Identifying Resilience Factors of Distress and Paranoia During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Five Countries

Non-binary gender, vulnerable populations and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Data from the COVID-19 MEntal health inTernational for the general population (COMET-G) study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant mental health challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations, including non-binary gender individuals. The COMET international study aimed to investigate specific risk factors for clinical depression or distress during the pandemic, also in these special populations.

METHODS

Chi-square tests were used for initial screening to select only those variables which would show an initial significance. Risk Ratios (RR) were calculated, and a Multiple Backward Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (MBSLRA) was followed with those variables given significant results at screening and with the presence of distress or depression or the lack of both of them.

RESULTS

The most important risk factors for depression were female (RR = 1.59-5.49) and non-binary gender (RR = 1.56-7.41), unemployment (RR = 1.41-6.57), not working during lockdowns (RR = 1.43-5.79), bad general health (RR = 2.74-9.98), chronic somatic disorder (RR = 1.22-5.57), history of mental disorders (depression RR = 2.31-9.47; suicide attempt RR = 2.33-9.75; psychosis RR = 2.14-10.08; Bipolar disorder RR = 2.75-12.86), smoking status (RR = 1.15-5.31) and substance use (RR = 1.77-8.01). The risk factors for distress or depression that survived MBSLRA were younger age, being widowed, living alone, bad general health, being a carer, chronic somatic disorder, not working during lockdowns, being single, self-reported history of depression, bipolar disorder, self-harm, suicide attempts and of other mental disorders, smoking, alcohol, and substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted preventive interventions are crucial to safeguard the mental health of vulnerable groups, emphasizing the importance of diverse samples in future research.

LIMITATIONS

Online data collection may have resulted in the underrepresentation of certain population groups.

Stress and Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in the General Population and in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients-Findings from a Population-Based Three-Wave Study

Objective: Understanding factors that impaired mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic is extremely relevant in order to mitigate long-term consequences of the pandemic and to promote resilience in future crises. Method: Data were collected in southern Germany in a population-based survey study (CoKoS) with three times of measurement in May 2020, November 2020 and July 2021. Predictors of depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured with a short version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) in the general population (N = 758) and individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the beginning of the pandemic (N = 412). We investigated differences between both samples and how stress components (worry, tension, demands and joy) measured with the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) varied with depressive and anxiety symptoms over time. Three linear mixed models (GLMMs) were fitted to predict the PHQ-4 stepwise, including sociodemographic variables and stress (PSQ). Results: Depressive and anxiety symptoms increased from May 2020 to November 2020 and remained stable until July 2021. There were no differences between people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and the general population. Those with a pre-existing disease and lower education reported higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Stress explained a substantial fraction of variance in depressive and anxiety symptoms. The stress component worry emerged as the strongest predictor of depressive and anxiety symptoms, whereas joy seemed to buffer these symptoms. Conclusions: The results suggest that mitigating people's worry and increasing joy may promote resilience in future crises. Future studies should assess mental health interventions targeted at vulnerable groups, such as those with lower socioeconomic status and poorer health.

Postpartum post-traumatic stress symptoms during the COVID-19 period: exposure and fear as mediating factors

Background: Post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) following childbirth are common within a stressful environment and are mitigated by social support. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in such symptoms has been reported. The current study aims to longitudinally model the influence of general and pandemic-specific risk and protective factors on the temporal unfolding of symptoms among postpartum women.Methods: Participants were 226 women following a liveborn, term birth during the first lockdown in Israel. Participants completed questionnaires 10 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T2) after delivery. PATH analyses included predictors of symptoms in T1: demographics, exposure to traumatic events, medical complications during delivery or pregnancy, exposure to COVID-19-related events and their subjective impact, fear of COVID-19, and social support. Predictors of symptoms in T2 were: T1 predictors, both as direct effects and mediated by T1 PTSS, as well as predictors measured again in T2.Results: Results showed the suggested model fit the data. The effect of COVID-19-related fear and subjective impact at T1 on symptoms at T2 were fully mediated by PTSS in T1, as were the effects of marriage and high social support at T1. COVID-19-related fear at T2 positively predicted symptoms at T2, while social support at T2 had the opposite effect. Medical complications during pregnancy negatively predicted symptoms in T2 only.Discussion: Persistent fear appears to be a risk factor and supports a consistent buffer in postpartum PTSS during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical complications during pregnancy served as a protective factor, possibly due to habituation to medical settings.

