Showing papers on "Psychological intervention published in 2020"

Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China.

Abstract: Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is a public health emergency of international concern and poses a challenge to psychological resilience. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts and psychiatric symptoms during the epidemic. The aim of this study was to survey the general public in China to better understand their levels of psychological impact, anxiety, depression, and stress during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The data will be used for future reference. Methods: From 31 January to 2 February 2020, we conducted an online survey using snowball sampling techniques. The online survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms in the past 14 days, contact history with COVID-19, knowledge and concerns about COVID-19, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and additional information required with respect to COVID-19. Psychological impact was assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: This study included 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China. In total, 53.8% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 16.5% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 28.8% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 8.1% reported moderate to severe stress levels. Most respondents spent 20–24 h per day at home (84.7%); were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 (75.2%); and were satisfied with the amount of health information available (75.1%). Female gender, student status, specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, coryza), and poor self-rated health status were significantly associated with a greater psychological impact of the outbreak and higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Specific up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g., treatment, local outbreak situation) and particular precautionary measures (e.g., hand hygiene, wearing a mask) were associated with a lower psychological impact of the outbreak and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Conclusions: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, more than half of the respondents rated the psychological impact as moderate-to-severe, and about one-third reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. Our findings identify factors associated with a lower level of psychological impact and better mental health status that can be used to formulate psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to significantly affect the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs), who stand in the frontline of this crisis. It is, therefore, an immediate priority to monitor rates of mood, sleep and other mental health issues in order to understand mediating factors and inform tailored interventions. The aim of this review is to synthesize and analyze existing evidence on the prevalence of depression, anxiety and insomnia among HCWs during the Covid-19 outbreak. Methods A systematic search of literature databases was conducted up to April 17th, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Risk of bias for each individual study was assessed and data pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO and is available online. Findings Thirteen studies were included in the analysis with a combined total of 33,062 participants. Anxiety was assessed in 12 studies, with a pooled prevalence of 23·2% and depression in 10 studies, with a prevalence rate of 22·8%. A subgroup analysis revealed gender and occupational differences with female HCPs and nurses exhibiting higher rates of affective symptoms compared to male and medical staff respectively. Finally, insomnia prevalence was estimated at 38·9% across 5 studies. Interpretation Early evidence suggests that a considerable proportion of HCWs experience mood and sleep disturbances during this outbreak, stressing the need to establish ways to mitigate mental health risks and adjust interventions under pandemic conditions.

Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on public mental health Therefore, monitoring and oversight of the population mental health during crises such as a panedmic is an immediate priority The aim of this study is to analyze the existing research works and findings in relation to the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic In this systematic review and meta-analysis, articles that have focused on stress and anxiety prevalence among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were searched in the Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases, without a lower time limit and until May 2020 In order to perform a meta-analysis of the collected studies, the random effects model was used, and the heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I2 index Moreover data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software The prevalence of stress in 5 studies with a total sample size of 9074 is obtained as 296% (95% confidence limit: 243–354), the prevalence of anxiety in 17 studies with a sample size of 63,439 as 319% (95% confidence interval: 275–367), and the prevalence of depression in 14 studies with a sample size of 44,531 people as 337% (95% confidence interval: 275–406) COVID-19 not only causes physical health concerns but also results in a number of psychological disorders The spread of the new coronavirus can impact the mental health of people in different communities Thus, it is essential to preserve the mental health of individuals and to develop psychological interventions that can improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic

Effects of COVID-19 on College Students' Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study.

Abstract: Background: Student mental health in higher education has been an increasing concern. The COVID-19 pandemic situation has brought this vulnerable population into renewed focus. Objective: Our study aims to conduct a timely assessment of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of college students. Methods: We conducted interview surveys with 195 students at a large public university in the United States to understand the effects of the pandemic on their mental health and well-being. The data were analyzed through quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: Of the 195 students, 138 (71%) indicated increased stress and anxiety due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Multiple stressors were identified that contributed to the increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depressive thoughts among students. These included fear and worry about their own health and of their loved ones (177/195, 91% reported negative impacts of the pandemic), difficulty in concentrating (173/195, 89%), disruptions to sleeping patterns (168/195, 86%), decreased social interactions due to physical distancing (167/195, 86%), and increased concerns on academic performance (159/195, 82%). To cope with stress and anxiety, participants have sought support from others and helped themselves by adopting either negative or positive coping mechanisms. Conclusions: Due to the long-lasting pandemic situation and onerous measures such as lockdown and stay-at-home orders, the COVID-19 pandemic brings negative impacts on higher education. The findings of our study highlight the urgent need to develop interventions and preventive strategies to address the mental health of college students.

