COVID-19 government measures and their impact on mental health: a cross-sectional study of older primary care patients in Germany.

Background: With the outbreak of COVID-19, government measures including social distancing and restrictions of social contacts were imposed to slow the spread of the virus. Since older adults are at increased risk of severe disease, they were particularly affected by these restrictions. These may negatively affect mental health by loneliness and social isolation, which constitute risk factors for depressiveness. We aimed to analyse the impact of perceived restriction due to government measures on depressive symptoms and investigated stress as mediator in an at-risk-population in Germany. Methods: Data were collected in April 2020 from the population of the AgeWell.de-study, including individuals with a Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE) score ≥9, using the depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Feeling restricted due to COVID-19 government measures was surveyed with a standardized questionnaire. Stepwise multivariate regressions using zero-inflated negative binomial models were applied to analyse depressive symptoms, followed by a general structural equation model to assess stress as mediator. Analysis were controlled for sociodemographic factors as well as social support. Results: We analysed data from 810 older adults (mean age = 69.9, SD = 5). Feeling restricted due to COVID-19 government measures was linked to increased depressiveness (b = 0.19; p < 0.001). The association was no longer significant when adding stress and covariates (b = 0.04; p = 0.43), while stress was linked to increased depressive symptoms (b = 0.22; p < 0.001). A final model confirms the assumption that the feeling of restriction is mediated by stress (total effect: b = 0.26; p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found evidence that feeling restricted due to COVID-19 government measures is associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms in older adults at increased risk for dementia. The association is mediated by perceived stress. Furthermore, social support was significantly associated with less depressive symptoms. Thus, it is of high relevance to consider possible adverse effects of government measures related to COVID-19 on mental health of older people.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry.

INTRODUCTION: People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons' life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor' is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient-participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient-participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I-V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.

Depression and Anxiety in Old Age during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Study of Individuals at Cardiovascular Risk and the General Population.

Our study aims to examine the associations of sociodemographic factors, social support, resilience, and perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic with late-life depression and anxiety symptoms in a cardiovascular risk group and a matched sample from the German general population during the beginning of the pandemic and draw a comparison regarding psychosocial characteristics. Data of n = 1236 participants (aged 64-81 years) were analyzed, with n = 618 participants showing a cardiovascular risk profile, and n = 618 participants from the general population. The cardiovascular risk sample had slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and felt more threatened by the virus due to pre-existing conditions. In the cardiovascular risk group, social support was associated with less depressive and anxiety symptoms. In the general population, high social support was associated with less depressive symptoms. Experiencing high levels of worries due to COVID-19 was associated with more anxiety in the general population. Resilience was associated with less depressive and anxiety symptoms in both groups. Compared to the general population, the cardiovascular risk group showed slightly higher levels of depressive symptomatology even at the beginning of the pandemic and may be supported by addressing perceived social support and resilience in prevention programs targeting mental health.

Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the AgeWell.de Study-A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Controlled Lifestyle Trial against Cognitive Decline.

Targeting dementia prevention, first trials addressing multiple modifiable risk factors showed promising results in at-risk populations. In Germany, AgeWell.de is the first large-scale initiative investigating the effectiveness of a multi-component lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the recruitment process and baseline characteristics of the AgeWell.de participants to gain an understanding of the at-risk population and who engages in the intervention. General practitioners across five study sites recruited participants (aged 60-77 years, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia/CAIDE dementia risk score ≥ 9). Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with eligible participants, including neuropsychological assessments. We analyzed group differences between (1) eligible vs. non-eligible participants, (2) participants vs. non-participants, and (3) between intervention groups. Of 1176 eligible participants, 146 (12.5%) dropped out before baseline; the study population was thus 1030 individuals. Non-participants did not differ from participants in key sociodemographic factors and dementia risk. Study participants were M = 69.0 (SD = 4.9) years old, and 52.1% were women. The average Montreal Cognitive Assessment/MoCA score was 24.5 (SD = 3.1), indicating a rather mildly cognitively impaired study population; however, 39.4% scored ≥ 26, thus being cognitively unimpaired. The bandwidth of cognitive states bears the interesting potential for differential trial outcome analyses. However, trial conduction is impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring adjustments to the study protocol with yet unclear methodological consequences.