[Experience of Practice-Based Psychiatrists and Neurologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic]

Medical care services provision and stress experience in urologists during all waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

Purpose

Urologists' practices reported decreasing medical care provision and increasing stress experience in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, long-term effects of the pandemic are unknown.

Methods

Medical record data of n = 127 urologists were used to assess changes in healthcare provision, comparing the pandemic with the pre-pandemic period. An online survey among n = 101 urologists was conducted to assess the physicians' perceptions of the identified healthcare provision and organizational changes and experiences of anxiety, stress, and support needs during the pandemic waves. Urologists consultations, specialists' referrals, hospital admissions, documented cancer diagnoses, urologists' perceptions of causes for these changes and experienced stress, anxiety and support needs. Results were demonstrated using descriptive statistics.

Results

Over the first two years of the pandemic, there was a slight decline in consultations (-0,94%), but more intensive reduction in hospital admissions (-13,6%) and identified cancer diagnoses (-6,2%). Although patients' behavior was seen as the main reason for the changes, 71 and 61% of consultations of high-risk patients or urgent surgeries were canceled. Telemedical approaches were implemented by 58% of urologists, and 88% stated that the reduced cancer detection rate would negatively affect patients' outcomes. Urologists reported higher anxiety, stress, and need for support during all waves of the pandemic than other disciplines, especially females.

Conclusion

The pandemic tremendously affects urologists' health care provision and stress experience, possibly causing long-term consequences for patients and physicians.

[General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar-Apr 2020) posed significant challenges for primary care. The goal of this study was to analyse the burden of the crisis situation as experienced by the general practitioners (GPs) at its beginning and over the course of the pandemic and to identify factors predictive of the sense of being overburdened.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 6300 randomly selected GPs in four federal states of Germany were contacted per post in order to survey changes in health care they provided and their psychological burden in the context of the pandemic between August and October 2020.

RESULTS

The response rate was 23%; 46% of the participants were female. At the beginning of the pandemic, 40% of the participants experienced a high or a very high level of being overburdened; later on, it was only 10%. With increasing numbers of COVID patients, the sense of being overburdened increased, as also their perceived capability to care for COVID patients. Predictors of a sense of being overburdened were, among others, a high level of psychological stress, excessive organising efforts, poor capability to care for COVID patients, and scarce supply of protective equipment.

CONCLUSION

Despite a sense of being overburdened initially, GPs felt increasingly capable of caring for COVID patients. To help GPs in future crisis situations like this pandemic, organization of care should be simplified to the extent possible so that they can focus on patient care.

Mental distress of physicians in the outpatient care throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: emotional and supportive human relations matter - Cross-sectional results of the VOICE-study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the course of self-reported mental distress and quality of life (QoL) of physicians, working in the outpatient care (POC). Outcomes were compared with a control group of physicians working in the inpatient care (PIC), throughout the Corona Virus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. The impact of risk and protective factors in terms of emotional and supportive human relations on mental distress and perceived QoL of POC were of primary interest.

METHODS

Within the largest prospective, multi-center survey on mental health of health care workers (HCW), conducted during the first (T1) and second (T2) wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, we investigated the course of current burden (CB), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2) and QoL, cross-sectionally, in n = 848 POC (T1: n = 536, T2: n = 312). The primary outcomes were compared with an age- and gender-matchted control group of n = 458 PIC (T1: n = 262, T2: n = 196). COVID-19-, work-related, social risk and protective factors were examined.

