DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in two hospitals in Jordan among 310 parents of infants in the NICU by using PSS: NICU and PROMIS.

RESULTS: Both parents experienced high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance. There was a significant difference in stress level between mothers and fathers [t (308)=3.471, p=0.001], with the mothers experiencing higher stress than the fathers [mean: mothers=108.58; fathers=101.68]. The highest and lowest sources of stress were infant behavior and appearance (M=4.09) and sights and sounds in the NICU (M=3.54), respectively. The correlation between stress levels with anxiety (r=0.79) and depression (r=0.75) was strong and positive while sleep disturbance was significant and moderate (r=0.43).

CONCLUSIONS: The mothers experienced higher levels of stress compared to fathers, with positive correlations between stress and anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance.

METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to select the 73 caregivers of children with ALL who participated in this cross-sectional study. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) were used to measure psychological distress.

RESULT: There was a low prevalence (11%) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among the participants. Although all the criteria for PTSD were not met, a few post-traumatic symptoms remained, suggesting that PTSS was likely present. Most of the participants reported minimal symptoms of depression (79.5%) and anxiety (65.8%). Anxiety, depression, and ethnicity predicted the PTSS scores (R2 = .77, p =.000). Subsequently, depression predicted the PTSS scores (R2 = 0.42, p =0.000). Participants of 'Other' or 'Indigenous' ethnicity had lower PTSS scores and higher anxiety scores (R2 = 0.75, p =0.000) than participants of Malay ethnicity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables.

RESULTS: Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC) over six months. Prostate cancer patients from UMMC received the intervention and patients from UKMMC were taken as controls. The level of depression, anxiety and stress were measured using Depression, Anxiety Stress Scales - 21 (DASS-21).

RESULTS: A total of 77 patients from the UMMC and 78 patients from the UKMMC participated. At the end of the study, 90.9% and 87.2% of patients from the UMMC and UKMMC groups completed the study respectively. There were significant improvements in anxiety (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.198) and stress (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.103) at the end of the study in those receiving muscle training. However, there was no improvement in depression (p=0.956).

METHODS: A total of 7102 pregnant women from 12 high-income economies and nine middle-income economies were included. The web-based survey used two standardized instruments, General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

METHOD: Participants were contacted and offered early physical consultation with a neurologist. Patients who participated in the Phase 1 study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with epilepsy and treated in our hospital were recruited. Clinical and psychological outcomes of COVID-19 were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31).

METHOD: This is a cross-sectional, survey-based study in which participants responded to questionnairesregarding perceived burden (ZBI), quality of life (IEQoL), psychological distress (DASS-21), family functioning (FAD) and perceived social support (MSPSS). Additional measures include socio-demographics and clinical characteristics of the care-recipient.

METHODS: A total of 28 PWE were randomly assigned to either intervention (n = 14 cases) or control group (n = 14 controls). The intervention group received a six 2.5-hour weekly MBI, while the control group did not receive any intervention. They were assessed at three timepoints (T0: before intervention, T1: immediately after intervention, and T2: 6 weeks after intervention). Repeated measures of analyses of variance (RM-ANOVAs) were used for inter-group comparisons to determine intervention effect from baseline -to T1 and -to T2 for all outcome measures. The individual changes were calculated using the reliable change index (RCI). Key outcomes included depression (BDI-II), anxiety (BAI), epilepsy-related quality of life (QOLIE-31), satisfaction with life (SWLS), and level of mindfulness (MAAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted from July 2020 till August 2021 in a regional state hospital, north of Malaysia. All patients requiring hospitalization for COVID-19 were approached within the first 2 weeks after admission to administer the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21) scale. Follow-up phone calls were made within 3 months of discharged to enquire about the DASS-21 items as well as the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) scale items. Participants above the age of 18 and technology savvy to answer an online questionnaire were recruited for the study. We excluded participants with a known history of psychotic disorder from the study. We utilised the DASS-21 to screen for depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as the IES-R to identify symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Participants could answer the questionnaires in either English or Bahasa Malaysia. For comparison of two categorical data, a chi-square was applied. A univariate analysis was first conducted and all variables with a p ≤0.3 was then entered into the multivariate analysis for the final output. Other than the univariate analysis, all other p values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. All data collected were tabulated and analysed in the SPSS v21.0 system.

RESULTS: A total of 306 out of 696 COVID-19 patients responded. The mean age for the participants was 31.69 (SD:11.19) years old. From the total, 54.2% were ladies, 78.8% were Malay, 50.7% were unmarried, 55.2% had higher education, and 67.6% were employed at the time of the survey. We found 20.5% of the participants were depressed, 38.9% had moderate anxiety, and 17.3% were stressed. From the total, 31.7% of the participants were deemed to have had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ranging from mild to severe. From the final multivariate analysis, it was found that depression (p=0.02) had a 2.78 times likeliness of having PTSD, anxiety (p<0.001) had a 3.35 times likeliness of having PTSD and stressed patients (p=0.02) 2.86 times likeliness of having PTSD when compared to those without PTSD.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2020 among 1032 older Bangladeshi adults aged ≥60 years. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect information on participants' characteristics and COVID-19 related information. Perceived fear of COVID-19 was measured using the seven-item Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), where the cumulative score ranged from 7 to 35. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with perceived fear of COVID-19.

RESULTS: The mean fear score was 19.4. Participants who were concerned about COVID-19 (β: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.71 to 3.78) and overwhelmed by COVID-19 (β: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.33 to 4.29) were significantly more likely to be fearful of COVID-19. Moreover, older adults who felt themselves isolated from others and whose close friends and family members were diagnosed with COVID-19 were more fearful. However, the participants who received COVID-19 related information from the health workers had a lower level of fear (β: -1.90, 95% CI: - 3.06 to - 0.73).