Search

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nah-10.1177_02601060221147768 for The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic causes a dysfunctional dietary behavior: A German cross-sectional study by Hannah Dinse, Adam Schweda, Alexander Bäuerle, Venja Musche, Madeleine Fink, Sheila Geiger, Eva-Maria Skoda and Martin Teufel in Nutrition and Health

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nah-10.1177_02601060221147768 for The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic causes a dysfunctional dietary behavior: A German cross-sectional study by Hannah Dinse, Adam Schweda, Alexander Bäuerle, Venja Musche, Madeleine Fink, Sheila Geiger, Eva-Maria Skoda and Martin Teufel in Nutrition and Health

Introduction: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can affect multiple organs. Reports of persistent or newly emergent symptoms, including those related to the nervous system, have increased over the course of the pandemic, leading to the introduction of post-COVID-19 syndrome. However, this novel syndrome is still ill-defined and structured objectification of complaints is scarce. Therefore, we performed a prospective observational cohort study to better define and validate subjective neurological disturbances in patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome. Methods: A total of 171 patients fulfilling the post-COVID-19 WHO Delphi consensus criteria underwent a comprehensive neurological diagnostic work-up including neurovascular, electrophysiological, and blood analysis. In addition, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture were conducted in subgroups of patients. Furthermore, patients underwent neuropsychological, psychosomatic, and fatigue assessment. Results: Patients were predominantly female, middle-aged, and had incurred mostly mild-to-moderate acute COVID-19. The most frequent post-COVID-19 complaints included fatigue, difficulties in concentration, and memory deficits. In most patients (85.8%), in-depth neurological assessment yielded no pathological findings. In 97.7% of the cases, either no diagnosis other than post COVID-19 syndrome, or no diagnosis likely related to preceding acute COVID-19 could be established. Sensory or motor complaints were more often associated with a neurological diagnosis other than post-COVID-19 syndrome. Previous psychiatric conditions were identified as a risk factor for developing post-COVID-19 syndrome. We found high somatization scores in our patient group that correlated with cognitive deficits and the extent of fatigue. Conclusions: Albeit frequently reported by patients, objectifiable affection of the nervous system is rare in post-COVID-19 syndrome. Instead, elevated levels of somatization point towards a pathogenesis potentially involving psychosomatic factors. However, thorough neurological assessment is important in this patient group in order to not miss neurological diseases other than post-COVID-19. CA Kleinschnitz

Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Kein CA

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic poses immense challenges for health care systems and population-wide mental health. The e-mental health intervention “CoPE It” has been developed to offer standardized and manualized support to overcome psychological distress caused by the pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of “CoPE It” in terms of reducing distress (primary outcome), depression and anxiety symptoms, and improving self-efficacy, and mindfulness (secondary outcomes). Furthermore, the intervention's usability, feasibility, and participants' satisfaction with “CoPE It” was evaluated (tertiary outcome). The study protocol has been published previously. Methods: A bicentre longitudinal study was conducted from April 27th 2020 to May 3rd 2021. N = 110 participants were included in the analyses. The intervention consisted of four modules featuring different media promoting evidence-based methods of cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Difference in psychological distress between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1) were analyzed by repeated measure analysis of covariance. Mixed linear models were applied to assess moderating effects. Depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety symptoms, self-efficacy, and mindfulness were compared between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1) via t-tests. Usability of the “CoPE It” intervention and participants' satisfaction was evaluated by calculation means and frequencies. Results: Primary outcome: A significant effect of time on psychological distress at post-intervention (T1) after controlling for age, gender, education, mental illness and attitudes toward online interventions was found. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, and mindfulness were a significant moderators of the relationship between time and psychological distress for consistent wording. Secondary outcomes: There was a significant decrease in depressive symptoms and generalized anxiety, and a significant increase in self-efficacy and mindfulness between baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1). Tertiary outcomes: 95.83% of the participants thought the “CoPE It” intervention was easy to use and 87.50% were satisfied with the “CoPE It” intervention in an overall, general sense. Conclusion: The e-mental health “CoPE It” intervention seems to be an effective approach in reducing psychological distress, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and in enhancing self-efficacy and mindfulness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants' satisfaction and the program‘s feasibility, and usability were proven to be high. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: DRKS00021301. OA Förderung 2021

Background: Diabetes is a very common chronic disease that exerts massive physiological and psychological burdens on patients. The digitalization of mental health care has generated effective e-mental health approaches, which offer an indubitable practical value for patient treatment. However, before implementing and optimizing e-mental health tools, their acceptance and underlying barriers and resources should be first determined for developing and establishing effective patient-oriented interventions. Objective: This study aims to assess the acceptance of e-mental health interventions among patients with diabetes and explore its underlying barriers and resources. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany from April 9, 2020, to June 15, 2020, through a web-based survey for which patients were recruited via web-based diabetes channels. The eligibility requirements were adult age (18 years or older), a good command of the German language, internet access, and a diagnosis of diabetes. Acceptance was measured using a modified questionnaire, which was based on the well-established Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and assessed health-related internet use, acceptance of e-mental health interventions, and its barriers and resources. Mental health was measured using validated and established instruments, namely the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and Distress Thermometer. In addition, sociodemographic and medical data regarding diabetes were collected. Results: Of the 340 participants who started the survey, 261 (76.8%) completed it and the final sample comprised 258 participants with complete data sets. The acceptance of e-mental health interventions in patients with diabetes was overall moderate (mean 3.02, SD 1.14). Gender and having a mental disorder had a significant influence on acceptance (P

Additional file 1.