RESULTS

At T1, POC showed no significant differences with respect to CB, depression, anxiety, and QoL, after Bonferroni correction. Whereas at T2, POC exhibited higher scores of CB (Cohen´s d/ Cd = .934, p < .001), depression (Cd = 1.648, p < 001), anxiety (Cd = 1.745, p < .001), work-family conflict (Cd = 4.170, p < .001) and lower QoL (Cd = .891, p = .002) compared with PIC. Nearly all assessed parameters of burden increased from T1 to T2 within the cohort of POC (e.g. depression: CD = 1.580, p < .001). Risk factors for mental distress of POC throughout the pandemic were: increased work-family conflict (CB: ß = .254, p < .001, 95% CI: .23, .28; PHQ-2: ß = .139, p = .011, 95% CI: .09, .19; GAD-2: ß = .207, p < .001, 95% CI: .16, .26), worrying about the patients´ security (CB: ß = .144, p = .007, 95% CI: .07, .22; PHQ-2: ß = .150, p = .006, 95% CI: .00, .30), fear of triage situations (GAD-2: ß = .132, p = .010, 95% CI: -.04, .31) and burden through restricted social contact in spare time (CB: ß = .146, p = .003, 95% CI: .07, .22; PHQ-2: ß = .187, p < .001, 95% CI: .03, .34; GAD-2: ß = .156, p = .003, 95% CI: -.01, .32). Protective factors for mental distress and QoL were the perceived protection by local authorities (CB: ß = -.302, p < .001, 95% CI: -.39, -.22; PHQ-2: ß = -.190, p < . 001, 95% CI: -.36, -.02; GAD-2: ß = -.211, p < .001, 95% CI: -.40, -.03; QoL: ß = .273, p < .001, 95% CI: .18, .36), trust in colleagues (PHQ-2: ß = -.181, p < .001, 95% CI: -.34, -.02; GAD-2: ß = -.199, p < .001, 95% CI: -.37, -.02; QoL: ß = .124, p = .017, 95% CI: .04, .21) and social support (PHQ-2: ß = -.180, p < .001, 95% CI: -.22, -.14; GAD-2: ß = -.127, p = .014, 95% CI: -.17, -.08; QoL: ß = .211, p < .001, 95% CI: .19, .23).

CONCLUSIONS

During the pandemic, the protective role of emotional and supportive human relations on the mental distress and quality of life of POC should be taken into account more thoroughly, both in practice and future research.

The long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary and specialized care provision and disease recognition in Germany

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic and the imposed lockdowns severely affected routine care in general and specialized physician practices.

Objective

To describe the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physician services provision and disease recognition in German physician practices and perceived causes for the observed changes.

Design

Observational study based on medical record data and survey data of general practitioners and specialists' practices.

Participants

996 general practitioners (GPs) and 798 specialist practices, who documented 6.1 million treatment cases for medical record data analyses and 645 physicians for survey data analyses.

Main measures

Within the medical record data, consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions, and documented diagnoses were extracted for the pandemic (March 2020-September 2021) and compared to corresponding pre-pandemic months in 2019. The additional online survey was used to assess changes in practice management during the COVID-19 pandemic and physicians' perceived main causes of affected primary and specialized care provision.

Main results

Hospital admissions (GPs: -22% vs. specialists: -16%), specialist referrals (-6 vs. -3%) and recognized diseases (-9 vs. -8%) significantly decreased over the pandemic. GPs consultations initially decreased (2020: -7%) but compensated at the end of 2021 (+3%), while specialists' consultation did not (-2%). Physicians saw changes in patient behavior, like appointment cancellation, as the main cause of the decrease. Contrary to this, they also mentioned substantial modifications of practice management, like reduced (nursing) home visits (41%) and opening hours (40%), suspended checkups (43%), and delayed consultations for high-risk patients (71%).

Conclusion

The pandemic left its mark on primary and specialized healthcare provision and its utilization. Both patient behavior and organizational changes in practice management may have caused decreased and non-compensation of services. Evaluating the long-term effect on patient outcomes and identifying potential improvements are vital to better prepare for future pandemic waves.

Primary care provider's job satisfaction and organizational commitment after COVID-19 restrictions ended: A mixed-method study using a mediation model

Objectives

More and more countries have decided to cancel most or even all COVD-19 restrictions. However, it is unclear how ending of restrictions will affect primary care providers' job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Our objectives are to explore the current status and possible change in primary care providers' job satisfaction and organizational commitment after massive restriction policies ended in China.

