Psychological distress in the face of a pandemic: An observational study characterizing the impact of COVID-19 on immigrant outpatient mental health.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Serafini RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7805919 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceReports of a recent increase in US outpatient mental health care raise questions about whether it has been driven by rising rates of psychological distress and whether mental health treatment has become either more or less focused on people with higher levels of distress.ObjectiveTo characterize national trends in serious psychological distress and trends in outpatient mental health service use by adults with and without serious psychological distress.Design, setting, and participantsThe 2004-2005, 2009-2010, and 2014-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS) were nationally representative surveys taken in US households. The analysis was limited to participants 18 years or older. Dates of this analysis were February 2018 to April 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAnnual national trends in the percentages of adults with serious psychological distress (Kessler 6 scale score ≥13), outpatient mental health service use (outpatient visit with a mental disorder diagnosis, psychotherapy visit, or psychotropic medication), and type of psychotropic medication use (antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and stimulants). Age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios of the associations of survey period with the odds of serious psychological distress, outpatient mental health service use, and outpatient mental health service use were stratified by level of psychological distress.ResultsThe analysis involved 139 862 adult participants from the 2004-2005, 2009-2010, and 2014-2015 MEPS, including 51.67% women, 48.33% men, 67.11% white adults, and 32.89% nonwhite adults, with an overall mean (SE) age of 46.41 (0.14) years. Serious psychological distress declined overall from 4.82% (2004-2005) to 3.71% (2014-2015), including significant declines among young (3.94% to 3.07%), middle-aged (5.52% to 4.36%), and older adults (5.24% to 3.79%); men (3.94% to 3.09%) and women (5.64% to 4.29%); and major racial/ethnic groups (white, 4.52% to 3.82%; African American, 5.12% to 3.64%; Hispanic, 6.03% to 3.55%; and other, 5.22% to 3.26%). Overall, the percentage of adults receiving any outpatient mental health service increased from 19.08% (2004-2005) to 23.00% (2014-2015) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.34). Although the proportionate increase in outpatient mental health service use for adults with serious psychological distress (54.17% to 68.40%) was larger than that for adults with less serious or no psychological distress (17.26% to 21.08%), the absolute increase in outpatient mental health service use was almost completely the result of growth in outpatient mental health service use by individuals with less serious or no psychological distress.Conclusions and relevanceThe recent increase in outpatient mental health service use occurred during a period of decline in serious psychological distress. Adults with less serious psychological distress accounted for most of the absolute increase in outpatient mental health service use, while adults with serious psychological distress experienced a greater relative increase in outpatient mental health service use.
| S-EPMC6439744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether trends in psychological distress exist in the United States and whether trends in healthcare expenditures and outpatient visits were associated with psychological distress.Sequential cross-sectional study of nationally representative data.We examined data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 1997 to 2004 linked to 2 years of subsequent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Psychological distress was measured in the NHIS using the K6, a 6-item scale of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, which we classified as no/low, mild-moderate, or severe. We examined subsequent annualized total, outpatient, and office-based expenditures, and outpatient and office-based visits from MEPS.Psychological distress remained stable from 1997 to 2004. There were upward trends in overall healthcare expenditures (P <.001) and outpatient expenditures (P <.001), but not outpatient visits. Overall healthcare expenditures, outpatient expenditures, and outpatient visits significantly increased as psychological distress increased from no/low to mild-moderate to severe. The interaction between psychological distress strata and year was not significant for expenditures or for visits.The upward trend in total and outpatient healthcare expenditures in the United States appears unrelated to psychological distress, although healthcare expenditures are consistently higher among those with greater psychological distress. Future work will explore the impact of treatment on costs and stability of the nation's mental health over time.
| S-EPMC3322665 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe wellbeing of family caregivers of mentally ill persons has often been ignored, despite that family caregivers can be predisposed to psychiatric morbidities and burden in caring for their mentally ill family members. This study examined the levels of psychological distress and burden of care experienced by family caregivers who care for their mentally ill relatives in Edo State, Nigeria.MethodsThis study assessed psychological distress using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Burden of care was measured using the 22-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was done to determine factors associated with burden of care and psychological distress, while factor analysis was used to determine the underlying forms of burden of care and psychological distress among participants.ResultsCaregivers studied were relatives of patients diagnosed for depression (25.1%), substance use disorder (22.2%), schizophrenia (20.2%) and bipolar affective disorder (11.1%). Approximately 15% experienced no-to-mild burden, 51.3% mild-to-moderate burden and 34.0% high-or-severe burden. Nearly halve (49.0%) of participants experienced psychological distress. Severe rate of psychological distress was observed among subjects caring for patients with schizophrenia (60.7%), epilepsy (60.0%), substance use disorder (52.2%) and depression (49.0%). High burden of care was more preponderant among caregivers of relatives with mental retardation and epilepsy (50% each) and schizophrenia (39.3%). Having a higher educational qualification and being self-employed was a predictor of psychological distress. Gender of caregiver and the diagnosis schizophrenia among relatives of caregivers predisposed to burden of care. Three factors including social and emotional dysfunction, psychological distress and cognitive dysfunction were identified as components of psychological health through factor analysis. On the burden scale, six factor components were identified as: personal strain, role strain, intolerance, patients' dependence, guilt and interference in personal life.ConclusionThere is a high prevalence of psychological morbidity and burden of care among family caregivers providing care for persons with mental illness.
| S-EPMC8101711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 crisis has created a "mental health pandemic" throughout the world. Scientific data are not available to fully understand the nature of the resulting mental health impact given the very recent onset of the pandemic, nevertheless, there is a need to act immediately to develop psychotherapeutic strategies that may alleviate pandemic-related distress. The psychological distress, in particular fear and sadness, is a function of the pandemic's negative impact upon people's ability to meet their most basic needs (e.g., physical safety, financial security, social connection, participation in meaningful activities). This paper presents evidence-based cognitive behavioral strategies that should prove useful in reducing the emotional suffering associated with the COVID crisis.
| S-EPMC7320243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130961.].
| S-EPMC4948876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePeople with mental disorders might be differentially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on patients with various psychiatric disorders who were admitted to inpatient treatment.MethodsFive-hundred thirty-eight inpatients with mental disorders participated in a survey about psychological consequences of the pandemic between March-December 2020. We examined the perceived burden by restrictions and worries, changes in health care utilization, and helpfulness of coping strategies.ResultsMore than 50% reported any worsening of symptoms, 40% stated increased need of therapeutic support. High rates of symptom deterioration were observed for depressive symptoms (>55%), anxiety (>40%), and sleeping behavior (>40%). Treatment impairment was stated by 27.9%. Patients with anxiety disorders were less affected by contact restrictions compared with eating disorders and depression. Patients with anorexia nervosa and post-traumatic stress disorder experienced higher helpfulness by daily structuring than patients with depression.DiscussionAbout half of our sample of psychiatric patients experienced symptom deterioration due to the pandemic and about one quarter reported impairment of treatment modalities. Especially patients with eating disorders and depressive disorders were more frequently affected. The results indicate a needed improvement of treatment options during a pandemic.
| S-EPMC8180351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives around the world. Autistic adults are at higher risk for co-occurring medical and psychiatric conditions and may be more prone to difficulties adapting to pandemic-related changes and social distancing mandates and coping with ongoing uncertainties. On the other hand, the pandemic may lead to greater understanding and acceptance of accommodations in the broader community that may facilitate supports for autistic adults beyond the pandemic. To learn more about their early pandemic experiences, online surveys were sent to independent adults enrolled in the Simons Powering Autism Research Knowledge (SPARK). The first survey was open from March 30 to April 19, 2020; a follow-up survey sent to original responders was open from May 27 to June 6, yielding 396 participants with data for both surveys. We found that adults who were female, younger, had prior diagnoses of a mental health condition, personal COVID-19 experience (i.e., knowing someone who had symptoms or tested positive) or less frequent hope for the future reported the greatest negative impacts. Decrease in feelings of hopefulness over time predicted greater psychological distress at T2, accounting for T1 impact and distress levels and increases in total COVID-19 impact. Less perceived benefit of online services also predicted later distress. Although there tends to be a focus on coping with negative effects of the pandemic, mental health providers may consider approaches that focus on positives, such as fostering hope and understanding factors that facilitate benefit from online services. LAY SUMMARY: Autistic adults may be at risk for psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study suggests that autistic adults who were younger, female, had a mental health diagnosis before the pandemic and knew someone who showed symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19 reported more areas negatively impacted by COVID-19 and greater difficulty coping with those effects. Decreases in hope over time were associated with greater psychological distress. Less perceived benefit from online services also predicted distress 2 months later. These results suggest important areas to further explore as we develop supports for autistic adults during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8014774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEpidemics or pandemics, such as the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, pose unique challenges to healthcare professionals (HCPs). Caring for patients during an epidemic/pandemic may impact negatively on the mental health of HCPs. There is a lack of evidence-based advice on what would be effective in mitigating this impact.ObjectivesThis rapid review synthesizes the evidence on the psychological impact of pandemics/epidemics on the mental health of HCPs, what factors predict this impact, and the evidence of prevention/intervention strategies to reduce this impact.MethodAccording to rapid review guidelines, systematic searches were carried out in Embase.com , PubMed, APA PsycINFO-Ovid SP, and Web of Science (core collection). Searches were restricted to the years 2003 or later to ensure inclusion of the most recent epidemic/pandemics, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Papers written in French or English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and of quantitative design using validated measures of mental health outcomes were included. Of 1308 papers found, 50 were included. The full protocol for this rapid review was registered with Prospero (reg.no. CRD42020175985).ResultsResults show that exposed HCPs working with patients during an epidemic/pandemic are at heightened risk of mental health problems in the short and longer term, particularly: psychological distress, insomnia, alcohol/drug misuse, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, burnout, anger, and higher perceived stress. These mental health problems are predicted by organizational, social, personal, and psychological factors and may interfere with the quality of patient care. Few evidence-based early interventions exist so far.DiscussionHCPs need to be provided with psychosocial support to protect their mental wellbeing if they are to continue to provide high quality patient care. Several recommendations relevant during and after an epidemic/pandemic, such as COVID-19, and in preparation for a future outbreak, are proposed.
| S-EPMC7422454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has many consequences for people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Social distancing measures complicate regular care and result in lifestyle changes, which may indirectly cause psychological stress and worsening of PD symptoms.ObjectiveTo assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased psychological distress and decreased physical activity in PD, how these changes related to PD motor and non-motor symptom severity, and what frequency and burden of COVID-related stressors were.MethodsWe sent an online survey to the Personalized Parkinson Project (PPP) cohort (n = 498 PD patients) in the Netherlands. In the survey, we distinguished between COVID-related stressor load, psychological distress, PD symptom severity, and physical activity. We related inter-individual differences to personality factors and clinical factors collected before the pandemic occurred.Results358 PD patients completed the survey between April 21 and May 25, 2020 (response rate 71.9%). Patients with higher COVID-related stressor load experienced more PD symptoms, and this effect was mediated by the degree of psychological distress. 46.6% of PD patients were less physically active since the COVID-19 pandemic, and reduced physical activity correlated with worse PD symptoms. Symptoms that worsened most were rigidity, fatigue, tremor, pain and concentration. Presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms (anxiety, depression) before the pandemic, as well as cognitive dysfunction and several personality traits predicted increased psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionOur findings show how an external stressor (the COVID-19 pandemic) leads to a worsening of PD symptoms by evoking psychological distress as well as lifestyle changes (reduced physical activity).
| S-EPMC7683090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAt the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, several mental health care providers were obliged to shut down outpatient services, including group therapy and psychoeducational sessions. The lockdown in many countries is a serious threat to people's mental well-being, especially for individuals with severe mental illnesses. Discontinued outpatient treatments and disruption of daily routines are considered to be risk factors for destabilization of patients with mental illness.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a group chat program to replace cancelled face-to-face group sessions in an outpatient psychiatric department.MethodsParticipants (N=33) were recruited in the outpatient department of a large university medical center in Leipzig, Germany. Former face-to-face group participants were invited to take part in a therapist-guided group-chat for 4 weeks (8 sessions) and were asked to evaluate the program via self-administered standardized questionnaires at baseline (T0, preintervention), after every chat session (T1), and posttreatment (T2, after 4-6 weeks). The chat groups were specific to the following mental disorder diagnoses and based on the same therapeutic principles and techniques as the former face-to-face groups: anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sociodemographic measures, attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic, depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), quality of life (abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment), treatment credibility/expectancy (Credibility Expectancy Questionnaire), and participants' satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 [ZUF-8]) were measured.ResultsParticipants joined an average of 5 out of 8 offered chat sessions. Participation rates in the respective groups were highest in the ADHD group (8.6/11, 78%) and lowest in the anxiety group (3.7/9, 41%). The overall preintervention level of depressive symptoms was moderate and showed a slight, nonsignificant improvement at posttreatment (T0: mean 10.7, SD 5.5; T2: mean 10.2, SD 5.5). A similar result was observed regarding quality of life (T0: median 41.7-68.8; T2: median 50-70.3). Treatment credibility and expectancy scores were medium-high (T0: meancredibility 18.1, SD 3.8; meanexpectancy 11.2, SD 5.1; T2: meancredibility 17.1, SD 4.8; meanexpectancy 10.3, SD 5.8). Further, significant correlations were detected between posttreatment expectancy score and posttreatment PHQ-9 score (r=-0.41, P=.02), posttreatment physical quality of life (r=0.54, P=.001), and posttreatment psychological quality of life (r=0.53, P=.002). Overall, participants' satisfaction with the program was very high, both after chat sessions and at posttreatment (ZUF-8: mean score 20.6, SD 1.0). Of all participants, a majority (27/31, 87%) rated the program as excellent/good and indicated they would recommend the group chat program to a friend in need of similar help (23/31, 74%).ConclusionsA therapist-guided group chat program to substitute outpatient group setting treatment during the COVID-19 lockdown was shown to be feasible, usable, and highly acceptable for participants. Web-based programs such as this one provide an easy-to-implement tool to successfully stabilize participants during a difficult time, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00021527; https://tinyurl.com/3btyxc2r.
| S-EPMC8315157 | biostudies-literature