Use of preventive measures, beliefs and information received about COVID-19 and their effects on mental health, in two stages of the pandemic in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Several studies have highlighted the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on both physical and mental health. The aim of this study is to analyse the effects on mental health in two phases of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 and February 2021) in the population of Colombia.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, cross-sectional study along two periods, April 2020 and February 2021. The sample (N = 1309) was extracted from the Colombian population, only including individuals over the age of 18 and residing in Colombia during the pandemic. The IMPACTCOVID-19 questionnaire was used, previously validated in Spain and cross-culturally adapted to the Colombian population, which included sociodemographic data, use of preventive measures, information received and the Goldberg General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) for psychological distress (PD). Participants had to sign an informed consent before taking part in the investigation.

RESULTS

A higher level of PD was observed among women (M = 3.99, SD = 3.39) (p < .001), in those who lived without a partner (M = 3.83, SD = 3.47) (p = .036), and in those with a worse perception of health (M = 6.27, SD = 3.51) (p < .001). PD decreased in the second period from M = 3.99 (SD = 3.36) to M = 2.98 (SD = 3.30) (p < .001), coinciding with a higher use of preventive measures, less distress caused by COVID-19 and greater confidence in healthcare professionals and clinical structures. In the second period, the time spent in getting informed decreased, but the sources of information were the same, principally social media and official sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Better information on the effects and preventive measures to prevent the pandemic improves confidence in the health system and its professionals, reducing the level of PD. There is a need for quality information on social networks and an adaptation of telemedicine to address the pandemic effects on mental health.Key messagesPsychological distress (PD) decreased in February 2021, as compared to April 2020, due to a greater use of preventive measures against COVID-19, and the confidence on the recommendations made by health officials and professionals.Higher PD has been found in women and people who lived without a partner, in line with studies performed in other countries.The accessibility to quality information on the pandemic should be promoted by the Official Health Authorities, thus counteracting data that could be classified as "fake news".

Do parental cognitions during pregnancy predict bonding after birth in a low-risk sample?

Parental bonding to their infant is important for healthy parent-infant interaction and infant development. Characteristics in the parents affect how they bond to their newborn. Parental cognitions such as repetitive negative thinking, a thinking style associated with mental health issues, and cognitive dispositions, e.g., mood-congruent attentional bias or negative implicit attitudes to infants, might affect bonding.

To assess the influence of cognitive factors on bonding, 350 participants (220 pregnant women and their partners) were recruited over two years by midwives at the hospital and in the communal health care services. Participants were followed throughout the pregnancy and until the infant was seven months old as a part of the Northern Babies Longitudinal Study. Both mothers and fathers took part. First, we measured demographics, repetitive negative thinking, attentional bias, and implicit attitudes to infants during pregnancy, as predictors of bonding two months postnatally. Second, we also measured infant regulatory problems, and depressive symptoms at two months postnatally as predictors of parents’ perception of infant temperament at five months. Robust regression analyses were performed to test hypotheses.

Results showed that mothers and fathers differed on several variables. Parity was beneficial for bonding in mothers but not for fathers. Higher levels of mothers’ repetitive negative thinking during pregnancy predicted weaker bonding, which was a non-significant trend in fathers. For fathers, higher education predicted weaker bonding, but not for mothers. Mothers’ perception of their infant temperament at five months was significantly affected by bonding at two months, but for fathers, their depressive symptoms were the only significant predictor of perceived infant temperament.

In conclusion, for mothers, their relationship with their infant is essential for how they experience their infant, while for fathers their own wellbeing might be the most important factor. Health care providers should screen parents’ thoughts and emotions already during pregnancy to help facilitate optimal bonding.