Methods

This was a mixed-method study that utilized structured questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative individual interviews. The 20-item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and 25-item organizational commitment survey were adopted to assess job satisfaction and organization commitment. Descriptive statistics and mediation models, as well as inductive thematic analysis, were used to analyze quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

A total of 18 interviews and 435 valid survey responses were included in our analysis. The average scores for job satisfaction and organizational commitment were 80.6 and 90.8. The thematic analysis revealed one major theme: ethical and moral responsibility to provide care as primary care providers, on which we established a mediation model. The mediation analysis revealed that normative commitment could positively affect the other four dimensions of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The direct effect of affective commitment on job satisfaction was significant (LLCI = 0.11, ULCI = 0.31), and the mediators were identified to have a partial mediating effect instead of a total mediating effect.

Conclusion

After COVID-19 restrictions end, the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of primary care providers will return to levels before the pandemic and during this estimated process, a brief rise in resignation is predictable. The normative commitment positively affects the other four dimensions of organizational commitment and job satisfaction for primary care providers, which suggests a possible way to motivate primary care providers when restrictions end.

Work climate in pandemic times: which burdens do German physicians in primary care report?

BACKGROUND

In Germany, general practitioners (GPs) provide basic and primary care in the ambulatory sector and refer patients to other specialists when necessary. Often, GPs present the first point of contact for patients in the German healthcare system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs and other medical specialists in the ambulatory setting suddenly were confronted with unprecedented challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following research questions: How did COVID-19-related challenges affect the work climate? Do physicians with deteriorated work climate simultaneously report a worsened provision of patient care? Which challenges were the most burdening?

METHODS

In the course of the project COVID-GAMS more than 18 000 physicians of various specialties had been invited to a quantitative cross-sectional online survey (in Summer 2020). Analyses were conducted separately for the groups of GPs and other medical specialists. Group differences were analysed statistically and burdening factors were identified.

RESULTS

1703 participants were included in the analysis. 22.2% of GPs (other medical specialists: 19.9%) stated, their work climate had deteriorated. Physicians with a deteriorated work climate showed a tendency towards poorer personal provision of patient care (M = 3.75, SD = 0.98 versus M = 3.93, SD = 0.99) compared to unchanged or improved work climate. The lack of protective material in March/April 2020, changes in practice management and possible economic impacts on the practice were the most burdening factors reported by GPs.

CONCLUSION

GPs who reported a negative impact on the work climate in the course of the first pandemic lockdown also tend to see own deficits in the provision of patient care.

[E-Mental Health and healthcare apps in Germany]

Digitalization trends are having an impact on mental healthcare. Online interventions can promote mental health and complement existing mental healthcare services. Effective online interventions have been developed for a variety of mental health disorders and, overall, patient and practitioner acceptance of such programs is high. The Digital Healthcare Act provides the legal framework for the use of healthcare apps in German routine care. After approval by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the costs of certain healthcare apps are now covered by statutory health insurers. However, digital technologies have rarely been used in mental healthcare to date. Reasons include a low level of awareness of such programs as well as a large number of untested applications. Specified quality criteria can provide better orientation for patients and healthcare providers. Further implementation efforts are necessary in order to fully use the potential of digital support options in psychiatric and psychotherapeutic care for the benefit of patients.

[Covid-19 Pandemic: Anxiety Experience of Resident and Hospital Psychiatrists]

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have examined the pandemic-related stress experience of inpatient versus outpatient psychiatrists. Therefore, the aim is to investigate the extent of Covid-19 exposure, anxiety, stress experience, and coping abilities among psychiatrists in private practice compared to physicians in psychiatric and psychosomatic hospitals.

