Search

This study aimed to quantify the immediate psychological effects and psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures of a workforce returning to work during the COVID-19 epidemic. Workforce returning to work was invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their attitude toward the COVID-19 epidemic and return-to-work along with psychological parameters including the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale- 21 (DASS-21) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures include precautions at personal and organization levels. From 673 valid questionnaires, we found that 10.8% of respondents met the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after returning to work. The respondents reported a low prevalence of anxiety (3.8%), depression (3.7%), stress (1.5%) and insomnia (2.3%). There were no significant differences in the severity of psychiatric symptoms between workers/technicians and executives/managers. >95% reported psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures including good ventilation in the workplace and wore a face mask as protective. Factors that were associated with the severity of psychiatric symptoms in the workforce were marital status, presence of physical symptom, poor physical health and viewing return to work as a health hazard (p < 0.05). In contrast, personal psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures including hand hygiene and wearing face masks as well as organizational measures including significant improvement of workplace hygiene and concerns from the company were associated with less severe psychiatric symptoms (p < 0.05). Contrary to expectations, returning to work had not caused a high level of psychiatric symptoms in the workforce. The low prevalence of psychiatric symptoms could be due to confidence instilled by psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures before the resumption of work. Our findings would provide information for other countries during the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anxiety, although as common and arguably as debilitating as depression, has garnered less attention, and is often undetected and undertreated in the general population. Similarly, anxiety among medical students warrants greater attention due to its significant implications. We aimed to study the global prevalence of anxiety among medical students and the associated factors predisposing medical students to anxiety. In February 2019, we carried out a systematic search for cross-sectional studies that examined the prevalence of anxiety among medical students. We computed the aggregate prevalence and pooled odds ratio (OR) using the random-effects model and used meta-regression analyses to explore the sources of heterogeneity. We pooled and analyzed data from sixty-nine studies comprising 40,348 medical students. The global prevalence rate of anxiety among medical students was 33.8% (95% Confidence Interval: 29.2-38.7%). Anxiety was most prevalent among medical students from the Middle East and Asia. Subgroup analyses by gender and year of study found no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of anxiety. About one in three medical students globally have anxiety-a prevalence rate which is substantially higher than the general population. Administrators and leaders of medical schools should take the lead in destigmatizing mental illnesses and promoting help-seeking behaviors when students are stressed and anxious. Further research is needed to identify risk factors of anxiety unique to medical students., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Levels of anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were higher in psychiatric patients. • Psychiatric patients had more health concerns, impulsivity and suicidal ideation. • More than one-third of psychiatric patients fulfil the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. • Poor physical health was associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and stress. • The above findings have service and research implications for immunopsychiatry. This study aimed to assess and compare the immediate stress and psychological impact experienced by people with and without psychiatric illnesses during the peak of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic with strict lockdown measures. Seventy-six psychiatric patients and 109 healthy control subjects were recruited from Chongqing, China and completed a survey on demographic data, physical symptoms during the past 14 days and a range of psychiatric symptoms using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). IES-R measures PTSD symptoms in survivorship after an event. DASS-21 is based on tripartite model of psychopathology that comprise a general distress construct with distinct characteristics. The mean IES-R, DASS-21 anxiety, depression and stress subscale and ISI scores were higher in psychiatric patients than healthy controls (p < 0.001). Serious worries about their physical health, anger and impulsivity and intense suicidal ideation were significantly higher in psychiatric patients than healthy controls (p < 0.05). More than one-third of psychiatric patients might fulfil the diagnostic criteria post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). More than one-quarter of psychiatric patients suffered from moderately severe to severe insomnia. Respondents who reported no change, poor or worse physical health status and had a psychiatric illness were significantly more likely to have higher mean IES-R, DASS depression, anxiety and stress subscale scores and ISI scores (p < 0.05). This study confirms the severity of negative psychological impact on psychiatric patients during the COVID-19 epidemic with strict lockdown measures. Understanding the psychological impact on psychiatric patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to provide insight into how to develop a new immunopsychiatry service. Further research is required to compare pro-inflammatory cytokines between psychiatric patients and healthy controls during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]