Search

ABSTRACTBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic caused multiple stressors that may lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder.Objective: We longitudinally examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as whether these relationships differed by the time of assessment.Method: The European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study included N = 15,169 participants aged 18 years and above. Participants from 11 European countries were recruited and screened three times at 6-month intervals from June 2020 to January 2022. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender), stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (AjD, ADNM-8) and their interaction with time of assessment were examined using mixed linear regression.Results: The following predictors were significantly associated with higher AjD symptom levels: female or diverse gender; older age; pandemic-related news consumption >30 min a day; a current or previous mental health disorder; trauma exposure before or during the pandemic; a good, satisfactory or poor health status (vs. very good); burden related to governmental crisis management and communication; fear of infection; restricted social contact; work-related problems; restricted activity; and difficult housing conditions. The following predictors were associated with lower AjD levels: self-employment or retirement; working in healthcare; and face-to-face contact ≥ once a week with loved ones or friends. The effects of the following predictors on AjD symptoms differed by the time of assessment in the course of the pandemic: a current or previous mental disorder; burden related to governmental crisis management; income reduction; and a current trauma exposure.Conclusions: We identified risk factors and stressors predicting AjD symptom levels at different stages of the pandemic. For some predictors, the effects on mental health may change at different stages of a pandemic.

Abstract Introduction Symptoms of cancer‐related fatigue (CRF) can have a significant impact on patients' quality of life and treatment adherence. We aimed to investigate the relationship between CRF and multiple psychosocial and somatic indicators within a large mixed cancer sample. Methods In this cross‐sectional study, N = 1787 outpatients with cancer were assessed for CRF, pain, anxiety, and depression using validated screening instruments. We further obtained clinical parameters (Hb, CRP, creatinine, leukocytes, ASAT, and ALAT), sociodemographic data (age, gender, income, education level, marital status, parenthood, and living area), and lifestyle factors. Multivariate linear regression models were applied to estimate the impact of each indicator on CRF. Results Overall, 90.6% of patients experienced some CRF, with 14.8% experiencing severe CRF. No gender difference was found in the prevalence of CRF. Patients with higher levels of pain, depressive symptoms, and lower Hb levels had significantly higher levels of CRF (ps

IntroductionGood mental health is an indispensable aspect of good general health and different definitions of good mental health have been developed for the general population. However, it is not clear how these definitions can be applied to people with intellectual disabilities (ID), as they may have difficulties in many facets encompassed in existing definitions. Yet, people with ID can be mentally healthy or mentally ill just as people without ID.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to summarize existing concepts, definitions, and measurement approaches of good mental health and wellbeing for people with ID.MethodsA comprehensive, systematic literature review will be conducted in 11 databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MedRxiv, OSF preprints, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. By including preprints and theses servers in the search strategy, we will also consider grey and unpublished literature. The quality of included studies will be rated using standardized checklists. All steps of the literature search, data extraction, and quality rating will be performed independently by two trained researchers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion between these researchers and, if required, by consulting a third team member. In a narrative synthesis, existing approaches to good mental health and wellbeing for people with ID will be systematically described and linked to current research in mental health for people with and without ID.DiscussionThe findings of this study will provide researchers and practitioners with an evidence-based overview of current approaches to good mental health and wellbeing of people with ID. We will explore and discuss the individual facets of the definitions, concepts, and measurement approaches and identify possible gaps which need to be addressed. This will strengthen future research on this topic and focus research activities on important and unresolved themes that need to be targeted to promote health equity for people with ID.

Abstract 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. χ2, 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: χ2 (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a health emergency resulting in multiple stressors that may be related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Objective: This study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors, and PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study were used. N = 4,607 trauma-exposed participants aged 18 years and above were recruited from the general populations of eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. We assessed sociodemographic (e.g. gender), pandemic-related (e.g. news consumption), and health-related (e.g. general health condition) risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and probable PTSD (PC-PTSD-5). The relationships between these variables were examined using logistic regression on multiple imputed data sets. Results: The prevalence of probable PTSD was 17.7%. Factors associated with an increased risk for PTSD were younger age, female gender, more than 3 h of daily pandemic-related news consumption (vs. no consumption), a satisfactory, poor, or very poor health condition (vs. a very good condition), a current or previous diagnosis of a mental disorder, and trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a reduced risk for PTSD included a medium and high income (vs. very low income), face-to-face contact less than once a week or 3–7 times a week (vs. no contact), and digital social contact less than once a week or 1–7 days a week (vs. no contact). Pandemic-related stressors associated with an increased risk for PTSD included governmental crisis management and communication, restricted resources, restricted social contact, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusion: We identified risk and protective factors as well as stressors that may help identify trauma-exposed individuals at risk for PTSD, enabling more efficient and rapid access to care. HIGHLIGHTS N = 4,607 trauma-exposed adult participants were recruited from the general population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prevalence for probable posttraumatic stress disorder was 17.7%. We identified risk factors (e.g. poor health condition) and protective factors (e.g. social contact) associated with posttraumatic stress disorder.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposes individuals to multiple stressors, such as quarantine, physical distancing, job loss, risk of infection, and loss of loved ones. Such a complex array of stressors potentially lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder. Objective: This cross-sectional exploratory study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, stressors, and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the first wave of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) longitudinal ADJUST Study were used. N = 15,563 participants aged 18 years and above were recruited in eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender, diagnosis of a mental health disorder), stressors (e.g. fear of infection, restricted face-to-face contact), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (ADNM-8) were examined using multivariate linear regression. Results: The prevalence of self-reported probable adjustment disorder was 18.2%. Risk factors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were female gender, older age, being at risk for severe COVID-19 illness, poorer general health status, current or previous trauma exposure, a current or previous mental health disorder, and longer exposure to COVID-19 news. Protective factors related to lower levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were higher income, being retired, and having more face-to-face contact with loved ones or friends. Pandemic-related stressors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder included fear of infection, governmental crisis management, restricted social contact, work-related problems, restricted activity, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusions: We identified stressors, risk, and protective factors that may help identify individuals at higher risk for adjustment disorder.

Introduction Persons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysis This review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and dissemination No ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

Introduction: Good mental health is an indispensable aspect of good general health and different definitions of good mental health have been developed for the general population. However, it is not clear how these definitions can be applied to people with intellectual disabilities (ID), as they may have difficulties in many facets encompassed in existing definitions. Yet, people with ID can be mentally healthy or mentally ill just as people without ID. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize existing concepts, definitions, and measurement approaches of good mental health and wellbeing for people with ID. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic literature review will be conducted in 11 databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MedRxiv, OSF preprints, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. By including preprints and theses servers in the search strategy, we will also consider grey and unpublished literature. The quality of included studies will be rated using standardized checklists. All steps of the literature search, data extraction, and quality rating will be performed independently by two trained researchers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion between these researchers and, if required, by consulting a third team member. In a narrative synthesis, existing approaches to good mental health and wellbeing for people with ID will be systematically described and linked to current research in mental health for people with and without ID. Discussion: The findings of this study will provide researchers and practitioners with an evidence-based overview of current approaches to good mental health and wellbeing of people with ID. We will explore and discuss the individual facets of the definitions, concepts, and measurement approaches and identify possible gaps which need to be addressed. This will strengthen future research on this topic and focus research activities on important and unresolved themes that need to be targeted to promote health equity for people with ID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Contextual factors are essential for understanding long-term adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the present study investigated changes in mental health outcomes and subjective pandemic-related experiences over time and across countries. The main objective was to explore how psychological responses vary in relation to individual and environmental factors. Methods The sample consisted of N = 1070 participants from the general population of Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Portugal. We applied a longitudinal mixed-methods approach, with baseline assessment in summer and autumn 2020 (T1) and follow-up assessment 12 months later (T2). Qualitative content analysis by Mayring was used to analyse open-ended questions about stressful events, positive and negative aspects of the pandemic, and recommendations on how to cope. Mental health outcomes were assessed with the Adjustment Disorder–New Module 8 (ADNM-8), the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and the 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics Version 26 and MAXQDA 2022. Results The mental health outcomes significantly differed over time and across countries, with e.g. Greek participants showing decrease in adjustment disorder symptoms (p = .007) between T1 and T2. Compared with other countries, we found better mental health outcomes in the Austrian and the Croatian sample at both timepoints (p < .05). Regarding qualitative data, some themes were equally represented at both timepoints (e.g. Restrictions and changes in daily life), while others were more prominent at T1 (e.g. Work and finances) or T2 (e.g. Vaccination issues). Conclusions Our findings indicate that people’s reactions to the pandemic are largely shaped by the shifting context of the pandemic, country-specific factors, and individual characteristics and circumstances. Resource-oriented interventions focusing on psychological flexibility might promote resilience and mental health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and other global crises.