METHODS

E-mail-based questionnaires with 13 items were used to assess anxiety and stress experience. A total of 105 practicing psychiatrists, and 73 physicians and psychologists from four clinics (including the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy) were surveyed between early April and mid-May 2020.

RESULTS

Compared to hospital psychiatrists, psychiatrists in private practice more often felt severely restricted (52.4 vs. 32.9% p=0.010), at risk of infection (35.2 vs. 13.7%, p<0.001) and financially threatened (24.7 vs. 6.9%, p=0.002). The proportion of well-informed practicing psychiatrists was lower (47.6 vs. 63.0%, p=0.043) and the proportion with lack of protective equipment was higher (27.6 vs. 4.1%, p<0.001). At the same COVID-19 exposure level (8.6 vs. 8.2%), office-based psychiatrists were more likely to report high anxiety, although not significantly, compared to hospital psychiatrists (18.1 vs. 9.6%, p=0.114). Risk factors for experiencing anxiety in both groups were feeling restricted (OR=5.52, p=0.025) and experienced risk of infection (OR=5.74, p=0.005). Exposure level, clinic or practice affiliation, age, gender, and other dimensions of threat experience and coping behavior had no influence.

DISCUSSION

Psychiatrists in private practice felt more stressed and threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic compared with hospital-based colleagues. The experience of anxiety was dependent on feeling constrained and at risk of exposure, but not on exposure, protective equipment. Objective indicators seem to play less of an important role in the expression of anxiety than subjective experience.

Protective and Risk Factors for Mental Distress and Its Impact on Health-Protective Behaviors during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 in Germany

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is posing a global public health burden. These consequences have been shown to increase the risk of mental distress, but the underlying protective and risk factors for mental distress and trends over different waves of the pandemic are largely unknown. Furthermore, it is largely unknown how mental distress is associated with individual protective behavior. Three quota samples, weighted to represent the population forming the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study (24 March and 26 May 2020, and 9 March 2021 with >900 subjects each), were used to describe the course of mental distress and resilience, to identify risk and protective factors during the pandemic, and to investigate their associations with individual protective behaviors. Mental distress increased slightly during the pandemic. Usage of cognitive reappraisal strategies, maintenance of a daily structure, and usage of alternative social interactions decreased. Self-reported resilience, cognitive reappraisal strategies, and maintaining a daily structure were the most important protective factors in all three samples. Adherence to individual protective behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) was negatively associated with mental distress and positively associated with frequency of information intake, maintenance of a daily structure, and cognitive reappraisal. Maintaining a daily structure, training of cognitive reappraisal strategies, and information provision may be targets to prevent mental distress while assuring a high degree of individual protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effects of the respective interventions have to be confirmed in further studies.

A Microbiome-Driven Approach to Combating Depression During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The significant stressors brought about and exacerbated by COVID-19 are associated with startling surges in mental health illnesses, specifically those related to depressive disorders. Given the huge impact of depression on society, and an incomplete understanding of impactful therapeutics, we have examined the current literature surrounding the microbiome and gut-brain axis to advance a potential complementary approach to address depression and depressive disorders that have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. While we understand that the impact of the human gut microbiome on emotional health is a newly emerging field and more research needs to be conducted, the current evidence is extremely promising and suggests at least part of the answer to understanding depression in more depth may lie within the microbiome. As a result of these findings, we propose that a microbiome-based holistic approach, which involves carefully annotating the microbiome and potential modification through diet, probiotics, and lifestyle changes, may address depression. This paper's primary purpose is to shed light on the link between the gut microbiome and depression, including the gut-brain axis and propose a holistic approach to microbiome modification, with the ultimate goal of assisting individuals to manage their battle with depression through diet, probiotics, and lifestyle changes, in addition to offering a semblance of hope during these challenging times.

