The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Health in China and Spain: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in physical and mental health impact across continents during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the levels of impact of COVID-19 on mental health among people from Spain and China and correlated mental health parameters with variables relating to symptoms similar to COVID-19, COVID-19 knowledge, and precautionary measures. METHODS: We collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms, contact history with persons with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 knowledge, and precautionary measures. Participants completed the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21). To analyze the differences in the mental health parameters, the mean scores between Chinese and Spanish respondents were compared using the independent samples t test. The differences in categorical variables between the two samples were analyzed by the chi-square test. Linear regression was used to calculate the univariate associations between the independent variables and mental health parameters for both groups separately, with adjustments made for age, gender, and education. RESULTS: A total of 1528 participants (Spain: n=687; China: n=841) were recruited. The mean age of the Chinese respondents was 24.73 years (SD 7.60; range 18-65 years), and the mean age of the Spanish respondents was 43.06 years (SD 11.95; range 18-76 years). Spanish participants reported significantly more symptoms similar to COVID-19 infection (eg, fever, sore throat, and breathing difficulties), contact history with COVID-19, higher perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, frequent use of medical services, and less confidence in medical services compared with their Chinese counterparts (P<.001). Spanish participants reported significantly higher DASS-21 stress and depression scores, while Chinese participants reported significantly higher IES-R scores (P<.001). Chinese participants encountered more discrimination from other countries (P<.001). Significantly more Chinese participants reported using face masks than Spanish ones (P<.001). More exposure to health information was associated with adverse mental health in Spain (depression: P=.02; anxiety: P=.02; stress: P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that Spanish respondents reported higher levels of stress and depression as well as more symptoms and use of medical services. In preparation for the next pandemic, Spain needs to establish a prompt policy to implement rapid response and enhance medical services to safeguard physical and mental health.

A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China.

In addition to being a public physical health emergency, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected global mental health, as evidenced by panic-buying worldwide as cases soared. Little is known about changes in levels of psychological impact, stress, anxiety and depression during this pandemic. This longitudinal study surveyed the general population twice - during the initial outbreak, and the epidemic's peak four weeks later, surveying demographics, symptoms, knowledge, concerns, and precautionary measures against COVID-19. There were 1738 respondents from 190 Chinese cities (1210 first-survey respondents, 861 s-survey respondents; 333 respondents participated in both). Psychological impact and mental health status were assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), respectively. IES-R measures PTSD symptoms in survivorship after an event. DASS -21 is based on tripartite model of psychopathology that comprise a general distress construct with distinct characteristics. This study found that there was a statistically significant longitudinal reduction in mean IES-R scores (from 32.98 to 30.76, p < 0.01) after 4 weeks. Nevertheless, the mean IES-R score of the first- and second-survey respondents were above the cut-off scores (>24) for PTSD symptoms, suggesting that the reduction in scores was not clinically significant. During the initial evaluation, moderate-to-severe stress, anxiety and depression were noted in 8.1%, 28.8% and 16.5%, respectively and there were no significant longitudinal changes in stress, anxiety and depression levels (p > 0.05). Protective factors included high level of confidence in doctors, perceived survival likelihood and low risk of contracting COVID-19, satisfaction with health information, personal precautionary measures. As countries around the world brace for an escalation in cases, Governments should focus on effective methods of disseminating unbiased COVID-19 knowledge, teaching correct containment methods, ensuring availability of essential services/commodities, and providing sufficient financial support.

The efficacy of melatonin and melatonin agonists in insomnia - An umbrella review.

We conducted an umbrella review to summarize all available systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the efficacy of melatonin and melatonin agonists in primary and comorbid insomnia disorders. Two independent reviewers conducted a search of Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, PROSPERO and grey literature from inception to July 2018. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Instrument. Eighteen studies were found, with methodological quality ranging from Moderate to Critically Low. Of the twelve papers evaluating melatonin, there is statistically significant improvement in sleep latency and total sleep time, with a lack of consensus on whether these are clinically meaningful. Similar results are observed across the three reviews on ramelteon. The evidence for other melatonin agonists is sparse. We conclude that existing evidence is limited by disparate methodological quality of the papers, as well as a lack of consensus regarding the type, definition and interpretation of outcome measures in the evaluation of efficacy for insomnia.