Dataset Information

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Health in China and Spain: Cross-sectional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Differences in physical and mental health impact across continents during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown.

Objective

This study compared the levels of impact of COVID-19 on mental health among people from Spain and China and correlated mental health parameters with variables relating to symptoms similar to COVID-19, COVID-19 knowledge, and precautionary measures.

Methods

We collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms, contact history with persons with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 knowledge, and precautionary measures. Participants completed the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21). To analyze the differences in the mental health parameters, the mean scores between Chinese and Spanish respondents were compared using the independent samples t test. The differences in categorical variables between the two samples were analyzed by the chi-square test. Linear regression was used to calculate the univariate associations between the independent variables and mental health parameters for both groups separately, with adjustments made for age, gender, and education.

Results

A total of 1528 participants (Spain: n=687; China: n=841) were recruited. The mean age of the Chinese respondents was 24.73 years (SD 7.60; range 18-65 years), and the mean age of the Spanish respondents was 43.06 years (SD 11.95; range 18-76 years). Spanish participants reported significantly more symptoms similar to COVID-19 infection (eg, fever, sore throat, and breathing difficulties), contact history with COVID-19, higher perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, frequent use of medical services, and less confidence in medical services compared with their Chinese counterparts (P<.001). Spanish participants reported significantly higher DASS-21 stress and depression scores, while Chinese participants reported significantly higher IES-R scores (P<.001). Chinese participants encountered more discrimination from other countries (P<.001). Significantly more Chinese participants reported using face masks than Spanish ones (P<.001). More exposure to health information was associated with adverse mental health in Spain (depression: P=.02; anxiety: P=.02; stress: P=.001).

Conclusions

Our study found that Spanish respondents reported higher levels of stress and depression as well as more symptoms and use of medical services. In preparation for the next pandemic, Spain needs to establish a prompt policy to implement rapid response and enhance medical services to safeguard physical and mental health.

SUBMITTER: Wang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8143872 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCovid-19 pandemic became an unexpected stressor for the entire population and, particularly, for pregnant women and lactating mothers. The alarming infectious risk together with the lockdown period could affect the emotional state of mothers-to-be, as well as breastfeeding rates, mother-baby bonding, or neonatal weight gain. The aim of this study is to describe the impact of this world health emergency in mother-baby pairs right after the first wave of Sars-Cov-2 pandemic (from March to May 2020).Study designA prospective observational study was carried out in mother-child dyads from those women who gave birth between June and August 2020 in a tertiary hospital. 91 mother-baby pairs were initially enrolled and 56 of them completed the follow-up. The study design had two separate steps: i) Step one: A clinical interview plus three psychometric tests (EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, PBQ: Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire and STAI-S: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory); ii) Step two: mother-child dyads were followed using a round of three brief telephone interviews (conducted at the newborn's 7, 14 and 28 days of age) to accurately depict the newborn's outcome in the neonatal period.ResultsIn terms of maternal mental health, 25% of the sample screens positively in the EPDS, requiring further evaluation to rule out depressive symptoms. STAI-state and PBQ detect no abnormalities in either anxiety levels or mother-child bonding in our sample, as 100% of the mothers score below the cut-off points in each test (34 and 26 respectively). When comparing feeding practices (breast/bottle feeding) in 2020 to those practices during pre-pandemic years (2017-2019), a significant increase in breastfeeding was found in pandemic times. All newborns in the sample showed an adequate weight gain during their first month of life.ConclusionWomen and newborns in our sample did not experience an increase in adverse outcomes in the neonatal period in terms of maternal mental health, breastfeeding rates, bonding and further neonatal development.

Project description:ObjectivesMental health problems significantly increased worldwide during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. At the early stage of the outbreak, the government of Bangladesh imposed lockdown and quarantine approaches to prevent the spread of the virus, which impacted people's daily life and health. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected people's economic status, healthcare facilities and other lifestyle factors in Bangladesh. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among the Bangladeshi population.MethodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey among 672 Bangladeshi people aged between 15 and 65 years all over the country from 15 April to 10 May 2020. After obtaining electronic consent, we conducted a survey assessing people's sociodemographic profiles and psychometric measures. We used The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale-8, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to assess loneliness, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance, respectively.ResultsThe prevalence of loneliness, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance was estimated at 71% (mild: 32%, moderate: 29%, severe: 10%), 38% (mild: 24%, moderate: 11%, severe: 3%), 64% (mild: 30%, moderate: 17%, severe: 17%) and 73% (mild: 50%, moderate: 18%, severe: 5%), respectively. In Bangladesh, the key factors associated with poor mental health during COVID-19 were female sex, unemployment, being a student, obesity and living without a family. The present study also identified statistically significant interrelationships among the measured mental health issues.ConclusionsA large portion of respondents reported mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh. The present study suggests longitudinal assessments of mental health among Bangladeshi people to determine the gravity of this issue during and after the pandemic. Appropriate supportive programmes and interventional approaches would address mental health problems in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of Chinese clinical trials has continued to grow throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but we know little about clinical trial team members' perceptions and attitudes toward the impacts of the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical trials in China from the perspective of research staff to provide a deeper understanding and some recommendations for the ongoing and upcoming clinical trials during the pandemic.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to respondents throughout mainland China between September 2021 and October 2021. The participants assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical trials based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to confirm the factor structure. Descriptive statistical analysis and the Mann-Whitney test were used to discover the differences between different groups.ResultsA total of 2,393 questionnaires from 272 hospitals were collected in mainland China. Factor analysis resulted in 4 factors, with a cumulative explained variance of 64.93%, as follows: subject enrollment, patient care, study supplies and data management, and research milestones and quality management. The research team members, predominantly represented by clinical research coordinators (CRCs), basically agreed with all but 3 preset scenarios of the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials. Most respondents did not agree that the pandemic was associated with more serious adverse events (SAEs), missed reports of safety events, or any increase of unscheduled unblinding. In addition, significant differences were revealed in different age, gender, and role groups of respondents based on their views on the impact of the pandemic.ConclusionsThe current pandemic situation has had a negative impact on clinical trials, especially in terms of subject recruitment and protocol compliance, yet research team members feel confident that some of the effective measures proposed in the study can moderate the negative impact.

Project description:BackgroundResidency programs have been impacted by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study we aim to investigate and evaluate the impact of the pandemic on residents as well as residency training programs.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study including a survey of 43 questions prepared on Google forms and electronically distributed among a convenience sample of residents training at a tertiary center in North Jordan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected in the period between October 30th and November 8th of 2020. The survey included questions that addressed the impact of the pandemic on residents' health as well as training programs. The study participants included residents in training at KAUH in 2020 and were stratified according to the type of residency program (surgical residents (SRs) and non-surgical residents (NSRs)). Statistical methods included descriptive analysis, Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, Mann Whitney U test, and Cramer's V and r statistics as measures of effect sizes.ResultsOf all 430 residents, 255 (59%) responded to the survey. A total of 17 (7%) of residents reported being infected with COVID-19 and a significant difference was reported between SRs and NSRs (10% vs 4%, V = .124 "small effect" (95% CI; .017-.229), p = 0.048). Approximately, 106 (42%) reported a decrease in the number of staff working at the clinic and 164 (64%) reported limited access to personal protective equipment during the pandemic. On a 4-point Likert scale for the feeling of anxiety, the median was 2 (2-3 IQR) in the NSRs group, vs 2 (1-2 IQR) in the SRs groups, with the NSRs being more likely to feel anxious (r = 0.13 "small effect" (95% CI; 0.007-0.249), p = .044). Similarly, the proportion of residents who reported feeling anxious about an inadequacy of protective equipment in the work area was significantly greater in the NSRs group (90.3% vs 75.2%; V = .201 "small effect" (95% CI; .078-.313), p = .001), as well as the proportion of residents who reported feeling increased stress and anxiety between colleagues being also significantly higher in the NSRs group (88.1% vs 76%; V = .158 "small effect" (95% CI; .032-.279), p = .012).ConclusionThe burden of the ongoing pandemic on the mental health status of residents is very alarming and so providing residents with psychological counseling and support is needed. Also, critical implications on the flow of residency training programs have been noticed. This necessitates adapting and adopting smart educational techniques to compensate for such limitations.