Unravelling the link between sleep and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

The emergence of COVID-19 brought unparalleled changes in people's lifestyle, including sleep. We aimed to assess the bidirectional association between sleep quality and mental health and describe how sleep and mental health were affected in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic (between June 2020 and September 2021). Data were obtained from the Omtanke2020 study. Participants who completed the baseline survey and each of the 8 monthly follow-up surveys were included (N = 9035). We described the distribution of sleep and mental health in the different Swedish regions using maps and over the study period with longitudinal graphs adjusting for sex, age, recruitment type (self-recruitment or invitation), and COVID-19 status. The inner relationships between mental health, sleep and Covid infection were described through relative importance networks. Finally, we modelled how mental health affects sleep and vice versa using generalized estimating equations with different adjustments. Seasonal and north-south regional variations were found in sleep and mental health outcomes at baseline and attenuated over time. The seasonal variation of sleep and mental health correlated moderately with the incidence rate of COVID-19 in the sample. Networks indicate that the relationship between COVID-19 incidence and mental health varies over time. We observed a bidirectional relationship between sleep quality and quantity at baseline and mental health at follow-up and vice versa. Sleep quality and quantity at baseline was associated with adverse symptom trajectories of mental health at follow-up, and vice versa, during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was also a weak relationship between COVID-19 incidence, sleep, and mental health.     

Pandemics and maternal health: the indirect effects of COVID-19

Infectious diseases can directly affect women and men differently. During the COVID-19 pandemic, higher case fatality rates have been observed in men in most countries. There is growing evidence, however, that while organisational changes to healthcare delivery have occurred to protect those vulnerable to the virus (staff and patients), these may lead to indirect, potentially harmful consequences, particularly to vulnerable groups including pregnant women. These encompass reduced access to antenatal and postnatal care, with a lack of in-person clinics impacting the ability to screen for physical, psychological and social issues such as elevated blood pressure, mental health issues and sex-based violence. Indirect consequences also encompass a lack of equity when considering the inclusion of pregnant women in COVID-19 research and their absence from vaccine trials, leading to a lack of safety data for breastfeeding and pregnant women. The risk-benefit analysis of these changes to healthcare delivery remains to be fully evaluated, but the battle against COVID-19 cannot come at the expense of losing existing quality standards in other areas of healthcare, especially for maternal health.     

Mental health and well-being of anaesthetists during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed substantial burdens on clinicians and there is a need to better understand the impact on mental health and well-being. This scoping review investigates the prevalence of mental health concerns in anaesthetists, risk and protective factors for mental well-being, and anaesthetists' pandemic-related concerns and support. We searched online databases for articles published between January 2020 and May 2022, using search terms related to: anaesthesia; burnout, well-being, mental health or stress; and COVID-19. We identified 20 articles comprising 19 different populations of anaesthetists (n = 8680) from 14 countries. Studies identified the prevalence of the following condition in anaesthetists: burnout (14–59%); stress (50–71%); anxiety (11–74%); depression (12–67%); post-traumatic stress (17–25%); psychological distress (52%); and insomnia (17–61%). Significant risk factors for poorer mental health included: direct COVID-19-related issues (fear of self and family exposure to infection; requirement for quarantine); practitioner health factors (insomnia; comorbidities); psychosocial factors (loneliness; isolation; perceived lack of support at home and work); demographic factors (female gender; non-white ethnicity; LGBTQIA+); and workplace factors (redeployment outside area of clinical practice; increased work effort; personal protective equipment shortages). Protective factors identified included: job satisfaction; perceived organisational justice; older age; and male sex. Anaesthetists' self-reported concerns related to: personal protective equipment; resource allocation; fear of infection; fear of financial loss; increased workload; and effective communication of protocols for patient treatment. Support from family, colleagues and hospital management was identified as an important coping mechanism. Findings from this review may support the design of interventions to enhance anaesthetists' psychological health during pandemic conditions and beyond. Future research should include consistent psychological outcome measures and rigorous experimental design beyond cross-sectional studies.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间我国孕产妇心理健康状况调查

目的 了解新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间我国孕产妇心理健康状况,并探讨其影响因素.方法 2020年2月22日至3月5日,采用患者健康问卷抑郁症状群量表、广泛性焦虑量表、一般健康问卷对全国12省市的1 261例孕产妇进行调查.结果 孕产妇抑郁发生率为27.7％,焦虑发生率14.3％,焦虑、抑郁与心理健康呈正相关(均P＜0.01...     

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health,associated factors and coping strategies in people living with HIV: a scoping review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures implemented by authorities have created additional stressors and increased the risk of psychological illnesses among people living with HIV (PLWH). Yet, there is no collective evidence on the mental health status of this population during the global pandemic and associated factors. This scoping review aimed to synthesize the evidence in the current literature related to the mental health outcomes and challenges faced by PLWH during the COVID-19 pandemic, identify the associated factors with psychological distress and summarize various coping strategies to ease these psychological distresses used by this population.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR guideline and a literature search in four electronic databases in August 2022. Three reviewers independently screened all the search records and extracted the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Factors associated with worsened mental health outcomes were synthesized according to the socio-ecological framework.

Results

Among 1100 research records, 45 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review and data extraction, most of which were quantitative analyses. PLWH reported high rates of mental health problems during the pandemic. Multi-level factors were associated with increased psychological distress, including substance use, antiretroviral adherence, social support, financial hardship and economic vulnerability during the pandemic. PLWH used social media as a coping strategy to foster social support to deal with growing mental distress. Increased mental health illnesses were associated with increased substance use, it was also found associated with suboptimal medication adherence and antiretroviral therapy (ART) care engagement.

Discussion

PLWH experienced high rates of mental health illnesses, such as depression during the global COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to provide comprehensive HIV treatment and mental health services as the pandemic continues to evolve.

Conclusions

The review summarized how the mental health of PLWH was affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future work in the implementation of effective interventions to promote mental health in this population is needed, not only to ensure their quality of life but also to help them maintain ART adherence and healthcare during more unprecedented times.     

Heterogeneity in mental health change during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: The role of social factors

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a prolonged global crisis, but its effects on mental health seem inconsistent. This inconsistency highlights the importance of considering the differential impact of the pandemic on individuals. There is some evidence that mental health trajectories are heterogeneous and that both sociodemographic and personal characteristics are associated with higher risk for mental health issues. By contrast, information on the role of social factors as potential determinants of initial reactions to the pandemic and on heterogeneous trajectories over time is lacking. We analysed seven assessments of a large-scale (N = 2203) longitudinal study across 1.5 years, beginning in March 2020. Using self-report data on mental health and life satisfaction, we applied latent change models to examine initial reactions and mean changes across the pandemic. In addition, we applied latent class growth analyses to investigate whether there were distinct groups with different patterns of change. Results showed that on average, levels of life satisfaction and anxiety decreased (d = −0.31 and d = −0.11, respectively), levels of depressive symptoms increased (d = 0.13), and stress levels remained unchanged (d = −0.01) during the first year of the pandemic. For each outcome, we identified four distinct mental health trajectories. Between 5% (for anxiety) and 11% (for life satisfaction) of the sample reported consistently high—and even increasing—impairments in mental health and well-being. The trajectories of a sizeable number of people covaried with the course of the pandemic, such that people experienced better mental health when the number of COVID cases was low and when fewer restrictions were placed on public life. Low emotional support, high instrumental support, and the tendency to compare oneself with others were associated with more mental health issues. Findings show that whereas a substantial portion of people were largely unaffected by the pandemic, some individuals experienced consistently high levels of psychological distress. Social factors appear to play a crucial role in the maintenance of well-being.     

Peritraumatic distress across the lifespan: Clinical implications of age differences during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) is a well-known self-report questionnaire indexing the distress experienced during and shortly after a most stressful or traumatic event. Although sociodemographic factors contributing to peritraumatic distress have been previously investigated, no research has examined the nature and severity of peritraumatic distress reactions in a non-clinical, community sample as a function of age. An international sample of 5621 adult participants were grouped according the World Health Organization's age stratification protocol. Mean scores and item endorsement on the PDI were compared across groups with respect to their worst experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant between-group difference was found, F(55,615) = 30.74, p < 0.001, n² = 0.027 whereby participants aged 18–39 years old reported the highest levels of peritraumatic distress. This group also endorsed a higher proportion of items on the PDI's two main factors (emotional distress and physical reactions), and were more likely to endorse feelings of helplessness, than older participants. It appears that severity of peritraumatic distress during the pandemic has affected younger people the most. Results are discussed in light of clinical implications.     