A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress among Italian People during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors.

Abstract: The uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has called for unprecedented measures, to the extent that the Italian government has imposed a quarantine on the entire country. Quarantine has a huge impact and can cause considerable psychological strain. The present study aims to establish the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and identify risk and protective factors for psychological distress in the general population. An online survey was administered from 18-22 March 2020 to 2766 participants. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to examine the associations between sociodemographic variables; personality traits; depression, anxiety, and stress. Female gender, negative affect, and detachment were associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Having an acquaintance infected was associated with increased levels of both depression and stress, whereas a history of stressful situations and medical problems was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety. Finally, those with a family member infected and young person who had to work outside their domicile presented higher levels of anxiety and stress, respectively. This epidemiological picture is an important benchmark for identifying persons at greater risk of suffering from psychological distress and the results are useful for tailoring psychological interventions targeting the post-traumatic nature of the distress.

Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality

Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is profoundly affecting life around the globe. Isolation, contact restrictions and economic shutdown impose a complete change to the psychosocial environment in affected countries. These measures have the potential to threaten the mental health of children and adolescents significantly. Even though the current crisis can bring with it opportunities for personal growth and family cohesion, disadvantages may outweigh these benefits. Anxiety, lack of peer contact and reduced opportunities for stress regulation are main concerns. Another main threat is an increased risk for parental mental illness, domestic violence and child maltreatment. Especially for children and adolescents with special needs or disadvantages, such as disabilities, trauma experiences, already existing mental health problems, migrant background and low socioeconomic status, this may be a particularly challenging time. To maintain regular and emergency child and adolescent psychiatric treatment during the pandemic is a major challenge but is necessary for limiting long-term consequences for the mental health of children and adolescents. Urgent research questions comprise understanding the mental health effects of social distancing and economic pressure, identifying risk and resilience factors, and preventing long-term consequences, including—but not restricted to—child maltreatment. The efficacy of telepsychiatry is another highly relevant issue is to evaluate the efficacy of telehealth and perfect its applications to child and adolescent psychiatry. There are numerous mental health threats associated with the current pandemic and subsequent restrictions. Child and adolescent psychiatrists must ensure continuity of care during all phases of the pandemic. COVID-19-associated mental health risks will disproportionately hit children and adolescents who are already disadvantaged and marginalized. Research is needed to assess the implications of policies enacted to contain the pandemic on mental health of children and adolescents, and to estimate the risk/benefit ratio of measures such as home schooling, in order to be better prepared for future developments.

The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused enormous psychological impact worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the psychological and mental impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers, the general population, and patients with higher COVID-19 risk published between 1 Nov 2019 to 25 May 2020. We conducted literature research using Embase, PubMed, Google scholar and WHO COVID-19 databases. Among the initial search of 9207 studies, 62 studies with 162,639 participants from 17 countries were included in the review. The pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression was 33% (95% confidence interval: 28%-38%) and 28% (23%-32%), respectively. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was the highest among patients with pre-existing conditions and COVID-19 infection (56% [39%-73%] and 55% [48%-62%]), and it was similar between healthcare workers and the general public. Studies from China, Italy, Turkey, Spain and Iran reported higher-than-pooled prevalence among healthcare workers and the general public. Common risk factors included being women, being nurses, having lower socioeconomic status, having high risks of contracting COVID-19, and social isolation. Protective factors included having sufficient medical resources, up-to-date and accurate information, and taking precautionary measures. In conclusion, psychological interventions targeting high-risk populations with heavy psychological distress are in urgent need.

Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: A cross-sectional study.

