RESUMO
Objective@#The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences has been widely translated and commonly used as a measure for psychotic experiences and psychosis proneness in clinical and research environments worldwide. This study aimed to establish the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and factor structure of a Korean version of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (K-CAPE) in the general population. @*Methods@#A total of 1,467 healthy participants completed K-CAPE and other psychiatric symptom-related scales (Paranoia scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Dissociative Experiences Scale-II, and Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences) via online survey. K-CAPE’s internal reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to investigate whether the original three-factor model (positive, negative, and depressive) and other hypothesized multidimensional models (including positive and negative subfactors) were suitable for our data. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to explore better alternative factor solutions with a follow-up CFA. To assess convergent and discriminant validity, we examined correlations between KCAPE subscales with other established measures of psychiatric symptoms. @*Results@#K-CAPE showed good internal consistency in all original three subscales (all greater than α=0.827). The CFA demonstrated that the multidimensional models exhibited relatively better quality than the original three-dimensional model. Although the model fit indices did not reach their respective optimal thresholds, they were within an acceptable range. Results from the EFA indicated 3–5 factor solutions. In 3-factor solution, “negative-avolition” items were founded to be loaded more consistently with depressive items than with the negative dimension. In 4-factor solution, positive items were divided into two subfactors: “positive-bizarre experiences” and “positive-delusional thoughts,” while negative symptoms were separated into two distinct subfactors in 5-factor solution: “negative-avolition (expressive),” and “negative-social (experiential).” The correlation coefficients between K-CAPE subscales and corresponding measurements were significant (p<0.001), confirming the convergent and discriminant validity. @*Conclusion@#Our study provides evidence to support the reliability and validity of the K-CAPE and its use as a measure of psychotic symptoms in the Korean population. Although alternative factor structures did not improve the model fit, our EFA findings implicate the use of subfactors to investigate more specific domains of positive and negative symptoms. Given the heterogeneous nature of psychotic symptoms, this may be useful in capturing their different underlying mechanisms.
RESUMO
Healthcare workers across the world have risen to the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, potentially at significant cost to their own health and wellbeing. There has been increasing recognition of the potential mental health impact of COVID-19 on frontline healthcare workers and growing calls to provide psychosocial support for them. However, little attention has so far been paid to understanding the impact of working on a pandemic from healthcare workers own perspectives or what their views are about support. This rapid review identified 40 qualitative studies which have explored healthcare workers experiences and views from previous pandemics, including and comparable to COVID-19. Meta-synthesis of this qualitative data using thematic analysis derived eight key themes which transcended pandemics, time, and geographical boundaries. This pandemic is not unprecedented; the themes that arose from previous pandemics were remarkably resonant with what we are hearing about the impact of COVID-19 globally today. We have an opportunity to learn from the lessons of these previous pandemics, mitigate the negative mental health impact of COVID-19 and support the longer-term wellbeing of the healthcare workforce worldwide.
RESUMO
BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are considered at elevated risk of experiencing mental health disorders in working with patients with COVID-19. AimsTo estimate the prevalence of common mental health disorders in HCWs based in hospitals where pandemic-affected patients were treated. MethodDatabases were searched for studies published before 30th March 2020. Quantitative synthesis was used to obtain estimates of the prevalence of mental health disorders in four time windows, determined a priori (the acute phase, i.e. during and up to 1.5 months post-pandemic; 1.5-5.9 months; 6-11.9 months; 12 months and later). ResultsNineteen studies met the review criteria. They predominantly addressed the acute phase of the SARS outbreak in Asia. The most studied outcomes were clinically-significant post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and general psychiatric caseness. For clinically significant PTSS in the acute phase, the prevalence estimate was 23.4% (95% CI 16.3, 31.2; N=4147; I2=96.2%); in the 12 months plus window, the estimate was 11.9% (8.4, 15.8; N=1136; I2=74.3%). For general psychiatric caseness, prevalence estimates were: acute phase, 34.1% (18.7, 51.4; N=3971; I2=99.1%); 6-12 months, 17.9% (13.1, 23.2; N=223; I2=0.0%); 12 months plus, 29.3% (6.0, 61.0; N=710; I2=97.8%). ConclusionsMental health disorders are particularly common in HCWs working with pandemic-afflicted patients immediately following a pandemic, but the course of disorders following this period is poorly understood. PTSS remained elevated compared to the general population at 12 months, despite there being some evidence for natural recovery. There was considerable heterogeneity, likely linked to methodological differences. More extended follow up of HCWs is needed.
