Norwegian translation and validation of a routine outcomes monitoring measure: The treatment outcome package

Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Health Care Personnel in Norwegian ICUs during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic, a Prospective, Observational Cross-Sectional Study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has induced demanding work situations in intensive care units (ICU). The objective of our study was to survey psychological reactions, the disturbance of social life, work effort, and support in ICU nurses, physicians, and leaders. Methods: From May to July 2020, this cross-sectional study included 484 ICU professionals from 27 hospitals throughout Norway. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured on Hopkins Symptom Checklist-10 (HSCL-10). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were measured on the PCL-5. Results: The study population were highly educated and experienced professionals, well prepared for working with COVID-ICU patients. However, 53% felt socially isolated and 67% reported a fear of infecting others. Probable cases of anxiety and depression were found in 12.5% of the registered nurses, 11.6% of the physicians, and 4.1% of the leaders. Younger age and <5 years previous work experiences were predictors for high HSCL-10 scores. Reported symptom-defined PTSD for nurses 7.1%; the leaders, 4.1%; and 2.3% of physicians. Conclusions: ICU health care professionals experienced talking with colleagues as the most helpful source of support. The COVID-ICU leaders reported a significantly higher mean score than physicians and nurses in terms of pushing themselves toward producing high work effort.

COVID-19 and psychological distress in Norway: The role of trust in the healthcare system

Aim:

The study aims to examine groups at risk for psychological distress in connection with the COVID-19 outbreak, and the role of trust in the healthcare system as a possible moderator.

Methods:

Data were collected from a large sample of the Norwegian population (n = 4008) through the Norwegian Citizen Panel (NCP). A linear regression was conducted to examine the effects of COVID-19 related risk factors on psychological distress, using the 10-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-10). Finally, we conducted a moderation analysis to examine the interaction of trust in the healthcare system and COVID-19 related risk factors.

Results:

A linear regression showed that female gender, younger age, lower level of education, being infected with COVID-19, being medically vulnerable, working in the healthcare system, being in voluntary quarantine and having an immigrant background predicted mean HSCL-10 scores. The moderation analysis revealed that people in the medically vulnerable group, those below 61, and those in quarantine reported higher psychological distress when they also had lower trust in the healthcare system.

Conclusions:

Findings indicate important groups to take into consideration in mental healthcare strategies and policies. However, most participants in the current study reported psychological distress levels that were below the clinical cut-off, suggesting that the majority may have coped relatively well in the early stages of the pandemic.

Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n =33,919)

Objective:

Self-reported information from questionnaires is frequently used in epidemiological studies, but few of these studies provide information on the reproducibility of individual items contained in the questionnaire. We studied the test–retest reliability of self-reported diabetes among 33,919 participants in Norwegian Women and Cancer Study.

Methods:

The test–retest reliability of self-reported type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was evaluated between three self-administered questionnaires (completed in 1991, 1998, and 2005 by Norwegian Women and Cancer participants) by kappa agreement. The time interval between the test–retest studies was ~7 and ~14 years. Sensitivity of the kappa agreement for type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether test–retest reliability varies with age, body mass index, physical activity, education, and smoking status.

Results:

The kappa agreement for both types of self-reported diabetes diagnoses combined was good (⩾0.65) for all three test–retest studies (1991–1998, 1991–2005, and 1998–2005). The kappa agreement for type 1 diabetes was good (⩾0.73) in the 1991–2005 and the 1998–2005 test–retest studies, and very good (0.83) in the 1991–1998 test–retest study. The kappa agreement for type 2 diabetes was moderate (0.57) in the 1991–2005 test–retest study and good (⩾0.66) in the 1991–1998 and 1998–2005 test–retest studies. The overall kappa agreement in the 1991–1998 test–retest study was stronger than in the 1991–2005 test–retest study and the 1998–2005 test–retest study. There was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreements within different strata of age, BMI, physical activity, and smoking. The kappa agreement was strongest among the respondents with 17 or more years of education, while generally it was weaker among the least educated group.

Conclusion:

The test–retest reliability of the diabetes was acceptable and there was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreement stratified by age, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking. The study suggests that self-reported diabetes diagnosis from middle-aged women enrolled in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study is reliable.