The importance of mentalization, coping mechanisms, and perceived stress in the prediction of resilience of healthcare workers.

Resilience is the process of overcoming stressors. Being able to examine the effect of the Covid epidemic on healthcare workers (HCWs) has provided us a unique opportunity to understand the impact of trauma on resilience. We aimed to investigate the relationship between stress, mentalization, and an individual's coping capacity against a real risk (Covid-19) and evaluate the predictors of resilience. 302 HCWs have enrolled in the study and completed an online questionnaire assessing demographics, perceived stress, resilience, coping, and mentalization. We utilized statistical analysis together with a Random Forest classifier to analyze the interaction between these factors extensively. We applied ten times ten-fold cross-validation and plotted Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) with the calculated Area Under the Curve(AUC) score and identify the most important features. Our experiments showed that the Perceived stress scale has the strongest relationship with resilience. The subject's awareness level of emotional states is an important factor that determines the level of resilience. Coping styles such as the decision of giving up is also a crucial indicator. We conclude that being aware of the risks and the mental states are the dominant factors behind the resilience levels of healthcare workers under pandemic conditions.

Factors associated with progression of depression, anxiety, and stress-related symptoms in outpatients and inpatients with COVID-19: A longitudinal study.

It is known that there is an increase in the frequency of psychiatric disturbances in the acute and post-illness phase of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Comorbid psychiatric symptoms complicate the management of patients and negatively affect the prognosis, but there is no clear evidence of their progress. We aimed to determine psychiatric comorbidity in inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 and recognize the factors that predict psychiatric comorbidity. For this purpose, we evaluated patients on the first admission and after 4 weeks. We investigated psychiatric symptoms in outpatients (n = 106) and inpatients (n = 128) diagnosed with COVID-19. In the first 7 days after diagnosis (first phase), sociodemographic and clinic data were collected, a symptom checklist was constructed, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Severity of Acute Stress Symptoms Scale (SASSS) were applied. After 30-35 days following the diagnosis, the SASSS and the HADS were repeated. In the first phase, the frequency of depression and anxiety were 55% and 20% in inpatients, and 39% and 18% in outpatients, respectively. In the second phase, depression scores are significantly decreased in both groups whereas anxiety scores were decreased only in inpatients. The frequencies of patients reporting sleep and attention problems, irritability, and suicide ideas decreased after 1 month. Patients with loss of smell and taste exhibit higher anxiety and depression scores in both stages. Our results revealed that the rate of psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients improves within 1 month. Inpatients have a more significant decrease in both depression and anxiety frequency than do outpatients. The main factor affecting anxiety and depression was the treatment modality. Considering that all patients who were hospitalized were discharged at the end of the first month, this difference may be due to the elimination of the stress caused by hospitalization.

Live Donor Assessment Tool (LDAT): A Turkish validity and reliability study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Psychosocial and psychiatric evaluations are crucial components of the assessment of a live donor candidate. The Live Donor Assessment Tool (LDAT) was developed for this purpose. This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of LDAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 132 live kidney or liver donor were referred to assess their psychosocial/psychiatric appropriateness for donation and were randomized for clinical evaluation as usual or with LDAT. The internal consistency of LDAT was measured by Chronbach's alpha coefficient. Inter-rater reliability was measured by using Spearman's correlation coefficient. The potential validity of LDAT was assessed by comparing LDAT scores to clinical decisions. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare LDAT scores across two clinically classified groups (acceptable/declined). Logistic regression was performed using LDAT scores to predict the clinical decision. RESULTS: The Turkish version of LDAT items demonstrate good internal consistency (α=0.773). Inter-rater reliability of LDAT demonstrated strong correlation (ICC=0.72). LDAT scores differentiated the accepted/declined groups, and strongly predicted the clinical decision. With a cut-off score of 60.5, LDAT was found to have high sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of LDAT was found to be a valid and reliable tool. LDAT could be an appropriate tool to assess live donor candidates.