Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 639
Filter
3.
Front Public Health ; 10: 999795, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2142336

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study explores the inter-relationship between emotional distress in adults and gender, quarantine experiences, pandemic duration, and employment. Methods: An online cross-sectional online survey comprised 943 Israelis. The link to the survey was distributed via different personal and academic social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter). The survey was administered using the online survey portal Google Forms. Participants addressed questions about their socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, family status, employment, and quarantine experiences) and ranked their levels of stress, anxiety, and depression using the Hebrew version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-DASS-21. Results: The majority of the respondents (72%) were women, 39% experienced quarantine, and 55% were unemployed. About 42% experienced a short-term pandemic (one lockdown), and the rest experienced a continuous pandemic (two lockdowns). The MANCOVA results, controlling for family status, indicated that women and unemployed participants reported higher stress, anxiety, and depression levels than men and employed participants. Participants who experienced individual quarantine reported higher anxiety and depression. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between gender, employment, and pandemic duration. The experience of individual quarantine intensified the stress, anxiety, and depression for both employed and unemployed women. Conversely, the quarantine intensified stress, anxiety, and depression only for unemployed men, whereas the quarantine did not affect stress, anxiety, and depression among employed men. Conclusions: Employment is a critical factor regarding men's emotional state during such stressful situations as the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, individual quarantine and long-term pandemics are associated with opposite outcomes regarding individual mental health. The individual quarantine is associated with increased anxiety and depression, while a long-term, continuous pandemic is associated with decreased stress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Adult , Female , Male , Quarantine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Communicable Disease Control , Anxiety/epidemiology , Employment
4.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(9): e31052, 2021 09 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141346

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused great panic among the public, with many people suffering from adverse stress reactions. To control the spread of the pandemic, governments in many countries have imposed lockdown policies. In this unique pandemic context, people can obtain information about pandemic dynamics on the internet. However, searching for health-related information on the internet frequently increases the possibility of individuals being troubled by the information that they find, and consequently, experiencing symptoms of cyberchondria. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the relationships between people's perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and their depression, anxiety, and stress to explore the role of cyberchondria, which, in these relationship mechanisms, is closely related to using the internet. In addition, we also examined the moderating role of lockdown experiences. METHODS: In February 2020, a total of 486 participants were recruited through a web-based platform from areas in China with a large number of infections. We used questionnaires to measure participants' perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, to measure the severity of their cyberchondria, depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, and to assess their lockdown experiences. Confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, common method bias, descriptive statistical analysis, and correlation analysis were performed, and moderated mediation models were examined. RESULTS: There was a positive association between perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and depression (ß=0.36, t=8.51, P<.001), anxiety (ß=0.41, t=9.84, P<.001), and stress (ß=0.46, t=11.45, P<.001), which were mediated by cyberchondria (ß=0.36, t=8.59, P<.001). The direct effects of perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety (ß=0.07, t=2.01, P=.045) and stress (ß=0.09, t=2.75, P=.006) and the indirect effects of cyberchondria on depression (ß=0.10, t=2.59, P=.009) and anxiety (ß=0.10, t=2.50, P=.01) were moderated by lockdown experience. CONCLUSIONS: The higher the perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, the more serious individuals' symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. In addition, the associations were partially mediated by cyberchondria. Individuals with higher perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to develop cyberchondria, which aggravated individuals' depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Negative lockdown experiences exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Perception , Quarantine/psychology , Stress, Psychological/complications , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quarantine/standards , Social Media/standards , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Stress, Psychological/psychology
5.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0277238, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119385

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During major pandemics such as COVID-19, the fear of being infected, uncertain prognoses, and the imposition of restrictions may result in greater odds of emotional and psychological distress. Hence, the present study examines the predictors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, and how they differ by gender. METHODS: Data of 2,756 adults aged 18 years and above from a cross-sectional online survey conducted between July and October 2020 was used for this study. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out. The results were presented as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with their respective confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Lower odds of psychological distress were found among males compared to females and among individuals aged 45-64 or 65-84 years compared to those aged 18-44. The odds of psychological distress decreased with a rise in income, with individuals whose annual income was greater than or equal to $100,000 being less likely to experience psychological distress compared to those whose income was less than $20,000. The odds of psychological distress were higher among residents of Ontario compared to residents of Quebec. Similarly, the odds of psychological distress were higher among individuals who reported experiencing COVID-19 symptoms compared to those who did not report any COVID-19 symptoms. The disaggregated results by gender showed that age, province, and self-reported COVID-19 symptoms had significant associations with psychological distress in both males and females, but these effects were more pronounced among females compared to males. In addition, income was negatively associated with psychological distress for both males and females, with this effect being stronger among males. CONCLUSION: Five exposure variables (gender, age, province, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, and total annual income in 2019) significantly predicted the likelihood of reporting psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Clearly, there is an imminent need to provide mental health support services to vulnerable groups. Additionally, interventions and policies aimed at combating psychological distress during pandemics such as COVID-19 should be gender specific.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Adult , Male , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Ontario/epidemiology
6.
Lupus ; 31(14): 1808-1815, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2117373

