Search

Background: \ud The lasting effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are likely to be significant.\ud \ud Aims: \ud This study tracked worry and rumination levels during the pandemic and investigated whether periods with higher COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with more negative mental health and loneliness.\ud \ud Methods: \ud A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample were employed. Findings for waves 1 (March 2020) to 6 (November 2020) are reported (N = 1943).\ud \ud Results: \ud Covid-related worry and rumination levels were highest at the beginning of the first lockdown, then declined but increased when the UK returned to lockdown. Worry levels were higher than rumination levels throughout. High levels of COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with a five- and ten-fold increase in clinically meaningful rates of depression and anxiety (respectively) together with lower well-being and higher loneliness. The effects of COVID-related worry on depression and anxiety levels were most marked and clinically meaningful in individuals living with a pre-existing mental health condition.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Psychological interventions should include components that specifically target COVID-related worry and rumination. Individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions should be prioritised as we emerge from the current pandemic and in any future public health crises.

Background: The lasting effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are likely to be significant.Aims: This study tracked worry and rumination levels during the pandemic and investigated whether periods with higher COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with more negative mental health and loneliness. Methods: Quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample were employed. Findings for waves 1 (March 2020) to 6 (November 2020) are reported (N=1943). Results: Covid-related worry and rumination levels were highest at the beginning of the first lockdown, then declined but increased when UK returned to lockdown. Worry levels were higher than rumination levels throughout. High levels of COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with a five- and ten-fold increase in clinically meaningful rates of depression and anxiety (respectively) together with lower wellbeing and higher loneliness. The effects of COVID-related worry on depression and anxiety levels were most marked and clinically meaningful in individuals living with a pre-existing mental health condition. Conclusions: Psychological interventions should include components that specifically target COVID-related worry and rumination. Individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions should be prioritised as we emerge from the current pandemic and in any futurepublic health crises.

Objectives\ud \ud To examine associations between demographics, people’s beliefs, and compliance with behaviours recommended by the UK government to prevent the transmission of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus that causes COVID‐19.\ud \ud \ud \ud Design\ud \ud A two‐wave online survey conducted one week apart during the national lockdown (April, 2020).\ud \ud \ud \ud Measures\ud \ud A sample of 477 UK residents completed baseline measures from the reasoned action approach (experiential attitudes, instrumental attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, capacity, autonomy, and intention) and perceived susceptibility for each of the following recommended behaviours: limiting leaving home, keeping at least 2 m away from other people when outside and when inside shops, not visiting or meeting friends or other family members, and washing hands when returning home. Self‐reported compliance with each of the recommended behaviours was assessed one week later.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Rates of full compliance with the recommended behaviours ranged from 31% (keeping at least 2 m away from other people when inside shops) to 68% (not visiting or meeting friends or other family members). Capacity was a significant predictor of compliance with each of the five recommended behaviours. Increasing age and intentions were also predictive of compliance with three of the behaviours.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Interventions to increase compliance with the recommended behaviours to prevent the transmission of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, especially those relating to social distancing, need to bolster people’s intentions and perceptions of capacity. This may be achieved through media‐based information campaigns as well as environmental changes to make compliance with such measures easier. Such interventions should particularly target younger adults.

Stress leads to detrimental health outcomes through direct biological and indirect behavioural changes. Stress can lead to disruption to normal eating behaviours, although the strength of these associations is unknown. This is the first meta-analysis to determine the strength of the stress-eating relationship in healthy adults and to explore the impact of potential moderators. Studies included had a clearly defined measure of stress (i.e., any noxious event or episode in one’s environment with the exclusion of emotional distress) that was linked to non-disordered eating. Key terms were searched in Medline, PsycInfo and Ovid databases (23,104 studies identified). 54 studies (combined N = 119,820) were retained in the meta-analysis. A small, positive effect size was found for the stress-overall food intake relationship (Hedges’ g = 0.114). Stress was associated with increased consumption of unhealthy foods (Hedges’ g = 0.116) but decreased consumption of healthy foods (Hedges’ g = -0.111). Only one significant moderator (restraint on stress-unhealthy eating) was identified. This meta-analysis identified the magnitude of the effect of stress on eating behaviour outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed that was not explained by the moderators examined. Further research on moderators of the stress-eating relationship is required and should distinguish effects for healthy versus unhealthy eating.

Objective: Clinical options for managing non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) vary. Each option has associated side-effects leading to difficulty in decision-making. This study aimed to assess the relationship between patient involvement in treatment decision-making and subsequent decision regret (DR), and quantify the impact of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes on DR.Methods: Men living in the United Kingdom, 18-42 months post-diagnosis of PCa were identified from cancer registration data and sent a questionnaire. Measures included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26), EQ-5D-5L and an item on involvement in treatment decision-making. Multivariable ordinal regression was utilised with DR categorised as none, mild or moderate/severe regret.Results: 17,193 men with stage I-III PCa completed the DRS: 36.6% reported no regret, 43.3% mild regret and 20.0% moderate/severe regret. The odds of reporting DR were greater if men indicated their views were not taken into account (OR=6.42, 95%CI 5.39-7.64) or were involved ‘to some extent’ in decision-making (OR=4.63, 95%CI 4.27-5.02), compared to men who were ‘definitely’ involved. After adjustment, including for involvement, men reporting moderate/big problems with urinary, bowel or sexual function were more likely to experience regret compared to men with no/small problems. Better HRQL scores were associated with lower levels of DR.Conclusions: This large-scale study demonstrates the benefit of patient involvement in treatment decision-making for non-metastatic PCa. However, men experiencing side-effects and poorer HRQL report greater DR. Promoting engagement in clinical decision-making represents good practice and may reduce the risk of subsequent regret.

Supplemental material, Conner_Online_Appendix for Cognitive-Affective Inconsistency and Ambivalence: Impact on the Overall Attitude–Behavior Relationship by Mark Conner, Sarah Wilding, Frenk van Harreveld and Jonas Dalege in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin