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.
RESULTS: A total of 111 caregivers participated, of whom 72.1% were females, 55% parents, 59.5% Chinese, 51.4% unemployed and 46.0% with tertiary education.Approximately half (42.3%) reported mild-to-moderate levels of burden (mean ZBI score 29.93, SD 16.09).Furthermore, multiple regression analysisidentified10 predictors of caregiver burden, namely family functioning, weekly caregiving hours, number of caregivers per family, attitude towards epilepsy, family support, caregivers' gender, personal income and as well as care-recipients' age of onset, seizure frequency and ADL dependency (F(10, 85) = 11.37, p stress (r = 0.576, p
METHOD: Participants (N = 110) filled-in the Affiliate Stigma Scale, the Caregiver Burden Inventory and the CarerQOL scale.
RESULTS: Parents reported low scores on stigma and fair levels of stress and quality of life, indicating that parents do not feel stigmatized by affiliation with a child with ASD nor are they stressed from affiliate stigma. After controlling for demographic factors, both the relationships of affiliate stigma with stress and with quality of life were weak, indicating that stigma may have little to no effect on stress and quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Cultural and religious beliefs may play a part in the acceptance of a child's condition, resulting in less impact of stigma on the parents.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey using convenient sampling of 192 RA patients who attended the Rheumatology Clinic outpatient appointment, Hospital Melaka from June 2013 to December 2013. Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS21) questionnaire was used to evaluate symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. RA disease activity was assessed using the DAS28-ESR formula. Functional status was assessed via the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).
RESULTS: Out of 189 completed questionnaires, 46%(n=86) patients reported psychological distress symptoms, and 25%(n=48) experienced more than one negative emotional states. The prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress among our patients were 23.3%(n=44), 42.3%(n=80) and 20.1%(n=38) respectively. There were significant positive correlations (p<0.05) between these psychological symptoms with disease activity, number of tender joints, general health, pain and HAQ score. Age was inversely correlated with depression, anxiety and stress. Higher number of swollen joints correlated positively with depression but not with anxiety and stress. HAQ was the only independent predictor for depression (Odds Ratio [OR]=2.07; 95%CI: 1.19 to 3.61) and anxiety (OR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.1 to 3.0) whilst pain was found to be independent predictor for stress (OR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.0 to 1.1).
CONCLUSION: The incidence of depression and anxiety in our Malaysian sample of RA patient was comparable to that observed in Caucasian populations. Functional status was an independent predictor of depression and anxiety, whereas pain was an independent predictor of stress.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted with semi-structured interviews to explore the experiences of suffering of ESRF patients on maintenance dialysis in Malaysia. The results were thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Nineteen ESRF patients were interviewed. The themes and subthemes were: (I) physical suffering-physical symptoms and functional limitations, (II) psychological suffering-the emotions and thoughts of suffering, (III) social suffering-healthcare-related suffering and burdening of others and (IV) spiritual suffering-the queries of suffering.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings may help healthcare professionals to fill in the gaps in the delivery of best renal palliative care.
METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P stress increased with increasing the sample size, yet this was not statistically significant (P = 0.829).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study (n = 230) was conducted using the Pressure Management Inventory on several female dominated health professions within a large public hospital. Analysis of variance was used to show relationship between sources and outcome of pressure. Linear regressions were used to predict which sources of pressure (IV) was linked to the outcomes of occupational pressure (DV).
RESULTS: The number one source of occupational pressure is relationships at work (i.e. with supervisors), and not workload. 'Relationship' is also the key predictor of several negative outcomes of pressure at work. Analysis of variance showed significant differences in two sources of pressures, i.e. Workload (P = 0.04) and Home-work balance (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: This paper provides insights into the occupational pressure of women health professionals by highlighting the organisational sources of pressure and the implications for preventing occupational dysfunction secondary to stress at work.
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.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study create nursing awareness of parent stress and its impact, which will help them to improve nursing care for parents.