ABSTRACT

To verify the psychological and quality of life benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. In this study, levels of psychological stress, psychopathological symptoms, quality of life, and satisfaction with life were compared in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases vaccinated against COVID-19 (n = 132) versus unvaccinated patients (n = 254). To this end, we used the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), EUROQoL-5Q health questionnaire, and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found with better scores in the vaccinated group in the following quality of life dimensions: mobility (p ≤ 0.010), domestic activities (p ≤ 0.004), pain/discomfort (p ≤ 0.001), and anxiety/depression (p≤ 0.005). The scores were also significantly higher in the vaccinated group for the total values of quality of life (p ≤ 0.001), health status self-assessment on the EUROQoL-5Q (p ≤ 0.043), and satisfaction with life (p ≤ 0.015). In addition, the unvaccinated group presented higher scores with clinically pathological levels in depression and psychoticism for somatizations (p ≤ 0.006), depression (p ≤ 0.015), anxiety (p ≤ 0.003), and phobic anxiety (p ≤ 0.001). Finally, participants vaccinated with the complete regimen showed better levels of psychological well-being than those who were not vaccinated or those that had not completed the vaccination regimen. Our results reflect and confirm the positive effects reported elsewhere of the COVID-19 vaccine in autoimmune patients with systemic diseases, both in terms of quality and satisfaction with life as well as psychopathological symptoms and perceived stress. These benefits increased as the patients completed their vaccination schedule.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic , Humans , Quality of Life , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Vaccination
7.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0277174, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2116998

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting the mental health of hospital workers. During the prolonged pandemic, hospital workers may experience much more severe psychological distress, leading to an increased risk of suicide. This study aimed to investigate changes in psychological effects on hospital workers over 12 months from the beginning of the pandemic and clarify factors associated with psychological distress and suicide-related ideation 1-year after the pandemic's beginning. These repeated, cross-sectional surveys collected demographic, mental health, and stress-related data from workers in 2 hospitals in Yokohama, Japan. The first survey, conducted in March-April 2020, contained the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) assessing general distress and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) assessing event-related distress. In the second survey in March 2021, hospital workers at the same two hospitals were reassessed using the same questionnaire, and Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was added to assess their suicide-related ideation. The findings of the first and second surveys revealed that the average score of GHQ-12 (3.08 and 3.73, respectively), the IES-R total score (6.8 and 12.12, respectively), and the prevalence rates of severe general distress (35.0% and 44.0%, respectively) and severe event-related distress (7.0% and 17.1%, respectively) deteriorated. The second survey showed that 8.6% of the hospital workers were experiencing suicide-related ideation. Both the general and event-related distress were associated with suicide-related ideation. In these surveys, mental health outcomes among the hospital workers deteriorated over one year from the pandemic's beginning, and their severe psychological distress was the risk factor for the suicide-related ideation. Further studies are needed to compare the psychological effects on hospital workers during and after the prolonged pandemic and to explore appropriate measures to support hospital workers' mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Suicide , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Hospitals
8.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(22)2022 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2116196

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed great pressure on healthcare facilities, exposing healthcare professionals to various challenges that may result in the onset of moral distress, a condition of psychological distress caused by the inability to act as it would be most morally appropriate. The purpose of this research was to investigate the experience lived by nurses who worked in an intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a phenomenological study using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Sixteen nurses who worked in the COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit of Northern Italian Hospitals from January to April 2022 were selected through purposive sampling. Data on experiences, thoughts, and symptoms were collected through semi-structured interviews with in-person and remote modalities. RESULTS: Five themes and fourteen subthemes emerged from the study. The themes are: (1) pride, isolation, and fear; (2) teamwork and organisation; (3) moral/ethical aspect; (4) true heroes; and (5) dignity. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intensive care unit nurses. It has emerged that the risk of moral distress is high among healthcare workers in the front line of the fight against the virus. This condition should be avoided and managed through early psychological interventions, sharing of experiences, and a good organization that supports decision-making and professional well-being.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Morals , Critical Care
9.
J Nurs Educ ; 61(11): 641-645, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2110336

