Search

Background: This scoping review assessed the COVID-19 impacts on mental health and associated risk factors. Methods: A literature search for relevant articles published between March 2020 and July 2022, was conducted in the APA PsychInfo, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Epistemonikos, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Results: The article inclusion criteria were met by 72 studies. The commonly used mental health assessment tools were the Patient Health Questionnaire (41.7%), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (36%), 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress (13.9%), Impact of Event Scale (12.5%), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (9.7%), Symptom Checklist and the General Health Questionnaire (6.9% each). The prevalence rate of depression ranged from 5-76.5%, 5.6-80.5% for anxiety, 9.1- 65% for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 8.3-61.7% for sleep disorders, 4.9-70.1% for stress, 7-71.5% for psychological distress, and 21.4-69.3% for general mental health conditions. The risks included female gender, healthcarerelated/frontline jobs, isolation/quarantine, poverty, lower education, COVID-19 risk, age, commodities, mental illness history, negative psychology, and higher social media exposure. The incidence of mental disorders increased along with the increasing cases of COVID-19 and the corresponding government restrictions. Conclusion: Standard mental health assessment tools were used in these studies conducted during COVID-19. Mental health disorders like depression, anxiety, and stress increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns. Various factors impacted the prevalence of mental health disorders. Policymakers need to provide social protective measures to improve coping in critical health events. Further studies should investigate the effectiveness of interventions for reducing the prevalence and risk factors for mental health conditions during a public health emergency.

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) are a key population affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Treatment options are improving and may enhance prevention; however access for PWID may be poor. The availability in the literature of information on seven main topic areas (incidence, chronicity, genotypes, HIV co-infection, diagnosis and treatment uptake, and burden of disease) to guide HCV treatment and prevention scale-up for PWID in the 27 countries of the European Union is systematically reviewed. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for publications between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2012, with a search strategy of general keywords regarding viral hepatitis, substance abuse and geographic scope, as well as topic-specific keywords. Additional articles were found through structured email consultations with a large European expert network. Data availability was highly variable and important limitations existed in comparability and representativeness. Nine of 27 countries had data on HCV incidence among PWID, which was often high (2.7-66/100 person-years, median 13, Interquartile range (IQR) 8.7-28). Most common HCV genotypes were G1 and G3; however, G4 may be increasing, while the proportion of traditionally 'difficult to treat' genotypes (G1+G4) showed large variation (median 53, IQR 43-62). Twelve countries reported on HCV chronicity (median 72, IQR 64-81) and 22 on HIV prevalence in HCV-infected PWID (median 3.9%, IQR 0.2-28). Undiagnosed infection, assessed in five countries, was high (median 49%, IQR 38-64), while of those diagnosed, the proportion entering treatment was low (median 9.5%, IQR 3.5-15). Burden of disease, where assessed, was high and will rise in the next decade. Conclusion: Key data on HCV epidemiology, care and disease burden among PWID in Europe are sparse but suggest many undiagnosed infections and poor treatment uptake. Stronger efforts are needed to improve data availability to guide an increase in HCV treatment among PWID., peer-reviewed

Background: Hospitals are often the epicentres of newly circulating infections. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of acquiring infectious diseases and may be among the first to contract emerging infections. This study aims to explore European HCWs' perceptions and attitudes towards monitoring their absence and symptom reports for surveillance of newly circulating infections. Methods. A qualitative study with thematic analysis was conducted using focus group methodology. Forty-nine hospital-based HCWs from 12 hospitals were recruited to six focus groups; two each in England and Hungary and one each in Germany and Greece. Results: HCWs perceived risk factors for occupationally acquired infectious diseases to be 1.) exposure to patients with undiagnosed infections 2.) break-down in infection control procedures 3.) immuno-navety and 4.) symptomatic colleagues. They were concerned that a lack of monitoring and guidelines for infectious HCWs posed a risk to staff and patients and felt employers failed to take a positive interest in their health. Staffing demands and loss of income were noted as pressures to attend work when unwell. In the UK, Hungary and Greece participants felt monitoring staff absence and the routine disclosure of symptoms could be appropriate provided the effectiveness and efficiency of such a system were demonstrable. In Germany, legislation, privacy and confidentiality were identified as barriers. All HCWs highlighted the need for knowledge and structural improvements for timelier recognition of emerging infections. These included increased suspicion and awareness among staff and standardised, homogenous absence reporting systems. Conclusions: Monitoring absence and infectious disease symptom reports among HCWs may be a feasible means of surveillance for emerging infections in some settings. A pre-requisite will be tackling the drivers for symptomatic HCWs to attend work. © 2011 Aghaizu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.