Search

This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors., Methods: The PCS was administered to N  = 2316 German participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied among random splits of the sample. Global goodness of fit ( χ 2 , RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), local goodness of fit (factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity) and additional test quality criteria (internal consistency, item discrimination and difficulty) were evaluated for a four-factor model vs. a four-factor model combined with a second-order general factor. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by Pearson correlations of the PCS subscales with the Brief-COPE subscales; criterion validity was evaluated by correlations with wellbeing (WHO-5), depressive (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2)., Results: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution ('Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', 'Daily Structure', 'Prevention Adherence'). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both specified models which did not differ in their fit to the data. Local goodness of fit indices showed moderate to large factor loadings and good factor reliabilities except for the subscale 'Prevention Adherence'. Internal consistencies were good for the PCS total scale ( α  = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' ( α  = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' ( α  = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' ( α  = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' ( α  = .52). The four subscales evidenced convergent and divergent validity with the Brief-COPE subscales. The subscales 'Healthy lifestyle', 'Joyful activities' and 'Daily structure' showed criterion validity with wellbeing, depressive and anxiety symptoms., Conclusions: The PCS is a reliable and valid measure to assess pandemic-specific coping behavior in the domains of 'Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', and 'Daily Structure'. The PCS subscale 'Prevention Adherence' might be improved by adding items with varying item difficulties., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Objective: To investigate whether implementation recommendations derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" can be implemented on acute psychiatric wards by means of implementation consultants into ward work and if this contributes to an increased level of adherence to guideline intervention recommendations approved by the DGPPN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde)?, Material and Methods: Two medical or nursing experts advised ward teams on the implementation of three individually selected recommendations from the guidelines in a structured consulting process over 6 months. The degree of implementation of the recommendations was assessed before and after the intervention by the ward teams together with the implementation consultants using a tool developed for this purpose (PreVCo rating tool)., Results: A total of five wards responsible for compulsorily admitted patients took part in the pilot study; three of them completed the intervention. On all three wards, implementation of the guideline recommendations improved for both selected and unselected recommendations. The strategy of using implementation consultants as well as the application of the PreVCo rating tool were well accepted and considered feasible by both the treatment teams and the implementation consultants., Conclusion: This pilot study showed that an implementation of recommendations on psychiatric wards derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" supported by implementation consultants is feasible, well acceptable among treatment teams and can lead to positive changes. The sample of five wards with diverse patient profiles was convincing. The efficacy in terms of reduction of coercive measures is currently being investigated in a randomized controlled trial on 55 psychiatric wards in different parts of Germany, with an intervention based on this pilot study., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic., Methods: The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ 2 , RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria., Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 'Problems with Childcare', Factor 2 'Work-related Problems', Factor 3 'Restricted Face-to-Face Contact', Factor 4 'Burden of Infection ', Factor 5 'Crisis Management and Communication', Factor 6 'Difficult Housing Condition', Factor 7 'Fear of Infection', Factor 8 'Restricted Access to Resources', Factor 9 'Restricted Activity'). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ 2 (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ 2 (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ 2 (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor., Conclusion: The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Examination of gender-related differences of aggressive incidents and the use coercive measures within a whole psychiatric hospital with a catchment area of 339.000 inhabitants over a period of fifteen years., Methods: Recording of aggressive incidents using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R) as well as coercive measures by a clinically developed record sheet and analysing gender-related differences from 2005 to 2019., Results: 82 833 inpatients (male: 55.3 %; female: 44.7 %) are included. Between 2005 and 2019, 60.1 % of the aggressive events involved male patients and 39.9 % involved female patients; however, regarding cases of treatment no gender-related difference existed (odds ratio: 1.1). The SOAS-R-severity score of women was significantly higher, while aggressive incidents of men were subjectively graded more serious by staff. The number of coercive measures and the mean duration of restraint and seclusion episodes were significantly higher and longer, respectively, in male inpatients., Conclusion: Differences in frequency and duration of coercive measures between male and female patients could be influenced by the subjective perception of staff that male patients behave more aggressively., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)