Search

Background/Objectives: The Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale (TERS) assesses the psychosocial risk of transplant candidates; however, its predictive value for outcomes in living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients remains unclear. This study evaluated the predictive power of the TERS for psychosocial outcomes in LDKT recipients over two years post-transplant. Methods: In this prospective single-center cohort study, 107 LDKT recipients completed assessments pre-transplant (T0), 6 months post-transplant (T1), and 24 months post-transplant (T2). The outcomes measured were mental distress, physical complaints, and perceived social support. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine the relationship between the pre-transplant TERS scores and outcomes over time. Results: Higher TERS scores predicted increased physical complaints (p < 0.001) and lower perceived social support (p = 0.035) at all time points. Additionally, higher TERS scores were associated with greater mental distress between T0 and T2 (p < 0.001). A hierarchical partitioning revealed that the TERS accounted for 11.9% of the variance in mental distress, 14.6% of that in physical complaints, and 6.0% of that in perceived social support. Conclusions: The pre-transplant psychosocial risk, as measured by the TERS, significantly predicted the psychosocial outcomes in the LDKT recipients over two years, with small-to-medium effect sizes. The TERS may serve as a valuable tool for identifying patients who could benefit from targeted psychosocial interventions to improve their long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The early 2020s witnessed an unprecedented overlap of multiple global crises. This longitudinal study examined the compounded effects of multiple intersecting global crises on mental health outcomes in a representative cohort of East German adults. We investigated how perceived threats (PT) from climate change (PT-CLC), COVID-19 (PT-COV), the Russia–Ukraine War (PT-RUW), and rising costs of living (PT-RCL) will impact various aspects of mental health from 2021 to 2022. This research question addresses whether these crises exacerbate mental health issues and how their effects differ across various mental health outcomes. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study with 319 participants (mean age 49.9 years, 54.5% female) from the Saxony Longitudinal Study. Data were collected in two waves: March–July 2021 and September–December 2022. We used linear mixed-effects models to analyze both unadjusted group trends and adjusted individual-level effects on physical complaints, mental distress, sleep problems, life satisfaction, and self-rated health. Results: Unadjusted analyses revealed significant increases in mental distress and sleep problems over time, whereas physical complaints, life satisfaction, and self-rated health remained stable at the group level. Adjusted analyses showed that higher PT-RCL and PT-COV were significantly associated with increased physical complaints, mental distress, sleep problems, and decreased life satisfaction, even when group-level changes were not significant. Conclusions: This study highlights the complex impact of intersecting global crises on mental health, emphasizing the importance of considering both population-level trends and individual perceptions. The findings suggest that economic and pandemic-related stressors have more immediate effects on mental health outcomes compared to more distant threats, such as climate change or geopolitical conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak necessitated physical distancing, as part of secondary prevention, at a personal and professional level. Working from home (WFH) became increasingly important. In this study, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on physical and mental health is investigated, compared with pre-pandemic data, and with employees who WFH and are on-site. Methods: Data from the German Saxon longitudinal study population were used. Attitudes towards WFH as well as mental and physical health assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic were examined. Comparisons were made with corresponding pre-pandemic scores and between employees WFH and on-site in 2022. Results: In total, 319 participants with equal gender distribution were included. Of those, 86 worked from home stating better organizability of their work, more time for partnership, less stress, and greater work satisfaction. Compared to pre-pandemic data, the D-score, PHQ-4, G-Score, and PHQ-SSS-8 showed a significant increase. No difference in physical or mental health between employees WFH and on-site was observed. Conclusion: In general, COVID-19 restrictions had a negative impact on mental and physical health. Although WFH is well accepted, it did not show significant health benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]