COVID-19 Associated Suicidal Ideation in Older Adults: Two Case Reports With a Review of the Literature

A structural vulnerability approach to older adult suicides: Trends and potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Clark County, NV (2017-2021)

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected all aspects of life in the United States and around the world. This is particularly true for marginalized and vulnerable groups who face disproportionate levels of violence and premature death within their communities. While general impacts of the pandemic have been well-studied overall, little has been done to examine the correlation between COVID-19 and the risk of suicide among older adults. Older adults are particularly at risk because they face challenges including ageism, inadequate support systems, unreliable transportation, and frequent social isolation. Medicolegal casework offers a unique vantage of these issues, as it aims to identify manner of death which may be influenced by underlying structural vulnerabilities. The current research draws upon data collected from the Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner. A sample of 871 older adults (aged 50+), whose manner of death was deemed a suicide between the years 2017-2021, were included in this analysis. Statistical analyses investigated differences between adults aged 50-64, 65-84, and 85+ years. Results suggest statistically significant changes in mechanism of death between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, indicating a shift in risk factors related to social isolation and the home environment. Understanding such changes in trends directly affects the interpretation of skeletal data in forensic anthropology and thus, should be taken into consideration when developing structural vulnerability profiles. Furthermore, the inclusion of a structural vulnerability approach in forensic case reports has the potential to provide additional context for deaths by suicide and may help develop policies and procedures for mitigating future risk.

Prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis of 113 studies from 31 countries

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed were searched according to a pre-set strategy. A total of 132 studies were identified, 104 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was approximately 14.7% (95%CI: 12.5%, 16.8%, P < 0.01) in the general population, approximately 22.4% (95%CI: 17.1%, 27.8%, P < 0.01）in adolescents, approximately 21.0% (95%CI: 12.8%, 29.2%, P < 0.01) in psychiatric patients, approximately 20.6% (95%CI: 18.7%, 22.5%, P < 0.01）in university students, approximately 18.9% (95%CI: 8.3%, 29.5%, P < 0.01) in younger adults, approximately 10.6% (95%CI: 1.0%, 20.2%, P = 0.031) in COVID-19 patients and approximately 7.4% (95%CI: 4.3%, 10.5%, P < 0.01) in healthcare workers. The prevalence in North America was approximately 16.0% (95%CI: 13.6%-18.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 14.5% in Asia (95%CI: 9.5%-19.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 10.5% in Europe (95%CI: 8.5%-12.4%, P < 0.001), and approximately 20.5% in South America (95%CI: 19.5%-21.5%, P < 0.001). The following were risk factors which might be correlated with suicidal ideation: severe anxiety symptoms, mild to moderate depression, a strong feeling of loneliness/social isolation, poor sleep quality, having COVID-19-related experience, having quarantine or lockdown experience, being female, being single or divorced, having financial problems and having a history of suicidal ideation/attempt. This article reports the prevalence of suicidal ideation and discussing potential risk factors during the pandemic among general population and vulnerable groups. Early detection and follow-up were necessary for the noteworthy population.

Predictors of loneliness during the Covid-19 pandemic in people with dementia and their carers in England: findings from the DETERMIND-C19 study

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors that predict the risk of loneliness for people with dementia and carers during a pandemic.

METHODS

People with dementia and their carers completed assessments before (July 2019-March 2020; 206 dyads) and after (July-October 2020) the first Covid-19 'lockdown' in England. At follow-up, the analytic sample comprised 67 people with dementia and 108 carers. We built a longitudinal path model with loneliness as an observed outcome. Carer type and social contacts at both measurements were considered. Other social resources (quality of relationship, formal day activities), wellbeing (anxiety, psychological wellbeing) and cognitive impairment were measured with initial level and change using latent growth curves. We adjusted for socio-demographic factors and health at baseline.

RESULTS

In carers, higher levels of loneliness were directly associated with non-spouse coresident carer type, level and increase of anxiety in carer, more formal day activities, and higher cognitive impairment in the person with dementia. In people with dementia, non-spouse coresident carer type, and higher initial levels of social resources, wellbeing, and cognitive impairment predicted the changes in these factors; this produced indirect effects on social contacts and loneliness.

CONCLUSION

Loneliness in the Covid-19 pandemic appears to be shaped by different mechanisms for people with dementia and their carers. The results suggest that carers of those with dementia may prioritize providing care that protects the person with dementia from loneliness at the cost of experiencing loneliness themselves. Directions for the promotion of adaptive social care during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond are discussed.

The Initial Response to COVID-19 Disruptions for Older People with HIV in Ukraine

Ukraine imposed a COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. From April to June 2020, we surveyed 123 older people with HIV (OPWH) by phone to assess their mental health, engagement in HIV and other healthcare, and substance use using standardised scales. Variables of key interest were symptoms of depression and symptoms of anxiety. Univariate and multivariable Firth logistic regression models were built to assess factors associated with: (1) symptoms of depression, and (2) symptoms of anxiety. Findings indicated high suicidal ideation (10.6%); 45.5% met the screening criteria for moderate to severe depression; and 35.0% met the criteria for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Independent correlates of having moderate to severe depression included being female (AOR: 2.83, 95%CI = 1.19-7.05), having concerns about potential barriers to HIV treatment (AOR: 8.90, 95%CI = 1.31-104.94), and active drug use (AOR: 34.53, 95%CI = 3.02-4885.85). Being female (AOR: 5.30, 95%CI = 2.16-14.30) and having concerns about potential barriers to HIV treatment (AOR: 5.33, 95%CI = 1.22-28.45) were independently correlated with GAD, and over half (58.5%) were willing to provide peer support to other OPWH. These results highlight the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions in Ukraine on mental health for OPWH and support the need to screen for psychiatric and substance use disorders, potentially using telehealth strategies.

Communication challenges in social isolation, subjective cognitive decline, and mental health status in older adults: A scoping review (2019-2021)

PURPOSE

Through an evolutionary concept analysis, social isolation (SI) was defined as lack of social belonging and engagement with others, minimal number of social contacts, and insufficient quality relationships. This definition represents broader understanding of most contributing factors to SI and supports the concepts of reduced communication and socialization experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic served to heighten this problem, including communication challenges, and brought negative outcomes of SI to light. The overall research question examined the impact of communication challenges and SI on OAs with Alzheimer's disease, related dementias, and subjective cognitive changes (2020-2021). This scoping literature review was developed to compare the psychosocial and mental health of older adults between prepandemic and pandemic lockdown of 2020-2021.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This review followed the procedures for scoping review reporting as stated by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In collaboration with an expert scientific information specialist assigned to the college of nursing, the literature was queried through MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily 1946 to September 02, 2021; APA PsycInfo 1806 to August Week 5 2021; and Embase Classic+Embase 1947 to 2021 September 02. Search terms included social isolation; nursing home; home for the aged; long-term care; old age homes or convalescent home or nursing home; long-term care, or long-term care; aged or elders or seniors, dementia, Alzheimer's or dementia; osteoporosis; and fragility fracture.

FINDINGS

Quantitative data informed outcomes through increased depression and anxiety, higher rates of depression during the pandemic than prepandemic, and increased symptomology in neuropsychiatric profiles. Further, COVID19-related restrictions, including impaired communication streams, seemed to be the origin of stress-related cognitive changes and symptomology. Communication challenges in residents with dementia may lead to feelings of social isolation. Qualitative evidence supports that dementia has a social, psychological, material, and socio-demographic impact. Further, the lockdown disrupted the existing flow of communication between all stakeholders and residents, resulting in heightened perceptions of SI and a profound sense of loss.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The results include a diverse and complex characterization of negative outcomes. Further, strong evidence indicates that communication and human contact can ameliorate negative outcomes.

Suicidal ideation and its related factors among older adults: a population-based study in Southwestern Iran

Objectives

Suicidal ideation is a major risk factor for suicide and can negatively affect self-care and health behaviors among the older adults. There are limited data on the prevalence and risk factors of suicidal ideation among the older population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence and risk factors of suicidal ideations among Iranian older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A total of 803 older community adults in Shiraz (Southwestern Iran) were surveyed to determine potential factors influencing suicidal ideation, including demographic factors, physical health status, access to healthcare, current depression status, fear of COVID-19, perceived social support, and social engagement. Data were collected utilizing face-to-face interviews between November and December 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent variables associated with suicidal ideations.

Results

Among the 803 participants, 69 reported suicidal ideations (8.6%). Individuals with suicidal ideations were more likely to have greater fear of COVID-19. However, based on the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis, current depression (OR: 2.07, CI 95%: 1.18–3.65), not being married (OR: 1.82, CI 95%: 1.06–3.13), inability to pay for medical bills (OR: 2.16, CI 95%: 1.23–3.79), low perceived social support (OR: 2.03, CI95%: 1.11–3.71), and having limited social network (OR:1.77, CI 95%: 1.02–3.10) appeared to be more powerful influencing factors.

Conclusion

Suicidal ideation appears to be relatively common among Iranian older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. A lack of longitudinal data makes it difficult to establish an association between suicidal ideations and the COVID-19 pandemic. Systematic monitoring of suicidal ideation is recommended among high-risk groups, particularly the older population.

Invisible and at-risk: older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic the risks to older adults of systemic abuse and neglect have become amplified, alongside increasing abuse and neglect in the community. Novel risks have also evolved involving cybercrime and the use of remote technologies in health and social care related to the pandemic. This commentary brings together lessons to be learned from these developments and initial ideas for actions to mitigate future risks.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.