[COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental diseases : Results of the COVID Ψ outpatient survey and recommendations for psychiatry]. / COVID-19-Impfung für Menschen mit schweren psychischen Erkrankungen : Ergebnisse des COVID-Ψ-Ambulant-Surveys und Empfehlungen für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illnesses are risk factors for SARS-CoV-2-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is an effective protection; therefore, high vaccination rates should be a major priority for people with mental illnesses. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identification of at-risk groups for non-vaccination and structures and interventions needed for widespread vaccination among people with mental illnesses from the perspective of outpatient psychiatrists and neurologists, (2) discussion of the results in the context of the international literature and (3) recommendations derived from them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of COVID-19 vaccination-related questions from the COVID Ψ online survey of n = 85 psychiatrists and neurologists in Germany. RESULTS: In the survey, people with schizophrenia, severe lack of drive, low socioeconomic status and homelessness were seen as risk groups for non-vaccination. Increased and targeted information, education, addressing and motivation and easily accessible vaccination offers by general practitioners, psychiatrists, and neurologists as well as complementary institutions were considered as important interventions. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccinations as well as information, motivation and access support should be systematically offered by as many institutions of the psychiatric, psychotherapeutic and complementary care systems in Germany as possible.

Medical appointments and provision of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mainz, Germany.

Previous evidence suggested that non-COVID-19-related medical care was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it remained unclear whether or to which extent this effect lasted beyond the first wave, or existed in a longer time frame. Here, we consider questionnaire data of the Gutenberg-COVID-19 study together with pre-pandemic baseline data of the Gutenberg Health Study concerning the region around Mainz, Germany, to study the effects of the pandemic on the provision of medical care until April 2021. We observed that the proportion of cancelled medical appointments was low and that the fraction of participants with a medical appointment as an indicator for the number of appointments being made was in line with pre-pandemic levels. Appointments were more likely cancelled by the patient (rather than the provider), and more likely cancelled by medical specialists such as dentists or ophthalmologists (rather than GPs). In conclusion, we found some evidence that, at least with regard to realized appointments, the medical system and the provision of medical care were not harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic on a longer time scale.

Introduction and Psychometric Validation of the Resilience and Strain Questionnaire (ResQ-Care)— A Scale on the Ratio of Informal Caregivers' Resilience and Stress Factors

Background: Informal caregivers are a particularly vulnerable population at risk for adverse health outcomes. Likewise, there are many scales available assessing individual caregiver burden and stress. Recently, resilience in caregivers gained increasing interest and scales started to assess resilience factors as well. Drawing on a homeostatic model, we developed a scale assessing both caregivers' stress and resilience factors. We propose four scales, two covering stress and two covering resilience factors, in addition to a sociodemographic basic scale. Based on the stress:resilience ratio, the individual risk of adverse health outcomes and suggestions for interventions can be derived. Methods: A total of 291 informal caregivers filled in the ResQ-Care as part of a survey study conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Exploratory factor analysis was performed. Validity analyses were examined by correlations with the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). Results: The data fitted our proposed four-factor solution well, explaining 43.3% of the variance. Reliability of each scale was at least acceptable with Cronbach's α ≥0.67 and MacDonald's ω ≥0.68 for all scales. The two strain scales weighed more than the resilience scales and explained 65.6% of the variance. Convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed for the BRS and PSS-4, whereas the GDS-15 correlation pattern was counterintuitive. Conclusion: The factor structure of the ResQ-Care scale was confirmed, with good indications of reliability and validity. Inconsistent correlations of the scales with the GDS-15 might be due to a reduced validity of GDS-15 assessment during the COVID-19 lockdown.