[COVID-19 and Anxiety Amongst General Practitioners, Psychiatrists and Surgeons - A German Perspective]

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an exceptional challenge for the medical fraternity. We examined the differences in experiencing anxiety of general practitioners (GP), psychiatrists (PS) and surgeons (SU) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

METHODS

E-mail-based survey (April-May 2020) of 608 physicians (GP n = 162, PS n = 299, SU n = 147) on anxiety experience in relation to COVID-19 and potential determinants.

RESULTS

High levels of COVID-19-related anxiety were reported by 31.1 % of GP, 19.2 % of PS, and 11.6 % of SU. The frequency of contact with COVID-19 patients was highest in SU (68.5 %), followed by GP (51.0 %) and PS (8.1 %). The experience of COVID-19-related distress was overall highest among GP. SU felt best informed and rated their resilience most highly. A high level of anxiety was positively associated with the perceived risk of infection.

CONCLUSION

Studies on the distress of physicians provide important information to optimize pandemic management.

The Relationship between Fear of Infection and Insomnia among Dentists from Oradea Metropolitan Area during the Outbreak of Sars-CoV-2 Pandemic

Various studies have shown the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, identifying that people with a strong fear of getting infected are more prone to become stressed, depressed, anxious and to experience sleeping disturbance. The present study focuses on the impact of fear of COVID-19 and its relationship with insomnia among dentists. 83 dentists from public and private clinics were included in the research. A questionnaire was especially constructed for this study, consisting of three parts: the first part gathered socio-demographic and medical data, and a succession of self-rated items collected opinions about lockdown and preventive behaviors; the second part evaluated the level of fear of infection with Coronavirus-19 using the Fear of Covid 19 Scale; the third part investigated the presence of insomnia using the Athens Insomnia Scale. Collected data were processed using SPSS (v. 25). The total scores for fear of COVID 19 and insomnia were assessed. A strong positive correlation was identified between the total score of AIS and the total score of FCV-19S. The fear of COVID-19 had a significant positive correlation with the practice of several preventive behaviors. Dentists with chronic diseases were found to be more prone to suffer from insomnia than healthy dentists. Significant differences between women and men in terms of night symptoms were discussed. The findings are useful for dentists and policy makers to evaluate the impact of fear of infection on mental health status.

Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on disease recognition and utilisation of healthcare services in the older population in Germany: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence about the utilisation of healthcare services and disease recognition in the older population, which was urged to self-isolate during the COVID-19 lockdown.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the utilisation of physician consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions and the recognition of incident diseases in Germany for this age group during the COVID-19 lockdown.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

1,095 general practitioners (GPs) and 960 specialist practices in Germany.

SUBJECTS

2.45 million older patients aged 65 or older.

METHODS

The number of documented physician consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions and incident diagnoses during the imposed lockdown in 2020 was descriptively analysed and compared to 2019.

RESULTS

Physician consultations decrease slightly in February (-2%), increase before the imposed lockdown in March (+9%) and decline in April (-18%) and May (-14%) 2020 compared to the same periods in 2019. Volumes of hospital admissions decrease earlier and more intensely than physician consultations (-39 versus -6%, respectively). Overall, 15, 16 and 18% fewer incident diagnoses were documented by GPs, neurologists and diabetologists, respectively, in 2020. Diabetes, dementia, depression, cancer and stroke were diagnosed less frequently during the lockdown (-17 to -26%), meaning that the decrease in the recognition of diseases was greater than the decrease in physician consultations.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that organisational changes were adopted quickly by practice management but also raise concerns about the maintenance of routine care. Prospective studies should evaluate the long-term effects of lockdowns on patient-related outcomes.

[COVID-19 Pandemic and Psychiatry - How much have the Interests of People with Psychiatric Disorders been Considered in German Laws?]

OBJECTIVE

Official regulations during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Germany were analyzed concerning their impact on patients with psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

All regulations valid between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 with a link to health were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 344 regulations was identified. Psychiatric health care structures were severely limited with significant heterogeneity concerning extent and duration between the different Federal states. In four Federal states, psychiatric hospitals were exempted from providing capacities towards intensive care. Three Federal states loosened visiting limitations for psychiatric patients.

CONCLUSION

During the first lockdown, a broad range of regulations concerning the health care system was adopted often without specifically addressing psychiatric disorders. In the future, the needs of psychiatric patients have to be considered more thoroughly.

Experiences and management of physician psychological symptoms during infectious disease outbreaks: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians experienced unprecedented levels of burnout. The uncertainty of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic along with increased workload and difficult medical triage decisions may lead to a further decline in physician psychological health.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for primary research from database inception (Medline [1946], EMBASE [1974], PsycINFO [1806]) to November 17, 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by one of three reviewers and full-text article screening and data abstraction were conducted independently, and in duplicate, by three reviewers.

RESULTS

From 6223 unique citations, 480 articles were reviewed in full-text, with 193 studies (of 90,499 physicians) included in the final review. Studies reported on physician psychological symptoms and management during seven infectious disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], three strains of Influenza A virus [H1N1, H5N1, H7N9], Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS], and COVID-19) in 57 countries. Psychological symptoms of anxiety (14.3-92.3%), stress (11.9-93.7%), depression (17-80.5%), post-traumatic stress disorder (13.2-75.2%) and burnout (14.7-76%) were commonly reported among physicians, regardless of infectious disease outbreak or country. Younger, female (vs. male), single (vs. married), early career physicians, and those providing direct care to infected patients were associated with worse psychological symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Physicians should be aware that psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, fear and distress are common, manifest differently and self-management strategies to improve psychological well-being exist. Health systems should implement short and long-term psychological supports for physicians caring for patients with COVID-19.

Sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic by population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

No systematic review or meta-analysis has yet been conducted to examine the impact of the pandemic on the prevalence of sleep problems among the general population, health care workers, or patients with COVID-19. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to assess the impact and prevalence of sleep problems among those categories.

METHODS

American Psychological Association PsycINFO, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EBSCOhost, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, ProQuest Medical, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science from November 1, 2019 to July 5, 2020 were used. Additionally, 5 preprints servers (medRxiv.org; preprints.org; psyarxiv.com; arXiv.org; biorxiv.org) were also searched for papers accepted after peer review but not yet published and indexed. There was no language restriction. The random-effect models meta-analysis model was used with the DerSimonian and Laird methodology.

RESULTS

Forty-four papers, involving a total of 54,231 participants from 13 countries, were judged relevant and contributed to the systematic review and meta-analysis of sleep problems during COVID-19. The global pooled prevalence rate of sleep problems among all populations was 35.7% (95% confidence interval, 29.4-42.4%). Patients with COVID-19 appeared to be the most affected group, with a pooled rate of 74.8% (95% confidence interval, 28.7-95.6%). Health care workers and the general population had comparative rates of sleep problems, with rates of 36.0% (95% confidence interval, 21.1-54.2%) and 32.3% (95% confidence interval, 25.3-40.2%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic is high and affects approximately 40% of people from the general and health care populations. Patients with active COVID-19 appeared to have a higher prevalence rates of sleep problems.

The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review

The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened healthcare systems throughout the world. We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on HCWs (healthcare workers). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence on 11 May and included 59 studies. Six reported on implementing interventions, but none reported on effects of the interventions. HCWs reported low interest in professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. HCWs reported anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic. We assessed the certainty of the estimates of prevalence of these symptoms as very low using GRADE. Most studies did not report comparative data on mental health symptoms before the pandemic or in the general population. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among HCWs in the current pandemic, their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions.

L. Yuen K, Tüscher O, Thrul J, Kreuter F, Sprengholz P, Betsch C, Dieter Stieglitz R, Lieb K. Psychomorbidity, Resilience, and Exacerbating and Protective Factors During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors.

METHODS

The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020).

RESULTS

18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience.

CONCLUSION

Stress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.