Dataset Information

Psychological effects of remote-only communication among reference persons of ICU patients during COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During COVID-19 pandemic, visits have been prohibited in most French ICUs. Psychological effects, for reference persons (RPs), of remote-only communication have been assessed.

Methods

All RPs of patients referred to ICU for COVID-19 were included. HADS, IES-R, and satisfaction were evaluated at admission, discharge/death, and 3 months. At 3 months, a psychologist provided a qualitative description of RPs' psychological distress.

Results

Eighty-eight RPs were included. Prevalence of anxiety and depression was 83% and 73% respectively. At 3 months, lower HADS decrease was associated with patient death/continued hospitalization, and/or sleeping disorders in RPs (p < 0.01). Ninety-nine percent RPs felt the patient was safe (9 [7; 10]/10 points, Likert-type scale), confident with caregivers (10 [9; 10]/10 points), and satisfied with information provided (10 [9; 10]/10 points). All RPs stressed the specific-type of "responsibility" associated with being an RP in a remote-only context, leading RPs to develop narrow diffusion strategies (67%) and restrict the array of contacted relatives to a very few and/or only contacting them rarely. 10 RPs (30%) related the situation to a prior traumatic experience.

Conclusion

RPs experienced psychological distress and reported that being an RP in a remote-only communication context was a specific responsibility and qualified it as an overall negative experience.

Trial registration

NCT04385121 . Registered 12 May 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .

SUBMITTER: Cattelan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7794617 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This article presents the results of three surveys conducted during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 and in late June/early July 2020, when pandemic restrictions were in force. The surveys covered patients who had used psychological assistance before the pandemic. two were cross-sectional and one was longitudinal. The first survey involved 270 people (age: M = 29.59, SD = 10.74, women 79.3%), and the second one covered 117 subjects (age: M = 29.40, SD = 11.49, women 85.5%). The third, longitudinal, survey covered 83 subjects (age: M = 26.61, SD = 7.17, women 89.2%). In our research we used the Conservation of Resources Evaluation questionnaire, the abbreviated version of the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced, the WHO Quality of Life Scale, and a questionnaire for collecting sociodemographic information. Our analysis of the quality-of-life correlates in the two cross-sectional studies leads to an observation that for people using psychological help, the constant determinants of quality of life during a pandemic are high gain in resources and little loss of resources. In the first phase of the pandemic, active strategies were not linked to the sense of quality of life. This sense, however, was diminished by a number of negative strategies, such as denial, venting, substance use, restraint, and self-blame. After 3 months of the ongoing pandemic, perceived quality of life was positively correlated with strategies related to seeking instrumental support and active coping. this most likely points to a process of adapting to a difficult situation. The results of our longitudinal surveys demonstrate increasing escapism. Our attempt at explaining which factors determined the quality of life after 3 months of the ongoing pandemic showed that the crucial factors are: a sense of quality of life before the occurrence of the pandemic, changes in the distribution of resilience-oriented resources, changed frequency of using passive strategies, and active ways of coping-but only after 3 months into the pandemic. The results thus obtained can be used both in prevention and in work with persons affected by the negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.