The COVID-19 outbreak has made people more prone to depression, anxiety and insomnia, and females are at a high risk of developing these conditions. As a special group, pregnant and lying-in women must pay close attention to their physical and mental health, as both have consequences for the mother and the fetus. However, knowledge regarding the status of depression, anxiety and insomnia among these women is limited.
Aim
This study aimed to examine insomnia and psychological factors among pregnant and lying-in women during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide theoretical support for intervention research.
Methods
In total, 2235 pregnant and lying-in women from 12 provinces in China were surveyed; their average age was 30.25 years (SD = 3.99, range = 19–47 years).
Participants and setting
The participants completed electronic questionnaires designed to collect demographic information and assess levels of depression, anxiety and insomnia.
Results
The prevalence of insomnia in the sample was 18.9%. Depression and anxiety were significant predictors of insomnia. Participants in high-risk areas, those with a disease history, those with economic losses due to the outbreak, and those in the postpartum period had significantly higher insomnia scores.
Discussion
The incidence of insomnia among pregnant and lying-in women is not serious in the context of the epidemic, which may be related to the sociocultural background and current epidemic situation in China.
Conclusion
Depression and anxiety are more indicative of insomnia than demographic variables.
In this retrospective study, we evaluated the levels of a series of serum biomarkers in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients (mild: 131; severe: 98; critical: 23). We found that there were significant increases in levels of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) (73.6 ± 38.3 vs 46.5 ± 14.7 pmol/L; P < .001), cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA21-1) (2.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 0.8 μg/L; P < .001), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (3.4 ± 2.2 vs 2.1 ± 1.2 μg/L; P < .001), carbohydrate antigens (CA) 125 (18.1 ± 13.5 vs 10.5 ± 4.6 μg/L; P < .001), and 153 (14.4 ± 8.9 vs 10.1 ± 4.4 μg/L; P < .001) in COVID-19 mild cases as compared to normal control subjects; their levels showed continuous and significant increases in severe and critical cases (HE4, CYFRA21-1, and CA125: P < .001; CEA and CA153: P < .01). Squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) and CA199 increased significantly only in critical cases of COVID-19 as compared with mild and severe cases and normal controls (P < .01). There were positive associations between levels of C-reactive protein and levels of HE4 (R = .631; P < .001), CYFRA21-1 (R = .431; P < .001), CEA (R = .316; P < .001), SCC (R = .351; P < .001), CA153 (R = .359; P < .001) and CA125 (R = .223; P = .031). We concluded that elevations of serum cancer biomarkers positively correlated with the pathological progressions of COVID-19, demonstrating diffuse and acute pathophysiological injuries in COVID-19. 相似文献
目的 探讨全程关护诊疗(total care and treatment,TCT)模式对肝癌患者预后的影响。方法 回顾性分析2012年1月至2015年12月广西医科大学附属肿瘤医院、贵港市人民医院1 810例肝癌患者资料,按照是否行TCT模式诊疗将患者分成TCT模式组和常规诊疗模式组,比较两组行根治性治疗术患者1年、2年复发率、复发后治疗率及生存率。结果 共收集行TCT模式诊疗肝癌患者1 054例(TCT模式组)和常规诊疗模式患者756例(常规诊疗模式组),其中TCT模式组行根治性治疗术784例,常规诊疗模式组556例。 TCT模式组行根治性治疗患者1年和2年复发率与常规诊疗模式组比较,差异均无统计学意义(20.54% vs 21.22%,χ2=0.093,P=0.760;40.31% vs 41.19%,χ2=0.105,P=0.746);TCT模式组1年和2年复发后治疗率高于常规诊疗模式组(100% vs 57.63%,χ2=9.836,P=0.020;100% vs 56.77%,χ2=7.679,P=0.060)。1年、2年总生存率亦高于常规诊疗模式组(83.20% vs 79.28%,P<0.05;67.12% vs 59.31%,P<0.05) 结论 肝癌全程关护诊疗模式符合肝癌治疗系统、序贯、个体化需求的规律,在行根治性治疗术患者中,两种诊疗模式患者复发率相当,但TCT模式诊疗患者复发后治疗率提高。 相似文献