Methods: A multi-center cross sectional study was conducted for a month in out-patient wards of hospitals in Khobar, Dammam, Makkah, and Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Patients were randomly selected from a registered patient pools at hospitals and the item-subject ratio was kept at 1:20. The tool was assessed for factorial, construct, convergent, known group and predictive validities as well as, reliability and internal consistency of scale were also evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using SPSS v24 and MedCalc v19.2. The study was approved by concerned ethics committees (IRB-129-25/6/1439) and (IRB-2019-05-002).

Results: A total of 282 responses were received. The values for normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.960, 0.979, 0.954 and 0.980. All values were >0.95. The value for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.059, i.e., <0.06. Hence, factorial validity was established. The average factor loading of the scale was 0.725, i.e., >0.7, that established convergent validity. Known group validity was established by obtaining significant p-value <0.05, for the associations based on hypotheses. Cronbach's α was 0.865, i.e., >0.7. Predictive validity was established by evaluating odds ratios (OR) of demographic factors with adherence score using logistic regression. Sensitivity was 78.16%, specificity was 76.85% and, accuracy of the tool was 77.66%, i.e., >70%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:  This cross-sectional observational study comprised 523 health science students. A well-structured online questionnaire consisting of closed-ended questions based on student's general information, Patient Heath Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 scales were used to assess the psychological impact of COVID-19.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:  SPSS-25 was used to analyze the outcome of this study. Multiple linear regression analysis test was used to assess variables which had impact on PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores among the participants. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS:  Among the 523 participants, 365 (69.55%) students were from developing countries and 158 (30.21%) from developed countries; 424 (81.1%) students were tested negative for COVID-19 and 99 (18.9%) had suffered from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection during pandemic. The mean GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were 7.16 ± 5.755 and 7.30 ± 6.166, respectively. Significant impact on anxiety levels was associated with age, gender, education status, and COVID-19 positive patient, while depression was not significantly associated with gender, COVID-19, and its reported symptoms in participants.

Methods: We adopted a comparative cross-sectional study on pre-clinical medical students who appeared in two different admission tests. The stress, anxiety, and depression levels of students were measured by the depression, anxiety, stress scale (DASS-21), and their burnout level was measured by the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.

Results: The stress, anxiety, and depression scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The personal, work and client burnout scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The prevalence of stress (MMI = 39%, PI = 36.9%), anxiety (MMI = 78%, PI = 67.4%), depression (MMI = 41%, PI = 36.2%) and burnout (MMI = 29%, PI = 31.9%) between MMI and PI cohorts was not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). These results showed similar levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout in students at the end of the pre-clinical phase.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine knowledge, awareness and preparedness regarding coronavirus disease 2019 among CPPs working in Kathmandu, Nepal.