Abstract: The severe 2019 outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was first reported in Wuhan, would be expected to impact the mental health of local medical and nursing staff and thus lead them to seek help. However, those outcomes have yet to be established using epidemiological data. To explore the mental health status of medical and nursing staff and the efficacy, or lack thereof, of critically connecting psychological needs to receiving psychological care, we conducted a quantitative study. This is the first paper on the mental health of medical and nursing staff in Wuhan. Notably, among 994 medical and nursing staff working in Wuhan, 36.9% had subthreshold mental health disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 2.4), 34.4% had mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 5.4), 22.4% had moderate disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 9.0), and 6.2% had severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9: 15.1) in the immediate wake of the viral epidemic. The noted burden fell particularly heavily on young women. Of all participants, 36.3% had accessed psychological materials (such as books on mental health), 50.4% had accessed psychological resources available through media (such as online push messages on mental health self-help coping methods), and 17.5% had participated in counseling or psychotherapy. Trends in levels of psychological distress and factors such as exposure to infected people and psychological assistance were identified. Although staff accessed limited mental healthcare services, distressed staff nonetheless saw these services as important resources to alleviate acute mental health disturbances and improve their physical health perceptions. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared to support frontline workers through mental health interventions at times of widespread crisis.

Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China.

Abstract: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic1. The strategies based on non-pharmaceutical interventions that were used to contain the outbreak in China appear to be effective2, but quantitative research is still needed to assess the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions and their timings3. Here, using epidemiological data on COVID-19 and anonymized data on human movement4,5, we develop a modelling framework that uses daily travel networks to simulate different outbreak and intervention scenarios across China. We estimate that there were a total of 114,325 cases of COVID-19 (interquartile range 76,776–164,576) in mainland China as of 29 February 2020. Without non-pharmaceutical interventions, we predict that the number of cases would have been 67-fold higher (interquartile range 44–94-fold) by 29 February 2020, and we find that the effectiveness of different interventions varied. We estimate that early detection and isolation of cases prevented more infections than did travel restrictions and contact reductions, but that a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions achieved the strongest and most rapid effect. According to our model, the lifting of travel restrictions from 17 February 2020 does not lead to an increase in cases across China if social distancing interventions can be maintained, even at a limited level of an on average 25% reduction in contact between individuals that continues until late April. These findings improve our understanding of the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19, and will inform response efforts across the world. A model of the effects of different non-pharmaceutical interventions on the spread of COVID-19 in China suggests that a strategy involving the rapid implementation of a combination of interventions is most effective.

Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological effects on clinicians of working to manage novel viral outbreaks, and successful measures to manage stress and psychological distress. DESIGN: Rapid review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, searched up to late March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Any study that described the psychological reactions of healthcare staff working with patients in an outbreak of any emerging virus in any clinical setting, irrespective of any comparison with other clinicians or the general population. RESULTS: 59 papers met the inclusion criteria: 37 were of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), eight of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), seven of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), three each of Ebola virus disease and influenza A virus subtype H1N1, and one of influenza A virus subtype H7N9. Of the 38 studies that compared psychological outcomes of healthcare workers in direct contact with affected patients, 25 contained data that could be combined in a pairwise meta-analysis comparing healthcare workers at high and low risk of exposure. Compared with lower risk controls, staff in contact with affected patients had greater levels of both acute or post-traumatic stress (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.29) and psychological distress (1.74, 1.50 to 2.03), with similar results for continuous outcomes. These findings were the same as in the other studies not included in the meta-analysis. Risk factors for psychological distress included being younger, being more junior, being the parents of dependent children, or having an infected family member. Longer quarantine, lack of practical support, and stigma also contributed. Clear communication, access to adequate personal protection, adequate rest, and both practical and psychological support were associated with reduced morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions are available to help mitigate the psychological distress experienced by staff caring for patients in an emerging disease outbreak. These interventions were similar despite the wide range of settings and types of outbreaks covered in this review, and thus could be applicable to the current covid-19 outbreak.

Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and demand for hospital services in the UK: a modelling study.

Abstract: Summary Background Non-pharmaceutical interventions have been implemented to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the UK. Projecting the size of an unmitigated epidemic and the potential effect of different control measures has been crucial to support evidence-based policy making during the early stages of the epidemic. This study assesses the potential impact of different control measures for mitigating the burden of COVID-19 in the UK. Methods We used a stochastic age-structured transmission model to explore a range of intervention scenarios, tracking 66·4 million people aggregated to 186 county-level administrative units in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The four base interventions modelled were school closures, physical distancing, shielding of people aged 70 years or older, and self-isolation of symptomatic cases. We also modelled the combination of these interventions, as well as a programme of intensive interventions with phased lockdown-type restrictions that substantially limited contacts outside of the home for repeated periods. We simulated different triggers for the introduction of interventions, and estimated the impact of varying adherence to interventions across counties. For each scenario, we projected estimated new cases over time, patients requiring inpatient and critical care (ie, admission to the intensive care units [ICU]) treatment, and deaths, and compared the effect of each intervention on the basic reproduction number, R0. Findings We projected a median unmitigated burden of 23 million (95% prediction interval 13–30) clinical cases and 350 000 deaths (170 000–480 000) due to COVID-19 in the UK by December, 2021. We found that the four base interventions were each likely to decrease R0, but not sufficiently to prevent ICU demand from exceeding health service capacity. The combined intervention was more effective at reducing R0, but only lockdown periods were sufficient to bring R0 near or below 1; the most stringent lockdown scenario resulted in a projected 120 000 cases (46 000–700 000) and 50 000 deaths (9300–160 000). Intensive interventions with lockdown periods would need to be in place for a large proportion of the coming year to prevent health-care demand exceeding availability. Interpretation The characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 mean that extreme measures are probably required to bring the epidemic under control and to prevent very large numbers of deaths and an excess of demand on hospital beds, especially those in ICUs. Funding Medical Research Council.

Psychological Outcomes Associated with Stay-at-Home Orders and the Perceived Impact of COVID-19 on Daily Life.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the widespread implementation of extraordinary physical distancing interventions (e.g., stay-at-home orders) to slow the spread of the virus. Although vital, these interventions may be socially and economically disruptive, contributing to adverse psychological outcomes. This study examined relations of both stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life to psychological outcomes (depression, health anxiety, financial worry, social support, and loneliness) in a nationwide U.S. community adult sample (N = 500; 47% women, mean age = 40). Participants completed questionnaires assessing psychological outcomes, stay-at-home order status, and COVID-19's impact on their daily life. Being under a stay-at-home order was associated with greater health anxiety, financial worry, and loneliness. Moreover, the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life was positively associated with health anxiety, financial worry, and social support, but negatively associated with loneliness. Findings highlight the importance of social connection to mitigate negative psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Youth Mental Health.

Abstract: The purposes of this study was to assess the youth mental health after the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) occurred in China two weeks later, and to investigate factors of mental health among youth groups. A cross-sectional study was conducted two weeks after the occurrence of COVID-19 in China. A total of 584 youth enrolled in this study and completed the question about cognitive status of COVID-19, the General Health Questionnaire(GHQ-12), the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) and the Negative coping styles scale. Univariate analysis and univariate logistic regression were used to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on youth mental health. The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that nearly 40.4% the sampled youth were found to be prone to psychological problems and 14.4% the sampled youth with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Univariate logistic regression revealed that youth mental health was significantly related to being less educated (OR = 8.71, 95%CI:1.97–38.43), being the enterprise employee (OR = 2.36, 95%CI:1.09–5.09), suffering from the PTSD symptom (OR = 1.05, 95%CI:1.03–1.07) and using negative coping styles (OR = 1.03, 95%CI:1.00–1.07). Results of this study suggest that nearly 40.4% of the youth group had a tendency to have psychological problems. Thus, this was a remarkable evidence that infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, may have an immense influence on youth mental health. Therefor, local governments should develop effective psychological interventions for youth groups, moreover, it is important to consider the educational level and occupation of the youth during the interventions.

Identification, Evaluation, and Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Abstract: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with reported prevalence in the United States of 1 in 59 children (approximately 1.7%). Core deficits are identified in 2 domains: social communication/interaction and restrictive, repetitive patterns of behavior. Children and youth with ASD have service needs in behavioral, educational, health, leisure, family support, and other areas. Standardized screening for ASD at 18 and 24 months of age with ongoing developmental surveillance continues to be recommended in primary care (although it may be performed in other settings), because ASD is common, can be diagnosed as young as 18 months of age, and has evidenced-based interventions that may improve function. More accurate and culturally sensitive screening approaches are needed. Primary care providers should be familiar with the diagnosticcriteria for ASD, appropriate etiologic evaluation, and co-occurring medical and behavioral conditions (such as disorders of sleep and feeding, gastrointestinal tract symptoms, obesity, seizures, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and wandering) that affect the child’s function and quality of life. There is an increasing evidence base to support behavioral and other interventions to address specific skills and symptoms. Shared decision making calls for collaboration with families in evaluation and choice of interventions. This single clinical report updates the 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics clinical reports on the evaluation and treatment of ASD in one publication with an online table of contents and section view available through the American Academy of Pediatrics Gateway to help the reader identify topic areas within the report.

Depression and Anxiety in Hong Kong during COVID-19.

Abstract: It has been three months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong, and people now have a more complete picture of the extent of the pandemic. Therefore, it is time to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health. The current population-based study aimed to evaluate the depression and anxiety of people in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were randomly recruited and asked to complete a structured questionnaire, including the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7), the global rating of change scale and items related to COVID-19. Of the 500 respondents included in the study, 19% had depression (PHQ-9 score ≥ 10) and 14% had anxiety (GAD score ≥ 10). In addition, 25.4% reported that their mental health had deteriorated since the pandemic. Multiple logistic regression analysis found that not experiencing the SARS outbreak in 2003, being worried about being infected by COVID-19, being bothered by having not enough surgical masks and being bothered by not being able to work from home were associated with a poorer mental health status. Psychological support, such as brief, home-based psychological interventions, should be provided to citizens during the pandemic.

Epidemiology of mental health problems in COVID-19: a review.

Abstract: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic affecting health and wellbeing globally. In addition to the physical health, economic, and social implications, the psychological impacts of this pandemic are increasingly being reported in the scientific literature. This narrative review reflected on scholarly articles on the epidemiology of mental health problems in COVID-19. The current literature suggests that people affected by COVID-19 may have a high burden of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety disorders, stress, panic attack, irrational anger, impulsivity, somatization disorder, sleep disorders, emotional disturbance, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and suicidal behavior. Moreover, several factors associated with mental health problems in COVID-19 are found, which include age, gender, marital status, education, occupation, income, place of living, close contact with people with COVID-19, comorbid physical and mental health problems, exposure to COVID-19 related news and social media, coping styles, stigma, psychosocial support, health communication, confidence in health services, personal protective measures, risk of contracting COVID-19, and perceived likelihood of survival. Furthermore, the epidemiological distribution of mental health problems and associated factors were heterogeneous among the general public, COVID-19 patients, and healthcare providers. The current evidence suggests that a psychiatric epidemic is cooccurring with the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitates the attention of the global health community. Future epidemiological studies should emphasize on psychopathological variations and temporality of mental health problems in different populations. Nonetheless, multipronged interventions should be developed and adopted to address the existing psychosocial challenges and promote mental health amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Survey of Insomnia and Related Social Psychological Factors Among Medical Staff Involved in the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak

Abstract: Objective: The outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused not only extraordinary public health concerns but also tremendous psychological distress, particularly among medical staff. We aimed to investigate the prevalence rate of insomnia and confirm the related social psychological factors among medical staff in hospitals during the COVID-19 outbreak. Method: Medical staff members in China were recruited, including frontline medical workers. The questionnaire, administered through the WeChat program, obtained demographic data and asked self-design questions related to the COVID-19 outbreak, insomnia/depressive/anxiety symptoms, and stress-related symptoms. We used logistic regression analysis to examine the associations between sociodemographic factors and insomnia symptoms. Result: There were 1,563 participants in our study. Five hundred and sixty-four (36.1%) participants had insomnia symptoms according to the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (total score ≥ 8). A multiple binary logistic regression model revealed that insomnia symptoms were associated with the education level of high school or below (OR = 2.69, p = 0.042, 95% CI = 1.0–7.0), occupation of doctor (OR = 0.44, p = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.2–0.8), currently working in an isolation unit (OR = 1.71, p = 0.038, 95% CI = 1.0–2.8), worry about being infected (OR = 2.30, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.6–3.4), perceived lack of helpfulness in terms of psychological support from news or social media with regard to COVID-19 (OR = 2.10, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 1.3–3.3), and having very strong uncertainty regarding effective disease control (OR = 3.30, p = 0.013, 95% CI = 1.3–8.5). Conclusion: Our study found that more than one-third of the medical staff suffered from insomnia symptoms during the COVID-19 outbreak. The related factors included education level, an isolation environment, psychological worries about the COVID-19 outbreak, and occupation of doctor. Interventions for insomnia among medical staff are needed considering the different sociopsychological factors.

The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review.

Abstract: The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened healthcare systems throughout the world. We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on HCWs (healthcare workers). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence on 11 May and included 59 studies. Six reported on implementing interventions, but none reported on effects of the interventions. HCWs reported low interest in professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. HCWs reported anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic. We assessed the certainty of the estimates of prevalence of these symptoms as very low using GRADE. Most studies did not report comparative data on mental health symptoms before the pandemic or in the general population. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among HCWs in the current pandemic, their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions.

COVID-19 anxiety among front-line nurses: Predictive role of organisational support, personal resilience and social support.

Abstract: AIM: This study examines the relative influence of personal resilience, social support and organisational support in reducing COVID-19 anxiety in front-line nurses. BACKGROUND: Anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic is prevalent in the nursing workforce, potentially affecting nurses' well-being and work performance. Identifying factors that could help maintain mental health and reduce coronavirus-related anxiety among front-line nurses is imperative. Currently, no studies have been conducted examining the influence of personal resilience, social support and organisational support in reducing COVID-19 anxiety among nurses. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 325 registered nurses from the Philippines using four standardized scales. RESULTS: Of the 325 nurses in the study, 123 (37.8%) were found to have dysfunctional levels of anxiety. Using multiple linear regression analyses, social support (s = -0.142, p = .011), personal resilience (s = -0.151, p = .008) and organisational support (s = -0.127, p = .023) predicted COVID-19 anxiety. Nurse characteristics were not associated with COVID-19 anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Resilient nurses and those who perceived higher organisational and social support were more likely to report lower anxiety related to COVID-19. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: COVID-19 anxiety may be addressed through organisational interventions, including increasing social support, assuring adequate organisational support, providing psychological and mental support services and providing resilience-promoting and stress management interventions.

Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities.

Abstract: THE ISSUE: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) is transforming every aspect of our lives. Identified in late 2019, COVID-19 quickly became characterized as a global pandemic by March of 2020. Given the rapid acceleration of transmission, and the lack of preparedness to prevent and treat this virus, the negative impacts of COVID-19 are rippling through every facet of society. Although large numbers of people throughout the world will show resilience to the profound loss, stress, and fear associated with COVID-19, the virus will likely exacerbate existing mental health disorders and contribute to the onset of new stress-related disorders for many. RECOMMENDATIONS: The field of traumatic stress should address the serious needs that will emerge now and well into the future. However, we propose that these efforts may be limited, in part, by ongoing gaps that exist within our research and clinical care. In particular, we suggest that COVID-19 requires us to prioritize and mobilize as a research and clinical community around several key areas: (a) diagnostics, (b) prevention, (c) public outreach and communication, (d) working with medical staff and mainstreaming into nonmental health services, and (e) COVID-19-specific trauma research. As members of our community begin to rapidly develop and test interventions for COVID-19-related distress, we hope that those in positions of leadership in the field of traumatic stress consider limits of our current approaches, and invest the intellectual and financial resources urgently needed in order to innovate, forge partnerships, and develop the technologies to support those in greatest need. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Americans' COVID-19 Stress, Coping, and Adherence to CDC Guidelines.

Abstract: Documenting Americans’ stress responses to an unprecedented pandemic and their degree of adherence to CDC guidelines is essential for mental health interventions and policy-making. To provide the first snapshot of immediate impact of COVID-19 on Americans’ stress, coping, and guideline adherence. Data were collected from an online workers’ platform for survey research (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk) from April 7 to 9, 2020. The current data represents the baseline of a longitudinal study. Best practices for ensuring high-quality data were employed. Individuals who are 18 years of age or older, living in the USA, and English-speaking were eligible for the study. Of 1086 unique responses, 1015 completed responses are included. Population-based. Exposure to and stressfulness of COVID-19 stressors, coping strategies, and adherence to CDC guidelines. The sample was 53.9% women (n = 547), with an average age of 38.9 years (SD = 13.50, range = 18–88), most of whom were White (n = 836, 82.4%), non-Hispanic (n = 929, 91.5%), and straight/heterosexual (n = 895, 88.2%); 40% were currently married (n = 407), and 21.6% (n = 219) were caregivers. About half (50.5%) endorsed having at least “mostly” enough money to meet their needs. Respondents’ locations across the USA ranged from 18.5% in the Northeast to 37.8% in the South. The most commonly experienced stressors were reading/hearing about the severity and contagiousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about length of quarantine and social distancing requirements, and changes to social and daily personal care routines. Financial concerns were rated most stressful. Younger age, female gender, and caregiver status increased risk for stressor exposure and greater degree of stressfulness. The most frequently reported strategies to manage stress were distraction, active coping, and seeking emotional social support. CDC guideline adherence was generally high, but several key social distancing and hygiene behaviors showed suboptimal adherence, particularly for men and younger adults. Americans have high COVID-19 stress exposure and some demographic subgroups appear particularly vulnerable to stress effects. Subgroups less likely to adhere to CDC guidelines may benefit from targeted information campaigns. these findings may guide mental health interventions and inform policy-making regarding implications of specific public health measures.

Interventions to Improve Adherence to Self-administered Medications for Chronic Diseases in the United States

Abstract: This review examined the comparative effectiveness of patient, provider, systems, and policy interventions to improve medication adherence for chronic conditions. It found evidence that reduced out...

Public Mental Health Crisis during COVID-19 Pandemic, China.

Abstract: The 2019 novel coronavirus disease emerged in China in late 2019-early 2020 and spread rapidly. China has been implementing emergency psychological crisis interventions to reduce the negative psychosocial impact on public mental health, but challenges exist. Public mental health interventions should be formally integrated into public health preparedness and emergency response plans.

Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions.

Abstract: Researchers commonly interpret effect sizes by applying benchmarks proposed by Jacob Cohen over a half century ago. However, effects that are small by Cohen’s standards are large relative to the im...

Psychological Impact and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among the General Population in Spain

Abstract: The outbreak of COVID-19 in Spain started at the end of February. By 9th April 2020 Spain was the second country in confirmed cases and in deaths. On March 14, 2020, the Spanish Government declared the state of alarm to limit viral transmission. During such state, citizens must stay confined at home with few justified exceptions. This whole situation drastically changed the life of the population, which can cause a wide range of psychosocial impacts. This study explored the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general adult population (N = 3055) during the first stages of the outbreak in Spain, as well as their anxiety, stress and depression levels. We also examined the extent to which the following variables were associated to participants' mental health: (1) demographics; (2) degree of concern about the pandemic; (3) environmental conditions during the home confinement, (4) changes in daily life as a consequence of the pandemic; (5) contact with the COVID-19 disease; (6) actual and perceived severity of the crisis; (7) information about the COVID-19, (8) perceived health status and (9) leisure activities conducted within the last 24 h. Our results show that Spanish consider the current COVID-19 health crisis as fairly severe, and the majority felt that the COVID-19 crisis had greatly impacted on their daily life, including changes in their daily routines and cancelation of important activities. About 36% of the participants reported moderate to severe psychological impact, 25% showed mild to severe levels of anxiety, 41% reported depressive symptoms, and 41% felt stressed. Women, young, and those who that lost their job during the health crisis showed the strongest negative psychological symptoms. What worried Spaniards the most was the likelihood of suffering an economic crisis derived from the pandemic. We found factors associated with better mental health, such as being satisfied with the information received about the health crisis, conducting leisure activities, and the perception of being in good health. These findings can be used to design psychological interventions to help coping with COVID-19 pandemic, both in Spain and other countries.