METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, via a stratified random and convenience sampling method 591 couples who were referred to Mazandaran primary health centers between 2 and 8 weeks postpartum were recruited from March to October 2017. Couples were screened for depressive symptoms using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Fathers provided information on socio-demographic characteristics, life events, neonatal stressor, perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale), social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support), and general health status using General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) as well. Data was analyzed using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: Overall, 93 fathers (15.7%) and 188 mothers (31.8%) reported depressive symptoms above the cut-off EPDS score of 12. In the multiple logistic regression model, older age, maternal depressive symptoms, higher GHQ-12 scores and increased recent life events were related to paternal PPD. A significant inverse association was found between number of children and paternal PPD.
CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms especially in first-time fathers following the birth of a child are not uncommon. Creating opportunities for men to access special health care services, parental education to help adapting to parenthood, screening programs, and psychiatric/psychosocial interventions to decrease suffering of depression for both depressed parents are recommended.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study which involved medical students in their final two years of study at a public university in Malaysia. Self-administered Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) and World Health Organisation QOL questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) were used to assess their psychological symptoms and QOL.
RESULTS: A total 149 students participated. The prevalence rates of anxiety and depression were 33% and 11% respectively. Malay students had significantly more anxiety compared to the other ethnic groups, P<0.05. Female students had significantly lower psychological score compared to male; 70.73 vs 66.32(P<0.05). Anxiety and depression were associated with significantly poorer QOL. Students with depression symptoms were associated with lower physical, psychological and environmental domain score whereas those with anxiety had lower psychological, social and environmental scores, P<0.05. Overall QOL score was significantly lower in Chinese students (P<0.05) and those with depression (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: QOL of medical students are significantly affected by the presence of anxiety and depression. It is recommended that medical schools implement measures which can identify students at risk and to offer comprehensive intervention and preventive programmes to improve the students' wellbeing.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between severe anxiety disorder and other factors with COVID-19 disease severity.
METHODS: This was cross-sectional study during March - November 2020. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was done by using RT-PCR from throat swabs, based on WHO's interim guidelines. AD was measured using self-reporting Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). All participants underwent, history taking, physical examinations, blood routine examination and chest radiography. Association between severe AD and other factors with COVID-19 disease severity were analyzed. Chi-square test (bivariate) and Logistic regression (multivariate) with the precision value of 95% was done and p-value less than 5% was considered significant.
RESULTS: Positive rate of Covid-19 patients was 43% (292 / 678). Among those 292 with Covid-19, 74 (25.3%) participants had severe disease. Multivariate analysis showed severe anxiety (OR 696.11; 95%CI: 78.54 to 6169.98; p<0.001), hypertension (OR 37.02; 95%CI: 4.49 to 305.39; p=0.001) and neutrophyl lymphocyte ratio (NLR) less than 2.89 (OR 0.15; 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.62; p=0.009).
CONCLUSION: Severe anxiety, hypertension and NLR less than 2.89 are potential independent risk factors for severe infection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120 mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
RESULTS: Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P = 0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60 mg, but not 80-120 mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60 mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.
METHODS: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores.
RESULTS: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)).
CONCLUSION: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.