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although mental health symptoms increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, little is known about the associations between nursing students' perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 and their academic and psychological well-being. This study examined associations between perceived COVID-19 risk, likelihood of completing nursing education, and mental health factors of nursing students. METHOD: A total of 979 nursing students completed self-report measures of perceived COVID-19 risk, anticipated academic completion, anxiety and depressive symptoms, stress, coping self-efficacy, hope, and social support. RESULTS: Students with higher perceived COVID-19 risk reported increased anxiety and depression as well as decreased likelihood of graduating, coping self-efficacy, and levels of social support. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate the need for increased mental health support for nursing students for successful completion of their programs. Educators should increase support and proactively strengthen positive psychology factors to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and other crises on nursing students' well-being. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(11):641-645.].


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Students, Nursing , Humans , Students, Nursing/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Pandemics , Adaptation, Psychological
10.
BMC Psychol ; 10(1): 255, 2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108983

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although the Multidimensional Interaction Model of Stress, Anxiety and Coping (MIMSAC) has been known for years, there is a lack of research examining this theory longitudinally in stressful events. This study aims to revisit the MIMSAC among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective cohort study with the longitudinal design was performed during the first (W1, March 30-April 29, 2020) and second wave (W2, November 3-December 3, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 216 university students with a mean age of 22 years (ranging from 20 to 36, M = 22.13, SD = 2.04) participated in the study. An online survey included Perceived Stress Scale, Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. RESULTS: Due to the MIMSAC, all variables changed substantially across W1 and W2, adapting to an unpredictable environment. Women scored higher than men in stress, anxiety, emotion- and avoidance-oriented coping styles. We found the indirect effect of emotion-oriented coping on the stress-anxiety relationship and task-oriented coping on the anxiety-stress interaction. Avoidance was not found as a mediator in the stress-anxiety interaction. CONCLUSION: Emotion-oriented coping adversely affected mental health, increasing anxiety in response to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Task-oriented coping efficiently decreased stress in reaction to high anxiety, but only in men. Avoidance seems to be an ineffective coping style during the COVID-19 pandemic. Campus intervention programs should focus on reducing negative emotions and increasing the frequency of task-oriented coping strategies among university students.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress, Psychological , Male , Female , Humans , Young Adult , Adult , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Longitudinal Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Pandemics , Adaptation, Psychological , Anxiety , Anxiety Disorders
11.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(21)2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099557

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, university students have adopted measures that completely transformed their educational environment, and this has generated an increase in psychological stress. The present study aimed to identify the factors associated with anxiety, depression, and stress in students at a university in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We conducted a cross-sectional analytical study in students in Lima, Peru. The DASS-21 scale was used to measure levels of depression, anxiety, and stress and associate it with socio-educational and COVID-19-related variables using generalized linear models with Poisson distribution, log link, and robust variance. Of 400 students surveyed, 19.2%, 23.2% and 17.2% of students presented depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively. The frequency of depression (PR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.84-0.99), anxiety (PR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.83-0.99) and stress (PR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.86-0.99) was lower in women. The students of the engineering and business faculty presented a higher frequency of anxiety (PR = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.00-1.22). There was a greater frequency of presenting anxiety, depression and stress in students who worked in a different area of health or did not work. Our results suggest the importance of promoting mental health awareness campaigns in university students due to the constant academic load they have.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Peru/epidemiology , Universities , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Mental Health , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology
12.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e059860, 2022 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2097978

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the risk factors for workplace bullying and mental health outcomes among workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: A nationwide online survey was conducted from August to September 2020 in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: 16 384 workers (men: n=9565; women: n=6789). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Workplace bullying was measured by one item from the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire; severe psychological distress according to the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (≥13) and suicidal ideation by one item. Prevalence ratios were calculated by modified Poisson regression analyses adjusting for potential confounders such as gender, age, occupational characteristics and a prior history of depression. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of workers experienced workplace bullying, 9% had severe psychological distress and 12% had suicidal ideation during the second and third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. The results of this study showed men, executives, managers and permanent employees had a higher risk of bullying than women or part-time workers. Increased physical and psychological demands were common risk factors for bullying, severe psychological distress and suicidal ideation. Starting to work from home was a significant predictor for adverse mental health outcomes but a preventive factor against workplace bullying. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed different high-risk groups for bullying or mental health during the pandemic. Any intervention to decrease workplace bullying or mental health problems should focus not only on previously reported vulnerable workers but also workers who have experienced a change in work style or job demands.


