Search

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the psychological wellbeing of some people, there is evidence that many have been much less affected. The Ecological Model of Resilience (EMR) may explain why some individuals are not resilient whilst others are. In this study we test the EMR in a comparison of UK survey data collected from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) longitudinal study of a representative sample of the United Kingdom (UK) adult population and data from an Italian arm of the study. We first compare data from the third wave of the UK arm of the study, collected in July/August 2020, with data from an equivalent sample and stage of the pandemic in Italy in July 2020. Next, using UK longitudinal data collected from C19PRC Waves 1, 3 and 5, collected between March 2020 and April 2021 we identify the proportion of people who were resilient. Finally, we examine which factors, drawn from the EMR, predict resilient and non-resilient outcomes. We find that the 72% of the UK sample was resilient, in line with the Italian study. In the cross-sectional logistic regression model, age and self-esteem were significantly associated with resilience whilst death anxiety thoughts, neuroticism, loneliness, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to COVID-19 were significantly associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. In the longitudinal UK analysis, at Wave 5, 80% of the sample was Resilient. Service use, belonging to wider neighbourhood, self-rated health, self-esteem, openness, and externally generated death anxiety were associated with Resilient outcomes. In contrast, PTSD symptoms and loneliness were associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. The EMR effectively explained the results. There were some variables which are amenable to intervention which could increase resilience in the face of similar future challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Investigate scientific articles related to the cost of the Home Care Service for patients undergoing oncology palliative care. Methods Integrative literature review, which included primary articles indexed in the PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Embase, Science Direct and Scielo databases, using the descriptors: neoplasms; oncology; home care; palliative care; cost analysis; costs. Results Ten studies were included, three from the United Kingdom, three from Spain, followed by two from Italy, one from the United States of America and one from Canada. Studies have shown lower costs for home hospitalization with monitoring by healthcare teams, including when analyzing terminally ill cancer patients and disease prognosis. Conclusion It was evidenced that the costs of care provided to patients undergoing oncological palliative care are lower in a home environment than at a hospital level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dysfunctional breathing (DB) is a respiratory condition characterized by irregular breathing patterns that occur either in the absence of concurrent diseases or secondary to cardiopulmonary diseases. Although the primary symptom is often dyspnea or "air hunger", DB is also associated with nonrespiratory symptoms such as dizziness and palpitations. DB has been identified across all ages. Its prevalence among adults in primary care in the United Kingdom is approximately 9.5%. In addition, among individuals with asthma, a positive diagnosis of DB is found in a third of women and a fifth of men. Although DB has been investigated for decades, it remains poorly understood because of a paucity of high-quality clinical trials and validated outcome measures specific to this population. Accordingly, DB is often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, given the similarity of its associated symptoms (dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness) to those of other common cardiopulmonary diseases such as COPD and asthma. The high rates of misdiagnosis of DB suggest that health care professionals do not fully understand this condition and may therefore fail to provide patients with an appropriate treatment. Given the multifarious, psychophysiological nature of DB, a holistic, multidimensional assessment would seem the most appropriate way to enhance understanding and diagnostic accuracy. The present narrative review was developed as a means of summarizing the available evidence about DB, as well as improving understanding of the condition by researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major stressor for the psychological health of people worldwide. In the UK, the COVID19-Psychological Research Consortium Study (C19PRC) launched to evaluate the psychological impact of COVID-19 in the general population and its implications. The project was then extended to Italy and several other countries. This article provides an overview of the Italian C19PRC study and its replication of two specific findings from the UK C19PRC. In the first part, the relationship between anxiety and somatic symptomatology is examined. In the second part, we analyze the association between several factors and psychological health outcomes: depression/anxiety, traumatic stress, COVID-19 anxiety. In line with the study conducted in the UK, an online survey was administered to the adult Italian general population. The sample included 1038 respondents (age, mean = 49.94, SD = 16.14, 51.15% females) taken from four regions: Lombardia, Veneto, Lazio, and Campania. The relationship between predictors and outcomes was evaluated by means of logistic regression models. Somatic indices showed a positive association with anxiety, worse somatic symptoms were associated with mourning a loss of a beloved one due to COVID-19 and with precarious health conditions. Females showed a higher incidence of psychological issues. No differences in anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress were found across regions but the Campania region showed the most severe somatic symptomatology. In the second analysis, the factors associated with more severe psychological outcomes (i.e., anxiety and/or depression, traumatic stress, and COVID-19 related anxiety) were younger age, the presence of minors in the household, traumatic stressors, and precarious health conditions. No differences across regions emerged. The Italian results correspond to the UK findings for anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress. Both in the UK and Italy, the factors associated with worse psychological health were gender (female), younger age, having children, pre-existing health issues (both for oneself or someone close), and the moderate/high perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 within one month. In Italy, unlike the UK, lower household income and having (had) COVID-19 were not associated with poorer mental health. The psychological impact of COVID-19 can last for months; future research should explore all aspects of the psychological burden of COVID-19 in order to implement psychological interventions and promote psychological health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]