Headache severity in patients with post COVID-19 condition: a case-control study.

Post COVID-19 conditions (PCC) present with a wide range of symptoms. Headache is one of the most frequently reported neurological symptoms by patients with PCC. We aimed to assess the prevalence of headache in patients with PCC who attended the Post-COVIDLMU outpatient department at LMU University Hospital in Munich. We hypothesized that headaches occur more frequently in patients with PCC than in the control group. Patients answered a questionnaire containing sociodemographic characteristics, their current symptoms, and prior psychiatric and somatic diagnoses, the WHO Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL-BREF), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). 188 PCC patients were included in this study and compared to a control group of patients with a history of COVID-19 or a different infectious disease - but no consecutive post-infectious condition (nc=27). 115 (61%) of our PCC patients were female. The median age was 41 years. 60 (32%, p = 0.001) had a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. PCC was associated with worse outcomes in all four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF (p < 0.001), high levels of fatigue (FSS; p < 0.001), and a higher likeliness for symptoms of depression (PHQ-9; p < 0.001). We were able to confirm that psychiatric disorders are more frequently associated with headaches in PCC patients. Headache should be assessed and treated in the context of PCC not only by neurologists but by multi-professional teams and regarding all PCC symptoms.

Cinemeducation: A mixed methods study on learning through reflective thinking, perspective taking and emotional narratives.

INTRODUCTION: Cinemeducation describes the use of film in medical education. The M23 Cinema (M23C) comprises a film screening and subsequent discussion with experts, affected persons and the audience. Previous research suggests that participating in cinemeducation may affect emotions and attitudes. This study aimed to establish a conceptual framework and explore when learning takes place, how learning occurs and what participants learn during the M23C. METHODS: Informed by focused literature searches, discussions of the authors and the research results, a conceptual framework of the M23C was developed, comprising three dimensions (five distinct phases, learning methodology and potential impact). A mixed method study was undertaken, employing an exploratory sequential design. Initially, the qualitative component was conducted by interviewing everyone involved, comprising focus groups, expert interviews, a group interview and one narrative interview. All qualitative data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The qualitative findings were used to inform the development of a survey among the participants of M23C evenings. The survey results were analysed descriptively. The findings generated by both data sets were integrated using the "following a thread" protocol and visualised by joint displays. RESULTS: In total, 15 participants in M23C courses, six members of the current and two of the former organising committee, two experts, two affected persons and the initiator of the M23C were included in the qualitative component (n = 28). A total of 503 participants responded to the survey. The qualitative data confirmed the relevance of the five phases and participants described reflective thinking, perspective taking and emotional narratives as the three dimensions of how they learned during the M23C. Participants reported a change in attitudes, enriching their knowledge, experiencing empathy and learning about other health professions. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the M23C as a cinemeducation course provides a unique learning environment in the training of health professionals.

Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making on measures to reduce or prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools was rendered difficult by a rapidly evolving and uncertain evidence base regarding their effectiveness and unintended consequences. To support decision-makers, an interdisciplinary panel of scientific experts, public health and school authorities as well as those directly affected by school measures, was convened in an unprecedented effort to develop an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline for German schools. This study sought to assess whether and how this guideline impacted decision-making processes. METHODS: This study comprised three components: (1) we sent inquiries according to the Freedom of Information Acts of each Federal State to ministries of education, family, and health. (2) We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in decision-making regarding school measures in two Federal States, and (3) we undertook semi-structured interviews with members of the guideline panel. The content of response letters in component 1 was analysed descriptively; data for components 2 and 3 were analysed using deductive-inductive thematic qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. RESULTS: Responses to the Freedom of Information Act inquiries showed that the guideline was recognised as a relevant source of information by ministries of education in nine out of 16 Federal States and used as a reference to check existing directives for school measures in five Federal States. All participants (20 interviews) emphasised the value of the guideline given its evidence- and consensus-based development process but also noted limitations in its usability and usefulness, e.g., lack of context-specificity. It was consulted by participants who advised policy-makers (5 interviews) alongside other sources of evidence. Overall, perceptions regarding the guideline's impact were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the guideline was relatively well-known in Federal States' decision-making bodies and that it was considered alongside other forms of evidence in some of these. We suggest that further research to evaluate the impact of public health guidelines on (political) decision-making is warranted. Guideline development processes may need to be adapted to account for the realities of decision-making during public health emergencies and beyond.

Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome and Tauopathy in a 19-Year-Old With Child Abuse.

