Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schnabel L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250760 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The 2019 novel coronavirus disease emerged in China in late 2019-early 2020 and spread rapidly. China has been implementing emergency psychological crisis interventions to reduce the negative psychosocial impact on public mental health, but challenges exist. Public mental health interventions should be formally integrated into public health preparedness and emergency response plans.
| S-EPMC7323564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Frontline officials (such as mayors and commissioners) are responsible for local-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States. Their actions and attitudes, either in support of or opposition to public health recommendations, have resulted in widespread variation in local-level pandemic response. Despite evidence that religion significantly impacts the general public’s response to the pandemic, the influence of religion on officials’ behaviors and attitudes is unknown. Using a unique, two-wave, representative survey of frontline officials, we examine how religion influenced officials’ reported personal health behaviors (mask wearing, social distancing) and attitudes toward institutional reopenings. Results show high levels of compliance with public health recommendations, but religious nationalism negatively influences all outcomes. Other religious factors, like affiliation and attendance, vary in their influence and even work differently among officials compared to the general public. Frontline officials are key for understanding how religion influences the pandemic and state action more generally.
| S-EPMC8499755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by the accelerated uptake of virtual care, leading to a proliferation of virtual ward models as alternatives to facility-based care. Early in the pandemic, our program implemented a virtual mental health crisis ward (vWard) to provide options for individuals requiring intense psychiatric and/or crisis support but who preferred to remain in the community and were deemed safe to do so.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify early learnings from the vWard, which was implemented rapidly in a resource-constrained environment, to inform the future state should it be sustained beyond the pandemic.MethodsMixed methods of data collection were used to evaluate provider perspectives on the vWard, develop archetypes for individuals who are a good fit for the vWard model, and create a driver diagram. Data sources included an anonymous survey of clinical and managerial staff involved in the vWard, a service planning workshop, and program discharge forms for all individuals admitted between March 2020 and April 2021. Survey responses were coded for themes under categories of "benefits" and "challenges." Discharge forms where the team indicated that the vWard was a good fit for an individual were examined for characteristics common to these admissions. These findings were reviewed in the service planning workshop and refined with input from the participants into patient archetypes. A driver diagram was created for the future state.ResultsSurvey respondents (N=60) represented diverse roles in crisis services and the vWard team. Ten providers took part in the service planning workshop. A total of 467 discharge forms were reviewed. The vWard was felt to be a model that worked by 39 survey respondents, one respondent felt it did not work, and the remaining participants had no response. Several benefits for the individual and the system were identified alongside challenges, including certain processes and materials related to the nature of rapid implementation during the pandemic, and others due to lack of fit for certain individuals. The model was felt to be a good fit for 67.5% of admissions. Four patient archetypes representing a good fit with the model were developed. The driver diagram connected the program aim with primary drivers of (1) reduce barriers to care; (2) improve outcomes; and (3) provide collaborative, patient- and family-centered care to secondary drivers and interventions that leveraged virtual technology among other crisis care interventions.ConclusionsDespite some challenges, the vWard demonstrated high levels of provider acceptance and a range of mechanisms by which the model works for a variety of patient archetypes. These early learnings provide a foundation for growth, sustainability, and spread of this model going forward beyond the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9640197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne of the many challenges faced by mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic was how to deliver care during lockdown. In community and crisis services, this often meant rapidly adopting or expanding the use of telemental health technologies, including phone and video calls. The aim of this study is to explore variations in use and report staff views of such technologies during the early stages of the pandemic. The primary analysis compared rates of use between professions, demographic groups, genders, regions, and crisis and community services.MethodsWe used data from an online survey conducted by the Mental Health Policy Research Unit in Spring 2020 regarding the impact of the pandemic on mental healthcare in the United Kingdom. We included quantitative data from all professional groups working in community or crisis services providing care to working age adults, including general and specialist services. Our outcome of interest was the percentage of clients whom clinicians primarily interacted with via videocall. We also collected demographics and professional characteristics such as the type of mental health service respondents worked in. In addition, we explored respondents' views and experiences of telemental health as a medium for providing care.Results978 participants were included in the primary analysis (834 provided outcome data for community services, 193 for crisis services). In community services, virtually all staff reported stopping some or all face-to-face appointments following the onset of the pandemic, with a large majority using video or phone call appointments where possible instead. Telemental health use was higher in community than in crisis services, and amongst professionals who mainly provided psychotherapy or peer support than in other groups. There was also evidence of use being lower in regions in Northern England, Scotland, and Wales than elsewhere. There was no evidence of an association with staff gender, age, or ethnicity. Staff were generally positive about telemental health and intended to make more use of technologies following the pandemic. However, significant barriers to its use were also reported, often involving skills and available infrastructure.ConclusionsDespite its rapid implementation, telemental health was viewed positively by clinicians who saw it as an effective alternative to face-to-face appointments in some contexts, including during the pandemic. However, adoption of the technology also has the potential to exacerbate existing or create new inequalities without effective management of training and infrastructure needs.
| S-EPMC9733196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the early days of the pandemic and in the context of a seemingly unknown global threat, several potential major sleep disruptors were identified by sleep researchers and practitioners across the globe. The COVID-19 pandemic combined several features that, individually, had been shown to negatively affect sleep health in the general population. Those features included state of crisis, restrictions on in-person social interactions, as well as financial adversity. To address the lack of a comprehensive summary of sleep research across these three distinctive domains, we undertook three parallel systematic reviews based on the following themes: 1) Sleep in times of crises; 2) Sleep and social isolation; and 3) Sleep and economic uncertainty. Using a scoping review framework, we systematically identified and summarized findings from these three separated bodies of works. Potential moderating factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, psychological predisposition, occupation and other personal circumstances are also discussed. To conclude, we propose novel lines of research necessary to alleviate the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 crises and highlight the need to prepare the deployment of sleep solutions in future crises.
| S-EPMC8461524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAs a multidimensional stressor, the COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant threat to mental health, with studies showing younger age groups to be particularly vulnerable. Thus, this study aimed to monitor mental health, potential risk/protective factors, and pandemic-related variables among young university students during the pandemic.MethodsStudents of the University of Greifswald (M age = 23.0 years, 73.9% female) participated in five cross-sectional online surveys in December 2020 (N = 1,127), March 2021 (N = 760), June/July 2021 (N = 531), December 2021 (N = 1,226), and December 2022 (N = 814). Sociodemographic data, depression and anxiety severity, loneliness, quality of life, coping strategies, resilience, self-esteem, and emotion regulation were measured. First, results from December 2020 were compared to pre-pandemic normative data. Second, the time course during the pandemic was analyzed. Third, linear models were calculated to examine the influence of risk and protective factures on depression and anxiety severity.ResultsHigher levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness, as well as lower levels of self-esteem, physical and mental health, social relationships and well-being were found in December 2020 compared to pre-pandemic. Levels of depression and anxiety severity peaked in December 2022. Female sex, loneliness, and previous mental treatment showed associations with higher depression and anxiety severity, while higher self-esteem, resilience and use of reappraisal strategies appeared to act as protective factors.DiscussionThe study indicates the pandemic's detrimental impact on students' mental health and quality of life. Identified risk and protective factors provide guidance for tailored prevention and treatment, as well as the design of measures for future pandemics and other crisis.
| S-EPMC10864646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA large body of evidence indicates that spiritual and religious backgrounds, beliefs, and practices (SRBBPs) are related to better psychological health. Spirituality and religion (R/S) are also important aspects of multicultural diversity. There is evidence that clients would like to talk about their spirituality, and that including it in assessment and treatment planning can be beneficial. However, the extent to which practicing mental health professionals view SRBBPs as relevant to mental health and clinical practice is unclear.MethodsA survey examining several aspects of addressing SRBBPs in clinical practice was distributed to 894 professionals across mental health disciplines, including psychiatry, psychology, social work, marriage family therapy, licensed professional counselors, certified chemical dependency counselors, and psychiatric mental health nurses.Results89% of mental health professionals agreed that clinicians should receive training in R/S competencies. There were no differences between mental health disciplines in ratings of importance of such training. Younger individuals and those who identify as more spiritual were more likely to consider R/S training as important. Although 47.1% of professionals had not received much R/S training, many perceived themselves to be highly competent in R/S clinical integration practices (57.8% considered themselves able to display them very much or completely). In addition, respondents with more R/S training evaluated themselves as more proficient in R/S clinical integration. Nearly two-thirds (65.2%) of respondents reported encountering few to no barriers to engaging in R/S competent mental health care.ConclusionsThere is a growing consensus among mental health care professionals that mental health professionals should be trained in R/S competencies. Strong agreement exists that basic R/S competencies include respect, empathy, examination of bias, and routine assessment of R/S in mental health care. Four in five of those surveyed agree that more active competencies, such as identifying and addressing religious and spiritual struggles and problems and helping clients explore and access R/S strengths and resources should be included, whereas one in five report less comfort with these competencies.