Subject(s)
Bullying , COVID-19 , Occupational Stress , Psychological Distress , Male , Female , Humans , Suicidal Ideation , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Workplace/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Japan/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
13.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(21)2022 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090169

ABSTRACT

The study aims to assess pregnancy-specific stress among pregnant women in Spain during the first lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two samples of pregnant women from the south of Spain (Andalusia) were assessed using the Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (PDQ) and a sociodemographic and obstetric questionnaire. Group 1 (N = 155) was recruited face-to-face, whereas Group 2 (N = 78) was recruited online. Pregnancy-specific stress levels were significantly different in both groups. The face-to-face group (Group 1) had higher pregnancy-specific stress levels than the online group (Group 2). The online sample over-represents young adult pregnant women with high education levels and a high number of previous miscarriages. The face-to-face study seems more accessible to racially and ethnically diverse groups. The main concern among both groups was the risk of having a sick neonate. Research during the COVID-19 pandemic can benefit from using online resources to collect data to screen and identify perinatal mental health problems in a crisis environment. Nevertheless, researchers should be aware of the potential limitations this strategy can have, for example, certain groups of people may have limited access to the internet.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Infant, Newborn , Young Adult , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Communicable Disease Control , Pregnant Women/psychology , Parturition/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Anxiety
14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(21)2022 Oct 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090151

ABSTRACT

Psychosocial job stressors increase the risk of mental health problems for the workers in health and social services (HSS). Although previous studies suggest that the accumulation of two or more stressors is detrimental to mental health, few studies have examined the synergistic interaction of accumulating job stressors. We examined survey responses from 9855 Finnish HSS workers in a cross-sectional study design from 2021. We conducted an interaction analysis of high job demands, low rewards and low workplace social capital on psychological distress, focusing on the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). Additionally, we analysed the interaction of job demands, low rewards and COVID-19 burden (extra workload and emotional load). Our analysis showed that the total RERI for the job stressors on psychological distress was considerable (6.27, 95% CI 3.14, 9.39). The total excess risk was caused by two-way interactions, especially between high demands and low rewards and by the three-way interaction of all stressors. The total RERI for job demands, low reward and COVID-19 burden (3.93, 95% CI 1.15, 6.72), however, was caused entirely by two-way interaction between high demands and low rewards. Mental health interventions tackling high demands, low rewards and low social capital are jointly needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Pandemics , Workplace/psychology , Workload/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Job Satisfaction
15.
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
16.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can ; 44(10): 1067-1075, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2076430

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the psychological and behavioural effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on a Canadian cohort of individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period. METHODS: In 2020, individuals between 20 weeks gestation and 3 months postpartum receiving maternity care from an urban Canadian clinic were invited to complete a questionnaire. The purpose-built questionnaire used validated scales including the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS), Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and questions from a SARS study. RESULTS: One hundred nine people completed the questionnaire (response rate, 55%) of whom 57% (n = 62) were postpartum. Most respondents (107, 98%) were married and had completed post-secondary education (104, 95%). Despite these protective factors, moderate to severe levels of depression (22%), anxiety (19%) and stress (27%), were recorded using the DASS-21, and 25% of participants (26) had depression (score ≥11) using the EPDS. Despite high social support in all MOS domains (median scores 84-100), a majority of participants reported loneliness (69, 67%) and were nearly or totally housebound (65, 64%). About half of participants worried about themselves (50, 46.3%) or their baby (59, 54%) contracting COVID-19, while the majority postponed (80, 74.1%) and cancelled (79, 73.2%) prenatal appointments. Being homebound or feeling lonely / lacking support were significant risk factors for psychological distress (P = 0.02) whereas exercise and strong social support were protective (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Pregnant and postpartum individuals experienced moderate to severe depression, anxiety, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exercise and strong social support were protective. Health care provider enquiry of home circumstances and activity may identify individuals needing enhanced supports.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depression, Postpartum , Maternal Health Services , Psychological Distress , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression, Postpartum/epidemiology , Depression, Postpartum/psychology , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Postpartum Period/psychology , Pregnancy , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
17.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(20)2022 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2071423