COVID-19-Related Trajectories of Psychological Health of Acute Care Healthcare Professionals: A 12-Month Longitudinal Observational Study

The COVID-19 pandemic hit healthcare professionals (HCPs) hard, potentially leading to mental health deterioration. This longitudinal study investigated the 1-year evolution of psychological health of acute care HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic and explored possible differences between high and low resilient HCPs. From April 2020 to April 2021, a convenience sample of 520 multinational HCPs completed an online survey every 3 months, up to five times. We used mixed linear models to examine the association between resilience and the variation of COVID-19-related anxiety, depressiveness, perceived vulnerability, and psychological trauma symptomatology. We demonstrated "u-shaped" trajectories for all mental health symptoms. We also explored differences in the abovementioned variables between front-line and second-line acute care HCPs. In contrast to HCP.s with lower levels of resilience (-1SD), those with higher levels of resilience (+1SD) showed increased COVID-19 anxiety and perceived vulnerability over time. Front-line and second-line HCPs differed in their depressiveness and psychological trauma variation during the 1-year analysis. High and average resilient second-line HCPs showed steeper depressiveness increases with time than high and average resilient front-line HCPs. Acute care HCPs reported their most elevated clinical symptoms of depressiveness (5-7%) and psychological trauma symptomatology (26-46%) in April 2020. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, second-line HCPs with more resilience showed a steeper worsening of their depressiveness than more resilient front-line HCPs. HCPs with low resilience may benefit from interventions at the beginning of a pandemic, whereas HCPs with high resilience might benefit from resilience-enhancing interventions at later phases.

Trial Registration

The study protocol was pre-registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN13694948) published (Fuchs et al., 2020).

How do appraisal as threat or challenge, efficacy, and environmental quality affect wellbeing in the COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND

In crises, it is of great relevance to identify mechanisms that help people to maintain a certain level of wellbeing. This paper investigates whether appraising the COVID-19 pandemic as a threat vs. as a challenge has different effects on subjective wellbeing during the pandemic. Furthermore, we study the role of the perceived local environmental quality for individuals' subjective wellbeing.

METHODS

Via online survey study with two times of measurement (N = 758), we investigated (a) the prediction of participants' wellbeing in June 2020 and June 2021 through five variables and (b) how these five variables moderated within-participant differences in subjective wellbeing over time.

RESULTS

Results showed that a stronger perception of the pandemic as a threat (feeling worried) and a lower education in June 2020 predicted a lower subjective wellbeing in 2020 and 2021. A stronger challenge appraisal (feeling confident), higher efficacy expectations, and positive perceptions of the local environmental quality in June 2020 predicted a higher wellbeing in 2020 and 2021. There was no substantial change in participants' aggregated wellbeing over time. However, those who perceived the pandemic more as a threat in June 2020 struggled more with negative changes in their wellbeing, whereas those who perceived the pandemic more as a challenge reported a higher wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

It seems key to support people in activating positive feelings to successfully cope with crises.

Covid-19 pandemic lessons: uncritical communication of test results can induce more harm than benefit and raises questions on standardized quality criteria for communication and liability

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by both health and economic risks. A 'safety loop' model postulates risk-related decisions are not based on objective and measurable risks but on the subjective perception of those risks. We here illustrate a quantification of the difference between objective and subjective risks.

METHOD

The objective risks (or chances) can be obtained from traditional 2 × 2 tables by calculating the positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios. The subjective perception of objective risks is calculated from the same 2 × 2 tables by exchanging the X- and Y-axes. The traditional 2 × 2 table starts with the hypothesis, uses a test and a gold standard to confirm or exclude the investigated condition. The 2 × 2 table with inverted axes starts with the communication of a test result and presumes that the communication of bad news (whether right or false) will induce 'Perceived Anxiety' while good news will induce 'Perceived Safety'. Two different functions (confirmation and exclusion) of both perceptions (Perceived Anxiety and Safety) can be quantified with those calculations.

RESULTS

The analysis of six published tests and of one incompletely reported test on COVID-19 polymerase chain reactions (completed by four assumptions on high and low sensitivities and specificities) demonstrated that none of these tests induces 'Perceived Safety'. Eight of the ten tests confirmed the induction of 'Perceived Anxiety' with + LRs (range 3.1-5900). In two of these eight tests, a -LR (0.25 and 0.004) excluded the induction of 'Perceived Safety'.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication of test results caused perceived anxiety but not perceived safety in 80% of the investigated tests. Medical tests - whether true or false - generate strong psychological messages. In the case of COVID-19 tests may induce more perceived anxiety than safety. Risk communication has to balance objective and subjective risks.