Methods: Sources for this publication were identified through searches of PubMed for articles published between 31st December 2019 and 4th June 2020, using combinations of search terms. Guidelines and updates from reputable agencies were also consulted. Only articles published in the English language were included.
Results: The volume of literature on COVID-19 continues to expand, with 17,845 articles indexed on PubMed by 4th June 2020, 130 of which were deemed particularly relevant to the subject matter of this review. Older patients are more likely to progress to severe COVID-19 disease requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, especially hypertension and coronary heart disease, are at greatly increased risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19 disease. A controversial aspect of the management of COVID-19 disease has been the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Obese COVID-19 patients are more likely to require complex ICU management. Putative mechanisms of increased COVID-19 disease severity in diabetes include hyperglycaemia, altered immune function, sub-optimal glycaemic control during hospitalisation, a pro-thrombotic and pro-inflammatory state. Patients with mental health disorders are particularly vulnerable to social isolation, and this has been compounded by the suspension of non-emergency care in hospitals around the world, making it difficult for patients with chronic mental illness to attend outpatient appointments.
Conclusions: The global pandemic of COVID-19 disease has had a disproportionately negative impact on patients living with chronic medical illness. Future research should be directed at efforts to protect vulnerable patients from possible further waves of COVID-19 and minimising the negative impact of pandemic mitigation strategies on these individuals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research instruments used included The McMaster Family Assessment Device Adaptation, IEXPAC, and S.N.Q. 22, F.Q., P.S.Q., Social Support Questionnaire shortened version, The Family Focused Mental Health Practice Questionnaire and extraversion personality questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to caregivers with a population of 175 individuals. The sample size of this study was 133 individuals selected through proportional random sampling. The data were analysed using Structural Equation Modeling Partial Least Square (SEM-PLS) with Amos software v.26.0.
RESULTS: The phase one research showed that intention and satisfaction are the leading indicators of family acceptance that can influence family roles. At the same time, family acceptance is influenced by personal character (p≤0.001), care experience (p≤0.001), social support (p≤0.001), social norms (p=0.004), symptom severity (p≤0.001), and stigma (p≤0.001). Additionally, family acceptance significantly impacted the family's caregiving role (CR=6.573, p≤0.001).
CONCLUSION: It was found that the family acceptance model to improve the family's role in the care of patients with severe mental disorders focuses on the acceptance that the family has to be able to carry out its role well in patients. To improve family acceptance, families still lack the personal character expected in caring for patients with severe mental disorders at home. It is necessary to increase commitment to care and positive values in life.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was carried out among 452 youths from Pokhara, Nepal. The present study included both genders (age 18-24 years) who were smokers as well as non-smokers.
Results: Across the study period, 452 participants were identified after matching for age, and sex (226 in the smoking group and 226 in the non-smoking group). The mean age of participants was 21.6±1.2 years and 58.8% were males. The overall rate of suicidal ideation in our cohort was 8.9%. Smokers were slightly more likely to report suicidal ideation than non-smokers (aOR 1.12). The risk of developing suicidal ideation was 3.56 (95% CI 1.26-10.09) times more in individuals who smoked greater than 3.5 cigarettes per week (p=0.01).
Conclusion: The rate of suicidal ideation was slightly higher among smokers and a dose-response relationship was identified with the number of cigarettes smoked per week. Being aware of the link between smoking and suicidal ideation may help health care professionals working with young people to address more effectively the issues of mental well-being and thoughts about suicide.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.
METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores.
RESULTS: A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.
CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data came from the larger COMET-G study. The study sample includes 12,792 health professionals from 40 countries (62.40% women aged 39.76 ± 11.70; 36.81% men aged 35.91 ± 11.00 and 0.78% non-binary gender aged 35.15 ± 13.03). Distress and clinical 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: Clinical depression was detected in 13.16% with male doctors and 'non-binary genders' having the lowest rates (7.89 and 5.88% respectively) and 'non-binary gender' nurses and administrative staff had the highest (37.50%); distress was present in 15.19%. 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 (24.64% vs. 9.62%; p health care professionals similar in magnitude and quality to those reported earlier in the general population although rates of clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, and adherence to conspiracy theories were much lower. However, the general model of factors interplay seems to be the same and this could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable.
METHODS: The sample included 54,826 subjects (64.73% females; 34.15% males; 1.11% nonbinary gender) from 40 countries (COMET-G study). The analysis was based on the registration of previous history that could serve as a fair approximation for the lifetime prevalence of various medical conditions.
RESULTS: About 24.5% reported a history of somatic and 26.14% of mental disorders. Mental disorders were by far the most prevalent group of medical conditions. Comorbidity of any somatic with any mental disorder was reported by 8.21%. One-third to almost two-thirds of somatic patients were also suffering from a mental disorder depending on the severity and multicomorbidity. Bipolar and psychotic patients and to a lesser extent depressives, manifested an earlier (15-20 years) manifestation of somatic multicomorbidity, severe disability, and probably earlier death. The overwhelming majority of patients with mental disorders were not receiving treatment or were being treated in a way that was not recommended. Antipsychotics and antidepressants were not related to the development of metabolic syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS: The finding that one-third to almost two-thirds of somatic patients also suffered from a mental disorder strongly suggests that psychiatry is the field with the most trans-specialty and interdisciplinary value and application points to the importance of teaching psychiatry and mental health in medical schools and also to the need for more technocratically oriented training of psychiatric residents.
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.