Search

This study examined the relationship between daily perceived stigma and daily emotional well‐being among people living with HIV/AIDS during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, a buffering effect of perceived emotional support on this relationship was verified. The participants were 133 patients with a medically confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection. Data were collected using online diaries completed every evening for five consecutive weekdays in three bursts separated by 6 months. Dynamic multilevel analyses showed a significant positive autoregressive effect for daily stigma in each burst. Additionally, increased stigma predicts increased negative affect and decreased positive affect the next day. However, these effects differed across bursts. Thus, to some extent, daily HIV/AIDS stigma was found to predict a decrease in affective well‐being the next day. The buffering effect of perceived emotional support reduced this decline but was also time‐limited, probably because of the later established direction in these relationships at the individual level and/or because of changes in the course of the pandemic. The results provide insights on the role of daily stigma in shaping affective well‐being, suggesting that it may be a significant source of short‐term negative emotional consequences for PWLH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study has two objectives: first, to examine changes in depressive symptoms among people living with HIV (PLWH) during the COVID‐19 pandemic and, second, to verify the role of HIV/AIDS stigma and perceived emotional support (PES) in the heterogeneity of these changes. The participants were 392 people with a medical diagnosis of HIV who have undergone antiretroviral therapy. Depression was measured at three time points with 6‐month intervals using the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D). PES was evaluated with the Berlin Social Support Scales, and HIV/AIDS‐related stigma was assessed with the Berger HIV Stigma Scale. Latent growth class modelling identified four trajectories of depression over the study period: three stable (very high, high, and very low) and one increasing. Both the very high and high stable trajectories had baseline values above the CES‐D cut‐off point for depression, suggesting that 57.6% of the sample was likely to be diagnosed with depression. After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables, stigma and PES were found to be significant covariates of the obtained trajectories; however, they did not protect against an increase in depression symptoms. There was no overall increase in depression symptoms among the PLWH participants during the pandemic, but this change in depression symptoms was heterogeneous. We observed the potential development of depression in initially well‐functioning individuals despite their personal resources differing only slightly from those who remained resilient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccination hesitancy is an important barrier for the effective control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying determinants of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is essential in order to reduce mortality rates. Further, given the variability of the factors and the different recommendations used in each country, it is important to conduct cross-country research to profile individuals who are hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccinations. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine cross-country differences and the behavioral, attitudinal and demographic characteristics of vaccine hesitant individuals. Adults living in six European countries (Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain) were eligible to participate. A total of 832 individuals completed the online survey, with 17.9% reporting being hesitant to COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine accepters were significantly older (M = 38.9, SD = 14.3), more educated (master/postgraduate studies) and lived in a place with a higher number of residents (>500,000 people) compared to those hesitant to COVID-19 vaccination. Discriminant analysis confirmed that the hesitant profile includes a person of younger age, living alone in smaller communities, and without children. Additionally, hesitant participants reported COVID-19-specific characteristics such as lower institutional trust, less adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviors and higher pandemic fatigue. When tackling COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy both socio-demographic and behavioral/attitudinal aspects should be taken into account. Stakeholders are advised to implement targeted vaccination programs while at the same time building trust with population illness cognitions addressed in order to reduce hesitancy rates. Further, stakeholders and public health authorities in each country are suggested to target interventions according to different population characteristics as behavioral and attitudinal determinants of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy differed between countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this work is to assess the influence of anxiety level, self-perceived disease severity, primary source of knowledge and selected socioeconomic factors on the degree of adherence to guidelines-based self-maintenance recommendations in patients with chronic heart failure. Material and methods: 202 patients from CHF outpatient clinic and hospitalized with CHF were assessed with 5-part questionnaire, self-invented scale assessing self-perceived disease severity and with Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Results: Patients with highest anxiety levels (>40pts) were in more advanced stages of the disease, had lower level of education and perceived their disease as more severe than individuals with lower anxiety levels (<40pts). Primary source of knowledge was physician for majority of patients. Only 23% know and obeyed all self-maintenance recommendations. Self-perceived disease severity was the strongest determinant of anxiety level (p= 0,013; 1,041-1,418; HR=1,215). Anxiety level did not influence adherence to guidelines-based recommendations. Conclusions: Perceived disease severity is strongly associated with anxiety level. Simple self-perceived disease severity scale can substitute for more complicated psychological tools. Physician, as the most important source of knowledge, has an immense role in educating patients on self-maintenance behaviour. Practice Implications: The use of simple, reproducible scale can significantly facilitate identification of patients with high anxiety level requiring therapeutic intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. The study aimed to present the Polish version of the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT-PL) by Schaufeli et al. and to assess its validity and reliability. The tool measures the core symptoms of burnout (BAT-C): exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive and emotional impairment, and its secondary symptoms (BAT-S): psychosomatic complaints and psychological distress. Method. The participants were 255 nursing staff members. The construct validity was assessed with a one-point job satisfaction scale, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3) by Schaufeli et al. and the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) by van Katwyk et al. Results. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported an assumed bi-factor structure. This applies to both BAT-C as the four core symptoms and a general factor representing burnout and BAT-S as a set of two secondary symptoms and a general factor. Both scales were strongly correlated with one another and differed from other measures of jobrelated well-being (job satisfaction, work engagement and negative emotions). The values of Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability indicated BAT-PL as a reliable measurement tool. Conclusions. BAT-PL by Schaufeli et al. has good psychometric characteristics to be used in research on burnout and further validated in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes a position statement and recommendations for actions that need to be taken to develop best practices for promoting scientific integrity through open science in health psychology endorsed at a Synergy Expert Group Meeting. Sixteen Synergy Meeting participants developed a set of recommendations for researchers, gatekeepers, and research end-users. The group process followed a nominal group technique and voting system to elicit and decide on the most relevant and topical issues. Seventeen priority areas were listed and voted on, 15 of them were recommended by the group. Specifically, the following priority actions for health psychology were endorsed: (1) for researchers: advancing when and how to make data open and accessible at various research stages and understanding researchers' beliefs and attitudes regarding open data; (2) for educators: integrating open science in research curricula, e.g., through online open science training modules, promoting preregistration, transparent reporting, open data and applying open science as a learning tool; (3) for journal editors: providing an open science statement, and open data policies, including a minimal requirements submission checklist. Health psychology societies and journal editors should collaborate in order to develop a coordinated plan for research integrity and open science promotion across behavioural disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]