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nephrology Fellow Training and Well-Being in the United States: A National Survey

Open in a separate window     

Examining socioeconomic disparities in changes in adolescent mental health before and during different phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

This study examined socioeconomic disparities in changes in adolescent mental health between fall 2019 (pre-COVID-19), spring 2020 (initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) phase), and fall 2020 (prevailing COVID-19 phase). Using data from 1429 adolescents (M_age = 17.9) from tertiary vocational schools in the Netherlands with n = 386 participating in all three waves, linear and latent basis growth curve models were assessed and multigroup analyses conducted. Results showed a small but significant decrease in life satisfaction and small but significant increases in emotional problems, peer relationship problems, conduct problems, and hyperactivity-inattention problems. For emotional problems and peer relationship problems, increases between pre-COVID-19 and the initial COVID-19 phase were more pronounced than increases between the initial and prevailing COVID-19 phase. In contrast, linear decreases were found for life satisfaction and linear increases for conduct problems and hyperactivity-inattention problems over the course of the study. Mental health patterns were largely comparable for adolescents from families with varying socioeconomic status.     

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of young people: A comparison between China and the United Kingdom

Purpose: As COVID-19 spreads globally and affects people''s health, there are concerns that the pandemic and control policies may have psychological effects on young people (age from 17 to 35 years). This psychological impact might vary in different countries, and thus we compared the prevalence of selfreported psychological distress, loneliness and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) among young people in the United Kingdom (UK) and China at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data of this study came from two sources. One source was the first wave of COVID-19 study in Understanding Society, a special wave of the UK household longitudinal study, which provided the highquality, national-wide representative panel data. The sample comprised 1054 young people. The other source was an online survey on the mental health of 1003 young people from Shanghai, a highly developed area in China. The questionnaire included questions on the prevalence of common mental disorders (cut-off score ≥ 4), loneliness and potential PTSS (cut-off ≥ 33). Univariable analyses were conducted to test the differences in the self-reported prevalence of psychological distress and loneliness between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were run to explore the predictors of psychological distress and loneliness among all the young people from England and Shanghai. Results: Among the samples with self-reported psychological distress, the UK sample accounted for 34.4% (n = 1054) and the Chinese sample accounted for 14.1% (n = 1003). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Additionally, 57.1% of people in the UK and 46.7% in China reported that they sometimes or often felt lonely, of which the difference is statistically significant (p < 0.001). Regression analysis of the entire samples showed that nationality, gender, psychotherapy and loneliness were significant predictors of 12-item General Health Questionnaire scores, while the variables of age and living alone were not. Significant predictors of self-reported loneliness were the nationality, gender, age, living alone and psychotherapy. In China, 123 (12.3%) young people, 49 men (11.3%) and 74 women (13.0%), met the criteria of PTSS symptoms (cut-off scores ≥ 33). These scores were only collected in China. Conclusion: This evidence suggests that mental health and loneliness reported by young people were lower in China than that in the UK during the studied period. More research is needed to understand these differences. If the differential negative psychological impacts are confirmed, country-specific measures of prevention and intervention should be adopted to improve the mental health of young people under the ongoing impact of the pandemic.     

Decision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes for category-1 caesarean sections during the COVID-19 pandemic

General anaesthesia is known to achieve the shortest decision-to-delivery interval for category-1 caesarean section. We investigated whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the decision-to delivery interval and influenced neonatal outcomes in patients who underwent category-1 caesarean section. Records of 562 patients who underwent emergency caesarean section between 1 April 2019 and 1 July 2019 in seven UK hospitals (pre-COVID-19 group) were compared with 577 emergency caesarean sections performed during the same period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 April 2020–1 July 2020) (post-COVID-19 group). Primary outcome measures were: decision-to-delivery interval; number of caesarean sections achieving decision-to-delivery interval < 30 min; and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (Apgar 5-min score < 7, umbilical arterial pH < 7.10, neonatal intensive care unit admission and stillbirth). The use of general anaesthesia decreased significantly between the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups (risk ratio 0.48 (95%CI 0.37–0.62); p < 0.0001). Compared with the pre-COVID-19 group, the post-COVID-19 group had an increase in median (IQR [range]) decision-to-delivery interval (26 (18–32 [4–124]) min vs. 27 (20–33 [3–102]) min; p = 0.043) and a decrease in the number of caesarean sections meeting the decision-to-delivery interval target of < 30 min (374/562 (66.5%) vs. 349/577 (60.5%); p = 0.02). The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes was similar in the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups (140/568 (24.6%) vs. 140/583 (24.0%), respectively; p = 0.85). The small increase in decision-to-delivery interval observed during the COVID-19 pandemic did not adversely affect neonatal outcomes.     