Background: The complex system of stressors related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the global population, provoking a broad range of psychological reactions. Although numerous studies have investigated the mental health impact of COVID-19, qualitative research and cross-country comparisons are still rare. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to explore self-perceived challenges and opportunities related to COVID-19 across six European countries. The overall objective was to provide a differentiated picture of individual subjective experiences in the early stages of the pandemic. Method: The present study included 7309 participants from Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Poland, and Portugal. We performed qualitative content analysis according to Mayring analyse open-ended questions regarding stressful events, positive and negative aspects of the pandemic, and recommendations to cope with the pandemic situation. MAXQDA software was used for data management and analysis. Results: Participants’ accounts were moderately consistent across the countries. The most prominent themes regarding stressful and negative pandemic aspects included: Restrictions and changes in daily life, Emotional distress, and Work and finances. Answers about positive pandemic consequences were mainly centred around the themes Reflection and growth, Opportunity for meaningful/enjoyable activities, and Benefits on interpersonal level. Key themes identified from participants’ recommendations to cope with the pandemic included Beneficial behavioural adjustment, Beneficial cognitive–emotional strategies, and Social support. Conclusions: Participants experienced various challenges, but also shared several positive pandemic consequences and recommendations to cope with the pandemic. These first-hand data could inform mental health practices to promote well-being during COVID-19 and similar global challenges in the participating countries and possibly beyond. HIGHLIGHTS We examined COVID-19-related experiences in 7309 adults from six European countries. Besides challenges, participants identified many positive pandemic consequences. Participants’ recommendations to cope with COVID-19 included behavioural and cognitive–emotional strategies.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused multiple stressors that may lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder. Objective: We longitudinally examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as whether these relationships differed by the time of assessment. Method: The European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study included N = 15,169 participants aged 18 years and above. Participants from 11 European countries were recruited and screened three times at 6-month intervals from June 2020 to January 2022. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender), stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (AjD, ADNM-8) and their interaction with time of assessment were examined using mixed linear regression. Results: The following predictors were significantly associated with higher AjD symptom levels: female or diverse gender; older age; pandemic-related news consumption >30 min a day; a current or previous mental health disorder; trauma exposure before or during the pandemic; a good, satisfactory or poor health status (vs. very good); burden related to governmental crisis management and communication; fear of infection; restricted social contact; work-related problems; restricted activity; and difficult housing conditions. The following predictors were associated with lower AjD levels: self-employment or retirement; working in healthcare; and face-to-face contact ≥ once a week with loved ones or friends. The effects of the following predictors on AjD symptoms differed by the time of assessment in the course of the pandemic: a current or previous mental disorder; burden related to governmental crisis management; income reduction; and a current trauma exposure. Conclusions: We identified risk factors and stressors predicting AjD symptom levels at different stages of the pandemic. For some predictors, the effects on mental health may change at different stages of a pandemic.