007), and pandemic-related adverse long-lasting effects on employment (OR, 6.1; CI, 1.9-20.0; p = 0.003) and health (OR, 3.0; CI, 1.0-9.0; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study reflects the evolving nature of COVID-related psychological stress and coping, with most patients reporting they coped well. For those not coping well, multidisciplinary health care providers are needed to address long-lasting pandemic-associated adverse consequences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Rheumatic Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
19.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(8)2022 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785712

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on society, particularly affecting its vulnerable members, including pregnant women and their unborn children. Pregnant mothers reported fear of infection, fear of vertical transmission, fear of poor birth and child outcomes, social isolation, uncertainty about their partner's presence during medical appointments and delivery, increased domestic abuse, and other collateral damage, including vaccine hesitancy. Accordingly, pregnant women's known vulnerability for mental health problems has become a concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, also because of the known effects of prenatal stress for the unborn child. The current narrative review provides a historical overview of transgenerational effects of exposure to disasters during pregnancy, and the role of maternal prenatal stress. We place these effects into the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hereby, we aim to draw attention to the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women of reproductive age (15-49 year) and its potential associated short-term and long-term consequences for the health of children who are conceived, carried, and born during this pandemic. Timely detection and intervention during the first 1000 days is essential to reduce the burden of transgenerational effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Parturition/psychology , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
20.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 5632, 2022 04 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773996

ABSTRACT

Psychological-distress increased at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina. Longitudinal studies in developing countries are scarce. Particularly, Argentina had one of the longest lockdowns. Differences in preventive measures against the virus spread between countries may differentially affect the mental health of the populations. Here we aimed to characterize distinct psychological-distress and related-symptoms trajectories associated with the pandemic and explore risk/protective factors. In this longitudinal study, data from 832 Argentineans were collected every 3-5 months, between April 2020-August 2021. Mean psychological-distress levels and related-symptoms tended to increase over time. However, latent-class analysis identified four distinct psychological-distress trajectories. Most individuals had consistently good mental health (Resilient). Two classes showed psychological-distress worsening during the initial phase of the pandemic and recovered at different time points (Fast Recovery; Slow Recovery). The remaining class maintained a mild -level of psychological-distress and began to deteriorate in March 2021 (Deteriorating) continuously. Individuals who are younger, female, have pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, or have high neuroticism or lower resilience were more likely to experiencing fluctuations in psychological-distress. The mental health trajectory during the pandemic had a complex dynamic. Although most participants remained resilient, a vulnerable group was detected, which deteriorated over time and should be considered by health-services.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Psychological Distress , Adaptation, Psychological , Argentina/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Developing Countries , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Mental Health , Pandemics , Quarantine/psychology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL