A Conditional Process Model to Explain Somatization During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic: The Interaction Among Resilience, Perceived Stress, and Sex

Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic

There is scarce evidence of a relationship between positive and psychosomatic characteristics. This study aimed to examine the associations of somatic burden with psychological resources such as optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. Russian participants (n = 1020) completed measures of psychological resources at Time 1 and somatic symptoms at Time 2. The results showed that somatic burden decreased with greater levels of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. Regarding health and sociodemographic characteristics, female sex increased somatic burden in the model with optimism scores, university education decreased somatic burden in the model with resilience scores, and history of COVID-19 disease increased somatic burden in the models with optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy scores. This study has theoretical and practical contributions. It combines positive psychology and psychosomatic medicine and highlights the value of psychological resource interventions in the treatment and prevention of somatic burden. These findings may be useful for scientists, clinicians, and practitioners.

Resilience resources, coping, and health outcomes in college students during the Covid-19 pandemic

Background: Resilience resources are predispositions that promote individuals' abilities to cope with stress. Objective: The current cross-sectional study used path analysis with parallel multiple mediators to test whether coping behaviors mediated associations between resilience resources and somatic, depression, and anxiety symptoms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Method: Undergraduates at a small Northeastern college (n = 193) completed online surveys assessing resilience resources, coping, and symptoms. Results: Results support significant indirect effects from resilience resources to somatic symptoms through positive reinterpretation and growth, mental disengagement, and substance use. Total indirect effects for depressive symptoms were driven by mental disengagement and substance use, with a direct effect of resilience resources. The effect of resilience resources on anxiety symptoms was mediated by mental disengagement, and there was a direct effect of resilience resources. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that some coping strategies link resilience resources to better outcomes, potentially informing interventions for adaptive coping during public health crises.

The development and validation of a new resilience inventory based on inner strength

There are a number of resilience scales with good psychometric properties. However, the various scales differ in their item content in accordance with the model of resilience the developer had in mind. Culture is one of the reasons for the difference. Thailand, one of the Buddhist cultures, has a different view on resilience compared with Western culture. This study aimed to develop and validate a resilience inventory created based on the inner strength concept using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch measurement model. The resilience inventory (RI) was developed by creating new items representing inner strengths attributed to resilience. The inner strength was adopted to form the resilience construct, including perseverance, wisdom, patience, mindfulness, loving-kindness and equanimity. In addition, face and content validity were examined by experts in both mental health and Buddhism. The final RI comprised nine items with a 5-point Likert-type scale. The RI-9 was completed by 243 medical students who participated in the study, along with other measurements, i.e., Inner Strength-Based Inventory (iSBI), measuring the ten characteristics of perfection or inner strength, and the Core Symptom Index, measuring anxiety, depression and somatization symptoms. CFA, internal consistency and the Polytomous Rasch rating model were used to investigate the RI-9 construct validity. The mean age of the participants was 22.7 years (SD, 0.8); one-half were male (50%). The RI-9 construct demonstrated item hierarchy as follows: perseverance, patience (tolerance), mindfulness and equanimity, wisdom and loving-kindness. CFA showed that the unidimensional model fitted the data well. Rasch analysis showed no misfitting items and local dependence. The reliability of the person and item was good, and no disordered threshold was observed. Two items were found to exhibit differential item functioning due to sex. RI-9 scores were significantly related to all ten strengths from the iSBI, whereas they were negatively related to depression, anxiety, somatization and interpersonal difficulties. The RI-9 demonstrated validity and reliability. It constitutes a promising tool for outcome assessment in nonclinical populations. Further investigation on external validity as well as psychometric validation in other different cultures, should be encouraged.

Management of Somatization in COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Somatization refers to the condition in which psychological distress is shown in the form of somatic symptoms such as persistent headache, nausea, gastrointestinal discomfort, etc. Various predisposing factors, including familial such as high expressed emotion, poor parental care, genetic, biological, and demographic which includes age and gender, cognitive such as learning disabilities, psychiatric such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, social, etc., play an essential role in saturation of the disease. During the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, psychological distress increased in the patients infected with the coronavirus due to some the factors such as social distancing from loved ones, lack of physical exercise, loss of income, loneliness due to quarantine, etc. Therefore, management and treatment of the disorder became essential, especially in coronavirus-infected patients, as it may lead to an increase in complications of the disease. Many studies have been conducted to identify the proper way to manage the condition. Treatments include pharmacological therapy and psychosocial interventions. Pharmacological therapy includes using various antidepressants, hypnotics, and sedatives such as benzodiazepines. For the treatment, mirtazapine is a secure and reliable antidepressant. Another drug, trizolobenzodiazepine adinazolam, was also very useful in treating patients. In some randomized experiments, alprazolam significantly outperformed amitryptiline in reducing the symptoms. Psychosocial interventions include sessions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, relaxation training, meditation, and psychological interventions such as enhancing multidimensional social help, modifying cognitive assessment, directing positive coping, and inspiring positive emotions.

Does COVID-19 related symptomatology indicate a transdiagnostic neuropsychiatric disorder? - Multidisciplinary implications

The clinical presentation that emerges from the extensive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mental health literature suggests high correlations among many conventional psychiatric diagnoses. Arguments against the use of multiple comorbidities for a single patient have been published long before the pandemic. Concurrently, diagnostic recommendations for use of transdiagnostic considerations for improved treatment have been also published in recent years. In this review, we pose the question of whether a transdiagnostic mental health disease, including psychiatric and neuropsychiatric symptomology, has emerged since the onset of the pandemic. There are many attempts to identify a syndrome related to the pandemic, but none of the validated scales is able to capture the entire psychiatric and neuropsychiatric clinical presentation in infected and non-infected individuals. These scales also only marginally touch the issue of etiology and prevalence. We suggest a working hypothesis termed Complex Stress Reaction Syndrome (CSRS) representing a global psychiatric reaction to the pandemic situation in the general population (Type A) and a neuropsychiatric reaction in infected individuals (Type B) which relates to neurocognitive and psychiatric features which are part (excluding systemic and metabolic dysfunctions) of the syndrome termed in the literature as long COVID. We base our propositions on multidisciplinary scientific data regarding mental health during the global pandemic situation and the effects of viral infection reviewed from Google Scholar and PubMed between February 1, 2022 and March 10, 2022. Search in-clusion criteria were “mental health”, “COVID-19” and “Long COVID”, English language and human studies only. We suggest that this more comprehensive way of understanding COVID-19 complex mental health reactions may promote better prevention and treatment and serve to guide implementation of recommended administrative regulations that were recently published by the World Psychiatric Association. This review may serve as a call for an international investigation of our working hypothesis.

Jeopardized mental health of children and adolescents in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak became a worldwide pandemic in 2020. Social distancing measures, such as self-quarantine, lockdowns, and school closures, which have proven efficacy in various pandemic situations, remain in use in Korea. These measures prevented viral transmission to some extent; however, adverse effects have also resulted. First, the negative effect of social isolation on mental health is evident. This influences the psychiatric milieu of parents and children directly and indirectly. The most stressful factor among Korean youth was the restriction of outdoor activities. Increasing parenting burden result in increased screen time among youth, and social isolation created depressive mood with symptoms similar to those of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety. Second, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and somatization are prevalent among children and adolescents. The sense of threatened health and life during the pandemic, one symptom of PTSD, is a strong risk factor for somatization. Finally, the increased pattern of child abuse in pandemic indicates increased levels of emotional/psychological abuse and nonmedical neglect. Social isolation makes people less aware of these events. Because pediatricians evaluate pediatric patients and their families, they should regularly assess emotional/stress factors, especially when somatization is prominent during the pandemic, and cautiously recommend that families seek advice from mental health professionals when warranted. Primary physicians must understand the characteristics and aspects of child abuse in the COVID-19 pandemic, make efforts to identify signs of child abuse, and deliver accurate information and preventive strategies for child abuse to caregivers, thereby functioning as a professional guardian. To promote the mental health of parents and children during the COVID-19 pandemic, more research and cooperation among health professionals, families, governments, and schools are needed in the future.

Do Psychological Resilience and Emotional Intelligence Vary Among Stress Profiles in University Students? A Latent Profile Analysis

The coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic has brought about significant changes in the lifestyle of students. However, despite an extensive study of students’ life stress using a non-comprehensive scale and variable-centered approach, it has been little studied with a comprehensive scale and person-centered approach. Using the Student-Life Stress Inventory-revised (SSI-R), we analyzed students’ latent stress profiles and examined differences in psychological resilience and emotional intelligence by comparing stress profiles from a sample of 418 undergraduate and graduate students (aged 18–36) in various departments of eight universities in Turkey. We identified five distinct stress profiles, defined as an extremely low stress group (ELSG), a low stress group (LSG), a medium stress group (MSG), a high stress group (HSG), and an extremely high stress group (EHSG). We found that (1) MSG and HSG were similar in terms of emotional intelligence, resilience, and possession of high standards, and they reported higher levels of physiological, emotional, and behavioral reactions than ELSG and LSG; (2) MSG felt more pressure than HSG; (3) ELSG reported higher levels of emotional intelligence (wellbeing, self-control, and emotionality) than others. Also, EHSG reported lower levels of emotional intelligence (specifically self-control) than others; (4) whereas resilience was highly positively correlated to wellbeing, resilience and wellbeing were moderately negatively correlated to stress. Extremely low stress group and LSG reported higher levels of resilience than others. Medium stress group, HSG, and EHSG did not differ with regard to resilience and wellbeing. Our results suggest that, university students are able to maintain their functionality by coping up with stress in some ways, no matter how stressful they are. These findings are discussed in relation to the relevant literature.

Association among resilience, post-traumatic stress disorder, and somatization in frontline healthcare workers in COVID-19: The mediating role of perceived stress

BACKGROUND

Frontline healthcare workers were at a high risk of infection and developing mental health problems during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is important to monitor the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and somatization among frontline healthcare workers in China.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate PTSD, somatization, resilience, and perceived stress among frontline healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19 and examine the mediating effects of perceived stress on resilience in both PTSD and somatization.

METHODS

The study was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022 through an online survey of frontline healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19. The survey included questions regarding socio-demographic information, resilience (10-item Conner-Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC-10), perceived stress (14-item Perceived Stress Scale, PSS), PTSD (Checklist-Civilian Version, PCL-C), and somatization (Symptom Checklist-90). The PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to examine the mediating effects of perceived stress.

RESULTS

Approximately 14.9% of healthcare workers had possible PTSD (PCL-C score of ≥ 44), and 41.04% of the workers had low resilience (CD-RISC-10 score of ≤ 25.5). Approximately 54.05% of healthcare workers were symptomatic, and 14.7% had a moderate or higher degree of somatization with sleep-related problems as the most common symptom. Perceived stress was negatively correlated with resilience (r = -0.527, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with PTSD (r = 0.505, p < 0.001) and somatization (r = 0.361, p < 0.001). In addition, perceived stress mediated the relationship between resilience and PTSD [indirect b = -0.382; bootstrapped confidence interval (CI), -0.454, -0.319] and somatization (indirect effect b = -0.159; bootstrapped CI, -0.199, -0.123).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of PTSD and somatic symptoms indicates that the mental health of frontline healthcare workers deserves more attention. Resilience is negatively associated with PTSD and somatization, and the relationship among resilience, PTSD, and somatization is mediated by perceived stress. Strategies for reducing perceived stress and increasing resilience may help to prevent and alleviate PTSD and somatization.

Measurement of Somatic Symptoms in the General Population: Standardization of the Russian PHQ-15

<p>The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) is a self-report measure assessing presence and severity of somatic symptoms [15]. The aim of this study was to standardize the Russian version of PHQ-15. The study included 1157 respondents from the general population aged 18 to 71. In addition to the PHQ-15, the participants completed the Russian Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21), evaluating the psychological distress symptoms. The results showed that 91% of the respondents reported at least one symptom bothering them in the past four weeks. Regarding gender and age specifics of somatization, the most predisposed to the psychosomatic burden were females and persons aged 35-49 years. Moreover, 28.2% of the respondents demonstrated a high level of somatization, as well as increased scores of depression, anxiety, and stress compared to the participants with low and moderate psychosomatic burden. In conclusion, the Russian version of PHQ-15 has been successfully standardized and can be recommended for screening and monitoring of medically unexplained symptoms.</p>