OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and its factors in first-year Chinese university students from a vocational college in Zhejiang during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Using a cluster sampling technique, a university-wide survey was conducted of 686 first-year university students from Hangzhou in March 2020 using University Personality Inventory (UPI). UPI includes an assessment for suicidal ideation and possible risk factors. Suicidal ideation prevalence was calculated for males and females. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted, adjusting for age and sex. Analyses were carried out using the SPSS version 22.0 software.
RESULTS: The prevalence of 12-month suicidal ideation among first-year university students during March 2020 was 5.2%, and there was no significant difference between males and females (4.8% vs. 6.0%, x2 = 0.28, p = 0.597). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified social avoidance (B = 0.78, OR = 2.17, p < 0.001) and emotional vulnerability (B = 0.71, OR = 2.02, p < 0.001) as positively associated with suicidal ideation.
CONCLUSIONS: Social avoidance and emotional vulnerabilities are unique factors associated with greater suicidal ideation among first-year university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. UPI serves as a validated tool to screen suicide risks among Chinese university students. Encouraging social engagement and improving emotional regulation skills are promising targets to reduce suicidal ideation among first-year university students.
METHODS: The VicHealth Victorian Coronavirus Wellbeing Impact Study included two 20-min opt-in online panel surveys conducted in May and September 2020 in Victoria, each with a sample of 2000 adults aged 18 + . A two-part study design was used: a repeated cross-sectional study of respondents who participated in Survey One and Survey Two, followed by a longitudinal nested cohort study. The primary exposures were social solidarity, social connectedness and staying connected with family and friends. Using logistic regression modelling, we explored the associations between our exposures and primary outcomes of psychological distress and life satisfaction with and without adjustment for covariates, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The results from the multivariable models were summarised using adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR), 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Cross-sectional results indicated that the percentage of participants with low life satisfaction was significantly higher in the second survey sample (53%) compared to the first (47%). The percentage of participants with high psychological distress was higher but not significantly different between the two survey samples (14% first survey vs 16% second survey). Longitudinal study results indicated that lower social connectedness was significantly associated with higher psychological distress (aOR:3.3; 95% CI: 1.3-8.4) and lower life satisfaction (aOR:0.2; 95% CI: 0.1-0.4). Younger adults had higher psychological distress compared to older adults (aOR:6.8; 95% CI:1.5-31.1). Unemployment at the time of the first survey was significantly associated with lower life satisfaction at the second survey (aOR:0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9).
CONCLUSION: This study supports the findings of other international studies. It also highlights the need to promote increased social connection and maintain it at times of isolation and separation, particularly amongst younger adults.
METHODS: A total of 316 participants were administered a self-report questionnaire that collected data on sociodemographic attributes, personal characteristics, COVID-19-related stressors, religious coping, and clinical characteristics. In addition, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) and the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) were administered.
RESULTS: Regarding depression, 15.5%, 11.7%, and 9.2% of the participants reported mild, moderate, and severe to extremely severe depression, respectively. For anxiety, 7.0%, 16.5%, and 13.2% of the respondents had mild, moderate, and severe to extremely severe anxiety, respectively. Moreover, 26.3% of participants had mild stress, 9.5% had moderate stress, and 6.6% had severe to extremely severe stress. The multiple linear regression model revealed that frustration because of loss of daily routine and study disruption and having preexisting medical, depressive, and anxiety disorders were associated with elevated depressive symptoms, while a greater degree of family and friends social support was associated with less depressive symptoms after adjusting for age, gender, and marital status. It was also found that frustration because of study disruption and having preexisting medical, depressive, and anxiety disorders were associated with elevated anxiety symptoms, while being enrolled in medicine-based courses and having a greater degree of family support were factors associated with less anxiety symptoms after adjusting for age, gender, and marital status.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to conduct a longitudinal study in the future to confirm the causal relationship between the significant predictive factors and depression and anxiety identified in this study, and maintenance of a persistent flow of academic activities and social interaction may be of utmost importance to safeguard the mental wellbeing of university students.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the current state of disaster preparedness of the Armenian EMS system and the effects of the simultaneous pandemic and war on EMS providers.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted by anonymous survey distributed to physicians still working in the Yerevan EMS system who provided care to war casualties and COVID-19 patients.
RESULTS: Survey response rate was 70.6%. Most participants had been a physician (52.1%) or EMS physician (66.7%) for three or less years. The majority were still in residency (64.6%). Experience in battlefield medicine was limited prior to the war, with the majority reporting no experience in treating mass casualties (52.1%), wounds from explosives (52.1%), or performing surgical procedures (52.1%), and many reporting minimal to no experience in treating gunshot wounds (62.5%), severe burns (64.6%), and severe orthopedic injuries (64.6%). Participants had moderate experience in humanitarian medicine prior to war. Greater experience in battlefield medicine was found in participants with more than three years of experience as a physician (z-score -3.26; P value
METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional study was conducted via non-probabilistic convenience sampling. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, COVID-19 related influences. Mental health status was assessed with depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS-21).
RESULTS: 388 students participated this study (72.4% female; 81.7% Bachelor's student). The prevalence of moderate to severe depression, anxiety and stress among university students are 53.9%, 66.2% and 44.6%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that the odds of depression were lower among students who exercise at least 3 times per week (OR: 0.380, 95% CI: 0.203-0.711). The odd ratio of student who had no personal history of depression to had depression, anxiety and stress during this pandemic was also lower in comparison (OR: 0.489, 95% CI: 0.249-0.962; OR: 0.482, 95% CI: 0.241-0.963; OR: 0.252, 95% CI: 0.111-0.576). Surprisingly, students whose are currently pursuing Master study was associated with lower stress levels (OR: 0.188, 95% CI: 0.053-0.663). However, student who had poorer satisfaction of current learning experience were more likely to experience stress (OR: 1.644, 95% CI: 1.010-2.675).
LIMITATIONS: It is impossible to establish causal relationships between variables on mental health outcomes, and there is a risk of information bias.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of mental health issues among university students is high. These findings present essential pieces of predictive information when promoting related awareness among them.
METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey using an online questionnaire commenced on 14 February 2020. The study participants were residents of Taiwan ages 20 to 70 years. The 6-item state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to assess anxiety symptoms. The questions about preventive measures asked participants about their personal protection, cough etiquette, contact precautions, voluntary quarantine, and prompt reporting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the factors influencing an increase in the preventive measures scores.
RESULTS: Of a total of 3555 completed responses, a total of 52.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.4-53.7) of the respondents reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety symptoms in the past week, whereas 48.8% (95%CI 47.2-50.5) reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms at the beginning of the outbreak. With a higher score indicating greater anxiety, the median scores for anxiety symptoms in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 46.7 (IQR [interquartile range] 36.7-53.3) and 43.3 (IQR 36.7-53.3), respectively. The median scores for the preventive measures taken in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 26.0 (IQR 21.0-30.0) and 24.0 (IQR 19.0-28.0), respectively, out of a maximum score of 36. In the multivariable analysis, an increased anxiety symptom score from the beginning of the outbreak to the past week (adjusted OR = 7.38, 95%CI 6.28-8.66) was a strongly significant determinant of an increased preventive measures score in the past week compared with the score at the beginning of the outbreak.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and preventive measures scores were high and increased with the epidemic rate. Higher anxiety was associated with an increased use of preventive measures against COVID-19.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 3 to 12 April 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used to assess predictors of the intent to receive the vaccine and the WTP.
RESULTS: A total of 1,159 complete responses was received. The majority reported a definite intent to receive the vaccine (48.2%), followed by a probable intent (29.8%) and a possible intent (16.3%). Both items under the perceived benefits construct in the HBM, namely believe the vaccination decreases the chance of infection (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.19-5.26) and the vaccination makes them feel less worry (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.03-4.65), were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the vaccine. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the amount that participants were willing to pay for a dose of COVID-19 vaccine was MYR$134.0 (SD±79.2) [US$30.66 ± 18.12]. Most of the participants were willing to pay an amount of MYR$100 [US$23] (28.9%) and MYR$50 [US$11.5] (27.2%) for the vaccine. The higher marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by no affordability barriers as well as by socio-economic factors, such as higher education levels, professional and managerial occupations and higher incomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intention and WTP.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 553 parents of children aged 13-24 years in low-income community settings. The Parent-Child Conflict scale of the Parental Environment Questionnaire (PEQ) was used to measure parent-child conflict. Psychological distress was assessed using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale short form (DASS-21).
RESULTS: The study revealed a low level of parent-child conflict in the overall study population, with a median PEQ of 48.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 36 to 48). Concerning demographics, married parents reported a likelihood of having a higher level of parent-child conflict over 3 times higher than single parents (OR = 3.18 95%, CI 1.30-7.75). More parent-child conflicts were also found in parents aged 60-72 years old who were unemployed, retired, or housewives and from lower-income groups. In regard to lifestyle factors, a higher level of physical activity and having enough sleep were associated with lower levels of parent-child conflict. Only approximately 1% of the participants reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or stress.
DISCUSSION: Low risk exists for parent-child conflict and psychological sequelae following the easing of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, which could be due to various support measures implemented by the government. Vulnerable parents identified as being at risk of parent-child conflict warrant attention in future advocacy efforts.