Fear and Depression among Residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina during COVID-19 Outbreak - Internet Survey.

BACKGROUND: Occurrence of symptoms of fear and depression among general population during the outbreak of COVID-19 seems to present an emerging problem worldwide. The aim of this study was to examine levels of fear and depressive symptoms in association with COVID-19 outbreak and to assess other contributing factors in the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Link to an anonymous questionnaire, mainly based on The Fear of COVID-19 Scale (Ahorsu et al. 2020) and two-item and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQs) (Maurer et al. 2018) (background information, fear assessment and information regarding depression) was distributed online to general population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. RESULTS: Out of 1201 respondents, 217 (18.0%) reported experiencing fear and 341 (28.4%) reported having symptoms of depression during COVID-19 outbreak. The mean age of the subjects was 30.57±11.26. Being older (OR=1.044; 95% CI 1.031-1.057; p<0.001) and having moderate to severe depressive symptoms (OR=1.093; 95% CI 1.067-1.120; p<0.001) were independent significant predictors for developing fear; living in rural environment (OR=0.551; 95% Cl 0.325-0.935; p=0.0027) significantly decreased the risk of developing fear; being female (OR=1.750; 95% CI 1.242-2.466; p=0.001), unemployed (OR=1.557; 95% CI 1.040-2.330; p=0.032) or student (OR=1.943; 95% CI 1.450-2.604; p<0.001) were independent significant predictors for developing moderate to severe depressive symptoms in association with COVID-19. Mann Whitney U-test showed that being older was statistically associated with fear (p<0.001) and being younger was statistically associated with depressive symptoms (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, based on our findings, fear and depressive symptoms in general population of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the outbreak of COVID-19 were present in 18.06% (fear) and 28.39% (depression) of subjects and it was statistically associated with age, gender, occupation, living environment and may present a secondary uprising problem connected to outbreak of COVID-19.

Perceived sustainability of psychosocial treatment in low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is an evidence-based, generic, cost-saving and easily deliverable psychosocial intervention, adaptable to clinicians' personal manner of interaction with patients. It was implemented in mental health services in five low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe during a 12-month randomised-controlled trial (IMPULSE) to improve the effectiveness of out-patient treatment for people with psychotic disorders. AIMS: To investigate barriers and facilitators to the perceived sustainability of DIALOG+ that has been successfully implemented as a part of the IMPULSE project. METHOD: Three months after the IMPULSE trial's end, perceived sustainability of the DIALOG+ intervention was assessed via a short survey of clinicians and patients who took part in the trial. Quantitative data collected from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; content analysis assessed qualitative survey data. The views and experiences of key informants (patients, clinicians and healthcare policy influencers) regarding the sustainability and scale-up of DIALOG+ were further explored through semi-structured interviews. These data were explored using framework analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians mostly appreciated the comprehensiveness of DIALOG+, and patients described DIALOG+ meetings as empowering and motivating. The barrier most commonly identified by key informants was availability of financial resources; the most important facilitators were the clinically relevant structure and comprehensiveness of the DIALOG+ intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Participants showed a willingness to sustain the implementation of DIALOG+. It is important to maintain collaboration with healthcare policy influencers to improve implementation of DIALOG+ across different levels of healthcare systems and ensure availability of resources for implementing psychosocial interventions such as DIALOG+.

Organization of mental healthcare in Bosnia and Herzegovina during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), like any other pandemic, has imposed an unprecedented threat to physical and mental health to all nations, worldwide. There is no enough evidence in the literature in this area. The present study has been done to explore the organization of psychiatric services in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) to meet mental health needs of BH citizens during the particular restrictive measures caused by COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS: This online survey has been done for BH psychiatric institutions. Data were collected from psychiatric institutions in the mental health network of BH. A total of 38 complete responses have been received. RESULTS: Of 38 study participants, three were the departments of psychiatry in university clinical centers, two were psychiatric hospitals, four were psychiatric wards in general hospitals, 27 were community mental health centers, and two were institutes for alcoholism and drug addiction. During the pandemic, all services functioned on a reduced scale, adhering to measures to protect and self-protect both staff and service users. Protective equipment was provided to staff in some institutions in a timely and complete manner and in some in an untimely and incomplete manner. Consultative psychiatric examinations were mainly performed through telephone and online, where it exists as a standard patient monitoring protocol. The application of long-acting antipsychotics was continuous with adherence to restricted and protective measures. In opiate addiction replacement therapy services, substitution therapy was provided for a longer period to reduce frequent contacts between staff and patients. Individual and group psychotherapy continued in reduced number using online technologies, although this type of service was not administratively regulated. An initiative has been given to regulate and administratively recognize telepsychiatry by health insurance funds in the country. A number of psychological problems associated with restrictive measures and fear of illness have been reported by patients as well as by the professionals in mental healthcare teams. There were no COVID-19-positive patients seeking help from institutions that responded to the questionnaire. In one center, infected people with COVID-19 from abroad sought help through the phone. Only one involuntary hospitalization was reported. The involvement of mental health professionals in the work of crisis headquarters during the design of the COVID-19 pandemic control measures varies from satisfactory to insufficient. Education of staff, patients, and citizens was regular with direct instructions through meetings, press, and electronic media. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic in BH, all psychiatric services functioned on a reduced scale, adhering to measures to protect and self-protect staff and service users. All patients who asked for help have been adequately treated in direct inpatient or outpatient mental healthcare or online, despite telepsychiatric services not being recognized in health system in BH. There were neither infected patients nor staff with COVID-19 in the psychiatric institutions who responded in this research. A large-scale, multicenter study needs to be performed to get a broader picture and to guide us for future better service planning and delivery.