The impact of COVID-19 on anaesthesia and critical care services in the UK: a serial service evaluation*

Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics.     

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clubfoot program at tertiary care institute

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic had serious impact on health care sector. During reprioritisation of the services, elective and non-emergency procedures were suspended, with gradual resumption of services after lockdown was over. In this study we assessed the impact of pandemic on our clubfoot program at a tertiary care institute. Also, we discussed the future challenges and strategies to re-start our clubfoot program.MethodsData was collected retrospectively regarding registrations, demography and procedures done at our clubfoot centre. Study period was 25 March to 31 December 2020 and it was compared with same duration from previous years 2019 and 2018. After the data analysis, the findings were discussed on departmental committee meeting, future challenges were considered and strategies were charted out for re-establishing the clubfoot program at our Institute.ResultsWhen compared to previous year, we noted 46% decline in paediatric outpatient registrations and 60% decline in new clubfoot registrations at our centre. The clubfoot follow-up visits reduced by 30% in the pandemic year 2020. 80% of clubfoot registrations were local residents during pandemic year, which was 54%, 58% in year 2019 and 2018 respectively. The percentage of neglected cases remained stable, however, share of relapse cases increased during pandemic year. There was 80% decline in number of tenotomies and 90% decline in other clubfoot surgeries performed during pandemic year 2020 compared to year 2019.ConclusionCOVID-19 pandemic had definite disruptive impact on our clubfoot program. With decreased new registrations, follow-up visits and increased relapses, we anticipate a significant increase in clubfoot cases in need of casting & treatment. To deal with pent-up demand and an anticipated wave of relapse and neglected clubfoot cases, we have proposed strategies to re-establish clubfoot program in post-pandemic new-normal. We hope these will prepare us for any adversaries we face.     

Health-related quality of life,uncertainty and coping strategies in solid organ transplant recipients during shielding for the COVID-19 pandemic

Strict isolation of vulnerable individuals has been a strategy implemented by authorities to protect people from COVID-19. Our objective was to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), uncertainty and coping behaviours in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey of adult SOT recipients undergoing follow-up at our institution was performed. Perceived health status, uncertainty and coping strategies were assessed using the EQ-5D-5L, Short-form Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (SF-MUIS) and Brief Cope, respectively. Interactions with COVID-19 risk perception, access to health care, demographic and clinical variables were assessed. The survey was completed by 826 of 3839 (21.5%) invited participants. Overall, low levels of uncertainty in illness were reported, and acceptance was the major coping strategy (92%). Coping by acceptance, feeling protected, self-perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 were associated with lower levels of uncertainty. Health status index scores were significantly lower for those with mental health illness, compromised access to health care, a perceived high risk of severe COVID-19 infection and higher levels of uncertainty. A history of mental health illness, risk perceptions, restricted healthcare access, uncertainty and coping strategies was associated with poorer HRQoL in SOT recipients during strict isolation. These findings may allow identification of strategies to improve HRQoL in SOT recipients during the pandemic.     

Coping profiles and differences in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent profile analysis

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, people need to cope with multiple stressors which may affect their well-being. This study aimed (1) to identify latent coping profiles in the German general population, and (2) to investigate differences between these profiles in well-being. In total, N = 2326 German participants were recruited as part of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST study from June to September 2020 using an online survey. Coping strategies were assessed using the Brief-COPE and the Pandemic Coping Scale; well-being was assessed using the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Coping profiles were identified using latent profile analysis; differences between profiles were examined using the automatic BCH method and multiple group analyses. Five coping profiles were identified that included different types and numbers of coping strategies: (1) High functional coping (17.84%), (2) Moderate functional coping (40.63%), (3) High functional and religious coping (9.07%), (4) Low functional coping (22.06%), (5) Moderate functional and dysfunctional coping (10.40%). The identified profiles significantly differed in well-being (χ² = 503.68, p <0.001). Coping profiles indicating high functional coping were associated with greater well-being compared to coping profiles indicating low (χ² = 82.21, p <0.001) or primarily dysfunctional (χ² = 354.33, p <0.001) coping. These results provide insight into how people differ in their coping strategies when dealing with stressors in an early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study indicates higher levels of well-being in coping profiles with more frequent use of functional strategies. To promote well-being in the general population, it might be beneficial to train functional coping strategies in appropriate interventions that are associated with increased well-being.     

Impact of COVID‐19 on the mental health of surgeons and coping strategies

Unprecedented times call for extraordinary measures. While surgeons across the globe try to comprehend the evolving facade of the COVID‐19 pandemic and improvise surgical practice to the best of their ability, the psychological impact of the stress on their own mental health and well‐being has been underestimated. This paper aims to review the indirect and overt factors that may affect the mental health of a surgeon in the present circumstances. Furthermore, it will aim to highlight key coping mechanisms at an individual and institutional level, so as to mitigate the negative psychological impact on surgeons.     

Confidence in COVID-19 vaccines moderates the association between vaccination status and mental distress

Previous research has demonstrated that becoming vaccinated with the Coronavirus vaccine may lower mental distress. However, it remains uncertain whether this relationship holds amid concerns of vaccine side effects and doubts of the vaccine's protective capabilities. We presented three studies that showed how vaccine confidence negatively influences the relationship between vaccine uptake and mental distress. Using two-way fixed effects regression models, Study 1 analyzes longitudinal survey of respondents from Los Angeles County in the US, while Study 2 uses the same analytical strategy but generalises findings by analysing longitudinal data of participants across all 50 US states. Main results of both studies show that (i) vaccination uptake is linked with reduced mental distress among individuals with high vaccine confidence (ii) vaccine uptake has no effect on mental distress among individuals with low vaccine confidence. Lastly, Study 3 applies multilevel analysis to a large-scale pseudo-panel study of 15 developed countries. Results for the third study corroborate finding (i) but not (ii) in that the multinational study finds that vaccine uptake is actually associated with higher mental distress among individuals with low vaccine confidence. In sum, our paper shows that the palliative effect of vaccination on mental health only exists when vaccine confidence is high. Results are mixed on whether vaccination affects mental distress when individual vaccine confidence is low.     

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of open fractures in a major trauma centre

IntroductionThe Coronavrius-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented the biggest challenge that the National Health Service (NHS) has ever seen. As one of the worst affected regions, Orthopaedic service provision and delivery in London, changed dramatically. Our hypothesis is that these restrictions adversely impacted the care of open fractures in our major trauma unit in London.MethodsThis is a prospective case control study comparing the management of patients presenting pre-COVID, to those presenting during the height of the COVID pandemic in London. The pre-COVID, control cohort presented between the 1st October and the November 30, 2019. The COVID cohort presented between the April 1, 2020 and the May 31, 2020. Data was collected that related to the 11 clinical domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standards of Trauma (BOAST) 4 guidance, as well as early complications.ResultsOf the 11 domains, 100 % compliance was achieved in 6 components, across both groups where applicable. During pre-COVID times, the timing to initial debridement was within 12 h for High energy trauma in 16/28 (57.1 %), dropping to 7/22 (31.8 %) during COVID, (p = 0.004). Definitive soft tissue closure within 72 h If not achievable at initial debridement dropped from 9/10 (90.0%) to 4/6 (66.7 %), (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in early complication rates.ConclusionCoronavirus has changed the landscape of healthcare worldwide and impacted open fracture care by increasing time to theatre. This had no effect on early complication rate but longer term effects remain to be seen.     

Stress,anxiety, emotion regulation and social support in parent-child dyads prior to and during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

In March 2020, and in order to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress and mental health in parent-child dyads using pre-pandemic measures, we recontacted participants from a 2019 study. A total of 136 dyads of Canadian parents (77% mothers, mean age = 44.48 years/old) and children (63% girls, 77% aged 10–12 years/old and 23% aged 15–17 years/old) completed self-report measures of perceived stress, anxiety (state/sensitivity) and emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal/expressive suppression). Children additionally completed measures of co-rumination and perceived social support from friends, parents, and teachers. Results revealed a significant increase in parents' stress and state anxiety during the pandemic compared to before, but not in their children. Dyads' anxiety sensitivity remained unchanged, as well as parents' use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Children showed similar use of cognitive reappraisal, but less expressive suppression and co-rumination during the pandemic compared to before. Children reported similar perceived social support from all sources over time. Finally, parental and children scores were not significantly correlated at either time. These results suggest that during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, parents and children responded differently in terms of stress, anxiety, and emotion regulation strategies.