| S-EPMC10717464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Countries around the world have had to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak with limited information and confronting many uncertainties. Their ability to be agile and adaptive has been stressed, particularly in regard to the timing of policy measures, the level of decision centralization, the autonomy of decisions and the balance between change and stability. In this contribution we use our observations of responses to COVID-19 to reflect on agility and adaptive governance and provide tools to evaluate it after the dust has settled. Whereas agility relates mainly to the speed of response within given structures, adaptivity implies system-level changes throughout government. Existing institutional structures and tools can enable adaptivity and agility, which can be complimentary approaches. However, agility sometimes conflicts with adaptability. Our analysis points to the paradoxical nature of adaptive governance. Indeed, successful adaptive governance calls for both decision speed and sound analysis, for both centralized and decentralized decision-making, for both innovation and bureaucracy, and both science and politics.
| S-EPMC7309933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on physician stress and mental health.MethodsThe 10-item Coping With COVID survey assessed stress among 2373 physicians from April 4 to May 27, 2020. A stress summary score with 4 items (a single-item [overall] stress measure, fear of exposure, perceived anxiety/depression due to COVID, and work overload, each scored 1-4) ranged from 4 to 16. Hypothesized stress mitigators included enhanced purpose and feeling valued by one's organization. Multilevel linear regression tested associations of variables with overall stress and stress summary scores.ResultsIn 2373 physicians in 17 organizations (median response rate of 32%), mean stress summary score was 9.1 (SD 2.6). Stress was highest among women (stress summary score, 9.4 [SD 2.5] vs 8.7 [SD 2.6] in men; P <.001), inpatient physicians (stress summary score, 9.4 [SD 2.8] vs 8.9 [SD 2.5] in outpatient physicians; P <.001), early- and mid-career physicians (stress summary score, 9.5 [SD 2.6] vs 8.6 [SD 2.5] in late-career physicians; P <.001), and physicians in critical care (stress summary score, 10.8), emergency departments (10.2), and hospital medicine (10.1). Increases in perceived anxiety/depression (regression coefficient, 0.30), workload (0.28), and fear (0.14) were associated with higher overall stress (P values <.001). Increases in feeling valued were associated with lower stress summary scores (regression coefficient, -0.67; P <.001) and explained 11% of stress summary score variance at the physician level and 31% of variance at the organizational level.ConclusionMental health support, modulation of workload, and noting physicians' organizational value should be explored as means to reduce COVID-related stress.
| S-EPMC7930845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDuring a pandemic, healthcare providers experience increased mental and physical burden. Burnout can lead to treatment errors, patient mortality, increased suicidal ideation and substance abuse as well as medical malpractice suits among medical staff. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of burnout, acute stress disorder, anxiety disorder and depressive disorder among healthcare providers at the third month of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA cross-sectional facility-based survey.SettingHospitals around the country with different levels of care.ParticipantsA total of 1795 respondents, including 360 men and 1435 women who participated in the survey.Primary outcome measuresBurnout was assessed using the Physician Work Life Study. A score of ≥3 implied burnout.ResultsOf the 1795 respondents, 723 (40.3%) reported burnout, and 669 (37.3%) cared for patients with COVID-19. Anxiety levels were mild in 185 (10.3%) respondents, moderate in 209 (11.6%) and severe in 1401 (78.1%). The mean Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-10 score was 9.5±6.3, and 817 (45.5%) respondents were classified as having depression. Factors associated with burnout were working in acute and critical care (ACC) divisions (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.39, p=0.019), caring for patients with COVID-19 (aOR=3.90, 95% CI 1.14 to 13.37, p=0.031) and having depressive disorder (aOR=9.44, 95% CI 7.44 to 11.97, p<0.001).ConclusionsPhysicians and nurses are vulnerable to burnout during a pandemic, especially those working in ACC divisions. Anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and care of patients with COVID-19 may be factors that influence the occurrence of burnout among healthcare providers.
| S-EPMC8322020 | biostudies-literature