ABSTRACT

This study analyzed changes in the psychological health of students who were in the final year of their nursing degree during the COVID-19 pandemic and later served as nursing professionals in hospitals. Methods: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted over two periods of time (the first in April 2020 and the second 6 months later, in December 2020) with 296 students for a T0 baseline (rate response 68.83%) and 92 students for a T1 post-test sample (response rate 31.08%). The data were electronically collected using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, the Resilience Scale, and a post-traumatic stress questionnaire. The mean age of the sample participants was 24.17 years (SD = 5.51), and 89.11% were female. During the pandemic, 14.11% of students showed scores that indicated depression, and 32.61% showed scores that indicated anxiety. In December 2020, 86.5% of the participants were working as nurses, and the percentages of those with anxiety (12%) and depression (4.3%) were significantly lower than in the first sample period. A total of 20.7% of the participants had post-traumatic stress. High scores for resilience were significantly associated with better quality of life and lower levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. Conclusions: Although the percentages of participants with anxiety and depression decreased, they still presented with mental health problems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Students, Nursing , Humans , Female , Young Adult , Adult , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mental Health , Pandemics , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Quality of Life , Longitudinal Studies , Prospective Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology
18.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Oct 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066085

ABSTRACT

We aimed to determine the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress in university students in Paraguay during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 293 students from four universities in Paraguay in 2021. The DASS-21 mental health scale was used to measure the outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress) and evaluate their association with socio-educational variables. A total of 77.1% of the participants were women and 136 (46.4%) were between 21 and 25 years old. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress was 74.7%, 87.4%, and 57%, respectively. We found that being a woman and studying at a public university was positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. Receiving COVID-19 training increases the prevalence of mental health problems. In conclusion, high levels of anxiety, depression, and stress were found in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Being a woman, studying at a public university, and receiving training on COVID-19 were factors associated with a higher prevalence of presenting all the mental health problems evaluated. Furthermore, students aged 31 and over had a higher prevalence of depression and stress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Paraguay/epidemiology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology , Universities , Young Adult
19.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Oct 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066076

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The psychological well-being of students in higher education has become an increasingly important concern in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of prior studies were cross-sectional and thereby failed to capture the individual changes in mental health over time. Moreover, few studies have explored whether and how socioeconomic and education backgrounds could be related to college students' mental health changes. This study aimed to fill these gaps. METHODS: Data were from a nationwide, two-wave panel survey of college students in China. Baseline information was collected in November 2019, i.e., before the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. A follow-up survey was conducted in November and December 2020, when the epidemic was effectively contained in mainland China. In both waves, mental health was assessed with the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). The between-wave changes in psychological distress were measured and categorized. RESULTS: Overall, 13.5% of students experienced at least a one-standard-deviation increase in psychological distress over the one-year follow-up. Results from both bivariate and multivariable analysis showed that this marked distress increase was more pronounced among vocational college students (vs. academic undergraduate and postgraduate students) and those with lower levels of academic performance. In contrast, family socioeconomic status (as measured by parental education, family economic condition, and current residence) was not associated with distress changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of the educational disparities within the higher education system in understanding the mental health dynamics of college students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Schools , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology
20.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(19)2022 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065982

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus instigated a worldwide lockdown that affected students mitigating various psychological issues including depression, stress, and anxiety. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on undergraduate university students' psychological status in terms of depression, anxiety, and stress. A total of 206 students from the Higher College of Technology (HCT), Sharjah Campuses participated in this descriptive cross-sectional study. Data were collected between March and May 2021. Participants completed an online survey including a demographic data questionnaire and the depression, anxiety, stress scale (DASS-21). The mean depression, stress, and anxiety scores were 15.56 (±11.573), 17.13 (±10.946), and 14.90 (±10.523) respectively. Categorically, most students (33.3%) reported no depression, while 26.1% of students reported moderate depression. For stress, the majority (44.4%) experienced no stress, while 19.8% reported moderate stress. Strikingly, 36.7% of students reported extreme severe anxiety, with 28% reporting no anxiety. Students with history of depression, stress, and anxiety symptoms reported a statistically significant mean difference in depression, stress, and anxiety compared with those with no previous history of those symptoms. We conclude with a recommendation to expand mental health screening among undergraduate university students and design appropriate therapeutic modalities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology , United Arab Emirates/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL