Emotional status and fear in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional survey (COVID-SURGERY)

Abstract Background Fragmented data exist on the emotional and psychological distress generated by hospital admission during the pandemic in specific populations of patients, and no data exists on patients scheduled for surgery. The aim of this multicentre nationwide prospective cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the impact of pandemic on emotional status and fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in a cohort of elective surgical patients in Italy, scheduled for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Twenty-nine Italian centres were involved in the study, for a total of 2376 patients surveyed (mean age of 58 years ± 16.61; 49.6% males). The survey consisted of 28 total closed questions, including four study outcome questions. More than half of patients had at least one chronic disease (54%), among which cardiovascular diseases were the commonest (58%). The most frequent type of surgery was abdominal (20%), under general anaesthesia (64%). Almost half of the patients (46%) declared to be frightened of going to the hospital for routine checkups; 55% to be afraid of getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and 62% were feared of being hospitalised without seeing family members. Having an oncological disease and other patient-related, centre-related or perioperative factors were independently associated with an increased risk of fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and of being hospitalised without seeing family members. A previous infection due to SARS-COV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of worse emotional outcomes and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Patients who showed the most emotionally vulnerable profile (e.g. use of sleep-inducing drugs, higher fear of surgery or anaesthesia) were at higher risk of worse emotional status towards the hospitalization during COVID-19 pandemic. Being operated in hospitals with lower surgical volume and with COVID-19 wards was associated with worse emotional status and fear of contagion. Conclusions Additional fear and worse emotional status may be frequent in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of the participants to the survey were worried about not being able to receive family visits. Psychological support may be considered for patients at higher risk of psychological distress to improve perioperative wellbeing during the pandemic.

Download Full-text

Psychological Impacts of COVID-19 During the First Nationwide Lockdown in Vietnam: Web-Based, Cross-Sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.24776 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Khanh Ngoc Cong Duong ◽

Tien Nguyen Le Bao ◽

Phuong Thi Lan Nguyen ◽

Thanh Vo Van ◽

Toi Phung Lam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychological Distress ◽

General Population ◽

Psychological Health ◽

Online Survey ◽

Survey Study ◽

Limited Information ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Event Scale ◽

The Impact

BACKGROUND The first nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented in Vietnam from April 1 to 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological health of the public. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. METHODS We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during social distancing due to COVID-19. Associations across factors were explored using regression analysis. RESULTS A total of 1385 respondents completed the survey. Of this, 35.9% (n=497) experienced psychological distress, as well as depression (n=325, 23.5%), anxiety (n=195, 14.1%), and stress (n=309, 22.3%). Respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had a higher IES-R score (beta coefficient [B]=9.16, 95% CI 6.43 to 11.89), as well as higher depression (B=5.85, 95% CI 4.49 to 7.21), anxiety (B=3.64, 95% CI 2.64 to 4.63), and stress (B=5.19, 95% CI 3.83 to 6.56) scores for DASS-21 than those who rated their health as good or very good. Those who self-reported their health as bad or very bad experienced more severe depression (B=9.57, 95% CI 4.54 to 14.59), anxiety (B=7.24, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.9), and stress (B=10.60, 95% CI 5.56 to 15.65). Unemployment was more likely to be associated with depression (B=3.34, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.01) and stress (B=2.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding worries about COVID-19, more than half (n=755, 54.5%) expressed concern for their children aged <18 years, which increased their IES-R score (B=7.81, 95% CI 4.98 to 10.64) and DASS-21 stress score (B=1.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.24). The majority of respondents (n=1335, 96.4%) were confident about their doctor’s expertise in terms of COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B=–7.84, 95% CI –14.58 to –1.11). CONCLUSIONS The findings highlight the effect of COVID-19 on mental health during the nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. The study provides useful evidence for policy decision makers to develop and implement interventions to mitigate these impacts. CLINICALTRIAL

Download Full-text

The impact of COVID-19 on oncologists: Experience from Egyptian physicians.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e13514 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e13514-e13514

Author(s):

Abeid Mohamed Athman Omar ◽

Marwa Ramadan ◽

Yomna Khamis ◽

Abdelsalam A. Ismail

Keyword(s):

Family Support ◽

Occupational Safety ◽

Family Members ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Middle Income ◽

Middle Income Countries ◽

Burnout Rate ◽

Almost All ◽

The Impact

e13514 Background: The unprecedented emergence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has disrupted the patients' and physicians' daily activities, including cancer care. However, little is known on how COVID-19 has impacted oncologists from low and middle-income countries. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among eighty-eight practicing oncologists in Alexandria governorate, Egypt. An electronic, anonymized self-reporting survey was distributed in February 2020 to collect information on occupational safety measures, the prevalence of COVID-19 among respondents, workload, and family support during the pandemic Results: Out of 88 contacted oncologists, 75% completed the survey (n=66). Nearly half (45%) of respondents were residents, 36% were specialists, and 18% were consultants. The mean age of respondents was 34.79 years (SD ±10.42). More than half of the respondents were not comfortable managing cancer patients during the pandemic (56%) and did not feel well-protected at the workplace (58%). However, most (79%) had managed a cancer patient with COVID-19 more than once. Furthermore, almost all participants (98%) have worked with an infected colleague. Nevertheless, to more than half (54%), it made no difference working with a colleague who was previously infected. Most physicians (79%) felt overwhelmed with workload than the pre-pandemic period. Despite being COVID-19 negative, nearly half reported their family members had reduced contact with them due to the fear of being infected. In contrast, 24% are now getting more family support, whereas 27% are experiencing the same contact level as before the COVID-19 era. Physicians lacking family support had a significantly higher burnout rate than those who had family support (p=0.038). However, the burnout rate was similar regardless of doctors' rank, or treating COVID-19 patients, or feeling protected at work. The majority of the participants (75%) had experienced COVID-19 like symptoms, and one third (n=21) were confirmed COVID-19 infected: residents - 52%, specialists - 33%, and consultants - 14%. Nevertheless, we found no association between the rank and being infected with COVID-19 (p=0.632). Most participants thought they were infected at the hospital (38% by patients; 24% by colleagues), and 14% by family members. However, there was no significant association between being infected and feeling protected at work (p=0.823). Most of the infected physicians (61%) received moral support from both the family and colleagues, and 33% received family support only. There was no association between burnout rate and being COVID-19 infected (p=0.719). Conclusions: One-third of the oncologists were COVID-19 positive. Besides, most oncologists feel overwhelmed with workload and experience more burnout than before the COVID-19 era, and it worsens if one lacks family support.

Download Full-text

A cross-sectional survey of psychological distress in a Mexican sample during the second phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

10.31219/osf.io/wzqkh ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Aldebarán Toledo-Fernández ◽

Diana Betancourt-Ocampo ◽

Héctor Romo-Parra ◽

Ernesto Reyes-Zamorano ◽

Alejandro González-González

Keyword(s):

Psychological Distress ◽

Online Survey ◽

Second Phase ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Baseline Measure ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Impact Of Event Scale ◽

Event Scale ◽

Related Stress ◽

The Impact

The objectives of this study were to describe severity of psychological distress (event-related stress, anxiety, and depression) during the second stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico, and to explore associations between the indicators of psychological distress, sociodemographic characteristics and specific concerns about COVID-19. This report serves as a baseline measure of a longitudinal project to evaluate progression of psychological distress across stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. An online survey was conducted in the State of Mexico from April 8th -18th, 2020, in a sample of men and women who are beneficiaries of a welfare institution in the region. Variables were measured with the Impact of Event Scale-6, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disoder-7, and a questionnaire of concerns about COVID-19. A total of 5974 participants were analyzed. Moderate levels of psychological distress (with 23.6% of participants meeting significant event-related stress, but mild levels of depression and anxiety) were found, as well as high values in all concerns about COVID-19, especially regarding financial disruption, worsening of local security and concern of a family member becoming infected. These concerns associated mild-to-moderately with the indicators of psychological distress. Higher values of event-related distress were found in women, individuals with higher educational attainment and those with any current high-risk medical diagnosis, though the effect sizes were mild. Though psychological distress and concerns about COVID-19 have reached significant levels during the pandemic in Mexico, overall, they have not yet reached dysfunctional levels.

Download Full-text

Decisions and repercussions of second victim experiences for mothers in medicine (SAVE DR MoM)

BMJ Quality & Safety ◽

10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008372 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (7) ◽

pp. 564-573 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Kiran Gupta ◽

Sarah Lisker ◽

Natalie A Rivadeneira ◽

Christina Mangurian ◽

Eleni Linos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diagnostic Errors ◽

Free Text ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Survey Period ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Family Responsibilities ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Second Victim ◽

The Impact ◽

Single Question

BackgroundThe second victim effect is defined as emotional distress experienced by providers involved in mistakes. This study characterises events contributing to the second victim effect among a diverse sample of physician mothers, describes the impact on both provider and patient and seeks to determine the association between experiencing a mistake and burnout.MethodsIn this mixed-methods study, an anonymous, cross-sectional survey was posted to an online network of over 65 000 physician mothers on 17 June 2016. Self-reported involvement in a mistake provided opportunity to describe the error and impact on both provider and patient. Free-text responses were qualitatively coded to identify error types. Hypothesising that making a mistake contributes to burnout, self-reported burnout was examined using a single question. We used logistic regression to estimate the association between involvement in a mistake and burnout, adjusting for practice years, setting and specialty.Results5782 members completed the survey for an estimated response rate of 16.5% based on 34956 active users during the survey period. 2859 respondents reported involvement in a mistake (49%), which was associated with higher reported burnout (p<0.0001). 56% of those reporting a mistake provided descriptions. Qualitative analysis revealed that self-reported treatment errors were more common and diagnostic errors were most often reported to result in greater patient harm. Of those involved in a mistake, 82% reported feelings of guilt; 2.2% reported reducing clinical workload, taking leave or leaving the profession.ConclusionsPhysician mothers involved in errors experience negative outcomes and may be at increased risk for burnout. Additional research should focus on strategies to mitigate burnout associated with the second victim effect, particularly among women physicians and those with family responsibilities.

Download Full-text

Impact of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapies on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-020-02395-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ennio Giulio Favalli ◽

Serena Bugatti ◽

Catherine Klersy ◽

Martina Biggioggero ◽

Silvia Rossi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inflammatory Arthritis ◽

Immunosuppressive Agents ◽

Large Cohort ◽

World Health ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Chronic Inflammatory Arthritis ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Prevalence and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 in relation to immunomodulatory medications are still unknown. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents on COVID-19 in a large cohort of patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory arthritis. Methods The study was conducted in the arthritis outpatient clinic at two large academic hospitals in the COVID-19 most endemic area of Northern Italy (Lombardy). We circulated a cross-sectional survey exploring the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 nasopharyngeal swab positivity and the occurrence of acute respiratory illness (fever and/or cough and/or dyspnea), administered face-to-face or by phone to consecutive patients from 25 February to 20 April 2020. COVID-19 cases were defined as confirmed or highly suspicious according to the World Health Organization criteria. The impact of medications on COVID-19 development was evaluated. Results The study population included 2050 adults with chronic inflammatory arthritis receiving glucocorticoids, conventional-synthetic (cs), or targeted-synthetic/biological (ts/b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and highly suspicious infection were recorded in 1.1% and 1.4% of the population, respectively. Treatment with glucocorticoids was independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted OR [95% CI] ranging from 1.23 [1.04–1.44] to 3.20 [1.97–5.18] depending on the definition used). Conversely, patients treated with ts/bDMARDs were at reduced risk (adjusted OR ranging from 0.46 [0.18–1.21] to 0.47 [0.46–0.48]). No independent effects of csDMARDs, age, sex, and comorbidities were observed. Conclusions During the COVID-19 outbreak, treatment with immunomodulatory medications appears safe. Conversely, glucocorticoids, even at low-dose, may confer increased risk of infection. Trial registration Retrospectively registered. Not applicable.

Download Full-text

Challenges facing essential workers: a cross-sectional survey of the subjective mental health and well-being of New Zealand healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers during the COVID-19 lockdown

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048107 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. e048107

Author(s):

Caroline Bell ◽

Jonathan Williman ◽

Ben Beaglehole ◽

James Stanley ◽

Matthew Jenkins ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychological Distress ◽

New Zealand ◽

Alcohol Use ◽

Well Being ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Essential Work ◽

Work Roles ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Increased Risk

ObjectivesTo compare psychological outcomes, experiences and sources of stress over the COVID-19 lockdown in New Zealand in essential workers (healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers) with that of workers in nonessential work roles.DesignOnline cross-sectional survey.SettingConducted in New Zealand over level 4 lockdown in April/May 2020.ParticipantsFindings from employed participants (2495) are included in this report; 381 healthcare workers, 649 ‘other’ essential workers and 1465 nonessential workers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMeasures included psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)), well-being (WHO-5), alcohol use, subjective experiences and sources of stress. Differences between work categories were quantified as risk ratios or χ2 tests.ResultsAfter controlling for confounders that differed between groups of essential and nonessential workers, those in healthcare and those in ‘other’ essential work were at 71% (95% CI 1.29 to 2.27) and 59% (95% CI 1.25 to 2.02) greater risk respectively, of moderate levels of anxiety (GAD-7 ≥10), than those in nonessential work. Those in healthcare were at 19% (95% CI 1.02 to 1.39) greater risk of poor well-being (WHO-5 <13). There was no evidence of differences across work roles in risk for psychological distress (K10 ≥12) or increased alcohol use. Healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers reported increased workload (p<0.001) and less uncertainty about finances and employment than those in nonessential work (p<0.001). Healthcare and nonessential workers reported decreased social contact. No difference by work category in health concerns was reported; 15% had concerns about participants’ own health and 33% about other people’s health.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic lockdown, essential workers (those in healthcare and those providing ‘other’ essential work) were at increased risk of anxiety compared with those in nonessential work, with those in healthcare also being at increased risk of poor well-being. This highlights the need to recognise the challenges this vital workforce face in pandemics.

Download Full-text

Emotional impact of COVID-19 lockdown and mitigation options: A cross-sectional survey of households in Ebonyi State, Nigeria

SAGE Open Medicine ◽

10.1177/20503121211032477 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 205031212110324

Author(s):

Nwamaka A Elom ◽

Ignatius O Nwimo ◽

Sampson Omena Elom ◽

Deborah N Alegu ◽

Eunice N Afoke ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Emotional Health ◽

Family Members ◽

Emotional Impact ◽

Video Conference ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Mitigation Options ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Impact

Background: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has continued to plague households, leading to lockdown problems. Adopting appropriate mitigation strategies can reduce the impact on family members. Purpose: To assess the emotional impact of COVID-19 epidemic lockdown and mitigation measures among households in Ebonyi State. Methods: Cross-sectional survey design was used to study 516 participants. Emotional impact of COVID-19 lockdown ( r = 0.73) and mitigation options ( r = 0.92) questionnaire was used for data collection. Of the 516 copies of the questionnaire distributed, 493 copies (95.5% return rate) were used for data analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, standard deviations, and t-tests. Results: The data showed the emotional impact of the COVID-19 epidemic was high (2.97 ± 0.48) on households. They embraced friendly communication and communication with their partners, maintaining regular contact with their loved ones by phone, email, social media, or video conference to alleviate the COVID-19 lockdown. No significant differences were found in the emotional impact for location ( p > 0.05). Significant differences were not observed in many gender-based mitigation options. Conversely, a significant difference existed in the mitigation options based on location ( t = 3.143, p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in friendly interactions and communication with partners ( t = 0.354, p > 0.05), finding opportunities to develop excellent and promising news and images ( t = 0.770, p > 0.05) and maintaining regular communication with loved ones via phone, email, social media, and video conference ( t = 0.448, p > 0.05). Conclusion: The emotional impact of COVID-19 confinement was significant on family life and was more prevalent among men and urban dwellers. There is need to organise an awareness campaign on fundamental ways to overcome emotional distress using media targeting family members to promote emotional health.

Download Full-text

Impact of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapies on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-51667/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ennio Giulio Favalli ◽

Serena Bugatti ◽

Catherine Klersy ◽

Martina Biggioggero ◽

Silvia Rossi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inflammatory Arthritis ◽

Immunosuppressive Agents ◽

Large Cohort ◽

World Health ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Chronic Inflammatory Arthritis ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Prevalence and outcomes of Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 in relation to immunomodulatory medications are still unknown. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents on COVID-19 in a large cohort of patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory arthritis.Methods: The study was conducted in the arthritis outpatient clinic at two large Academic Hospitals in the COVID-19 most endemic area of Northern Italy (Lombardy). We circulated a cross-sectional survey exploring the prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 nasopharyngeal swab positivity and the occurrence of acute respiratory illness (fever and/or cough and/or dyspnea), administered face-to-face or by phone to consecutive patients from 25th February to 20th April 2020. COVID-19 cases were defined as confirmed or highly suspicious according to the World Health Organization criteria. The impact of medications on COVID-19 development was evaluated. Results: The study population included 2050 adults with chronic inflammatory arthritis receiving glucocorticoids, conventional-synthetic (cs), or targeted-synthetic/biological (ts/b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and highly suspicious infection were recorded in 1.1% and 1.4% of the population, respectively. Treatment with glucocorticoids was independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted OR [95% CI] ranging from 1.23 [1.04-1.44] to 3.20 [1.97-5.18] depending on the definition used). Conversely, patients treated with ts/bDMARDs were at reduced risk (adjusted OR ranging from 0.46 [0.18-1.21] to 0.47 [0.46-0.48]). No independent effects of csDMARDs, age, sex, and comorbidities were observed.Conclusions: During the COVID-19 outbreak, treatment with immunomodulatory medications appears safe. Conversely, glucocorticoids, even at low-dose, may confer increased risk of infection.Trial registration: retrospectively registered

Download Full-text

Psychological Impacts of COVID-19 During the First Nationwide Lockdown in Vietnam: Web-Based, Cross-Sectional Survey Study

JMIR Formative Research ◽

10.2196/24776 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (12) ◽

pp. e24776

Author(s):

Khanh Ngoc Cong Duong ◽

Tien Nguyen Le Bao ◽

Phuong Thi Lan Nguyen ◽

Thanh Vo Van ◽

Toi Phung Lam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychological Distress ◽

General Population ◽

Psychological Health ◽

Online Survey ◽

Survey Study ◽

Limited Information ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Event Scale ◽

The Impact

Background The first nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented in Vietnam from April 1 to 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological health of the public. Objective This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. Methods We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during social distancing due to COVID-19. Associations across factors were explored using regression analysis. Results A total of 1385 respondents completed the survey. Of this, 35.9% (n=497) experienced psychological distress, as well as depression (n=325, 23.5%), anxiety (n=195, 14.1%), and stress (n=309, 22.3%). Respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had a higher IES-R score (beta coefficient [B]=9.16, 95% CI 6.43 to 11.89), as well as higher depression (B=5.85, 95% CI 4.49 to 7.21), anxiety (B=3.64, 95% CI 2.64 to 4.63), and stress (B=5.19, 95% CI 3.83 to 6.56) scores for DASS-21 than those who rated their health as good or very good. Those who self-reported their health as bad or very bad experienced more severe depression (B=9.57, 95% CI 4.54 to 14.59), anxiety (B=7.24, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.9), and stress (B=10.60, 95% CI 5.56 to 15.65). Unemployment was more likely to be associated with depression (B=3.34, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.01) and stress (B=2.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding worries about COVID-19, more than half (n=755, 54.5%) expressed concern for their children aged <18 years, which increased their IES-R score (B=7.81, 95% CI 4.98 to 10.64) and DASS-21 stress score (B=1.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.24). The majority of respondents (n=1335, 96.4%) were confident about their doctor’s expertise in terms of COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B=–7.84, 95% CI –14.58 to –1.11). Conclusions The findings highlight the effect of COVID-19 on mental health during the nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. The study provides useful evidence for policy decision makers to develop and implement interventions to mitigate these impacts.

Download Full-text

Early negative life events during childhood and social anxietyin adulthood

European Psychiatry ◽

10.1016/s0924-9338(11)71851-x ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 26 (S2) ◽

pp. 140-140

Author(s):

C. Binelli ◽

A. Ortiz ◽

E. Gelabert ◽

J.A. Crippa ◽

S. Subirà ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Anxiety ◽

University Students ◽

Family Violence ◽

Life Events ◽

Emotional Abuse ◽

Negative Life Events ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Impact

BackgroundAlthough there is considerable evidence on the impact of negative life events during childhood on the etiology of psychiatric disorders, little is known about the specific influence on the social anxiety disorder. The objective of the study was to examine this association.MethodIn a cross-sectional survey in 571 university students we analysed the association between loss of someone close, emotional abuse, physical abuse, family violence and sexual abuse with social anxiety assessed by the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.ResultsTwenty percent of the sample had social anxiety and 50,6% had an early negative life events in childhood. After controlling for family psychiatric history and gender only family violence was associated with an increased risk of social anxiety (OR = 4.63; 95%CI = 1.13–18.9).ConclusionsThis study found childhood family violence associated with social phobia in university students.

Download Full-text