The majority of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) cases have been reported in former contact sport athletes. This is the first case with TES in a 19-year-old male patient with progressive cognitive decline after daily domestic physical violence through repeated hits to the head for 15 years. The patient presented with a moderate depressive episode and progressive cognitive decline. Tau positron emission tomography (PET) with 220 MBq of [18F]PI-2620 revealed increased focal signal at the frontal and parietal white/gray matter border. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a cavum septum pellucidum, reduced left-sided hippocampal volume, and a left midbrain lesion. Cerebrospinal fluid results showed elevated total and p-tau. Neurocognitive testing at admission showed memory deficits clearly below average, and hampered dysfunctions according to the slow processing speed with a low mistake rate, indicating the acquired, thus secondary, attentional deficits. We diagnosed the patient with a TES suggestive of chronic traumatic encephalopathy and classified him as having subtle/mild functional limitation with a most likely transition to mild dementia within the TES criteria. This report underlines child abuse as a relevant criterion in diagnosing TES in cases with repetitive hits to the head. In addition to clinical markers, we show the relevance of fluid tau biomarkers and tau-PET to support the diagnosis of TES according to the recently published diagnosis criteria for TES.

Substantial differences in perception of disease severity between post COVID-19 patients, internists, and psychiatrists or psychologists: the Health Perception Gap and its clinical implications.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) or Likert scales addressing various domains of health are important tools to assess disease severity in Post COVID-19 (PC) patients. By design, they are subjective in nature and prone to bias. Our findings reveal substantial differences in the perception of disease severity between patients (PAT), their attending internists (INT) and psychiatrists/psychologists (PSY). Patients rated almost all aspects of their health worse than INT or PSY. Most of the differences were statistically highly significant. The presence of fatigue and mood disorders correlated negatively with health perception. The physical health section of the WHO Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQoL-BREF) and Karnofsky index correlated positively with overall and mental health ratings by PAT and INT. Health ratings by neither PAT, PSY nor INT were associated with the number of abnormal findings in diagnostic procedures. This study highlights how strongly perceptions of disease severity diverge between PC patients and attending medical staff. Imprecise communication, different experiences regarding health and disease, and confounding psychological factors may explain these observations. Discrepancies in disease perception threaten patient-physician relationships and pose strong confounders in clinical studies. Established scores (e.g., WHOQoL-BREF, Karnofsky index) may represent an approach to overcome these discrepancies. Physicians and psychologists noting harsh differences between a patient's and their own perception of the patient's health should apply screening tools for mood disorders (i.e., PHQ-9, WHOQoL-BREF), psychosomatic symptom burden (SSD-12, FCV-19) and consider further psychological evaluation. An interdisciplinary approach to PC patients remains imperative. Trial Registration Number & Date of Registration: DRKS00030974, 22 Dec 2022, retrospectively registered.

[COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental diseases : Results of the COVID Ψ outpatient survey and recommendations for psychiatry]. / COVID-19-Impfung für Menschen mit schweren psychischen Erkrankungen : Ergebnisse des COVID-Ψ-Ambulant-Surveys und Empfehlungen für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illnesses are risk factors for SARS-CoV-2-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is an effective protection; therefore, high vaccination rates should be a major priority for people with mental illnesses. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identification of at-risk groups for non-vaccination and structures and interventions needed for widespread vaccination among people with mental illnesses from the perspective of outpatient psychiatrists and neurologists, (2) discussion of the results in the context of the international literature and (3) recommendations derived from them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of COVID-19 vaccination-related questions from the COVID Ψ online survey of n = 85 psychiatrists and neurologists in Germany. RESULTS: In the survey, people with schizophrenia, severe lack of drive, low socioeconomic status and homelessness were seen as risk groups for non-vaccination. Increased and targeted information, education, addressing and motivation and easily accessible vaccination offers by general practitioners, psychiatrists, and neurologists as well as complementary institutions were considered as important interventions. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccinations as well as information, motivation and access support should be systematically offered by as many institutions of the psychiatric, psychotherapeutic and complementary care systems in Germany as possible.

Rapid development of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools during a public health emergency - A process evaluation.

Introduction: Different measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented in German schools. Decisions regarding such measures should be informed by evidence regarding their effectiveness, and their unintended consequences for health and society. A multi-stakeholder panel was convened to develop an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for school measures, using the novel WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Developing a guideline to inform decision-making outside of the clinical realm during a public health emergency was unprecedented in Germany. This study aims to identify lessons learnt for similar endeavours by addressing the following research question: What were the strengths and weaknesses of the guideline development process as perceived by the different groups involved? Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually. We recruited participants aiming to include the perspectives of all groups contributing to the guideline development, including both panel members (scientists, practitioners, school family and observers) and the guideline secretariat. For analysis, we carried out deductive-inductive thematic qualitative text analysis according to Kuckartz, structuring findings using a category system. Results: Due to time pressure, the guideline secretariat was heavily involved not only in synthesising the evidence but also in developing and drafting recommendations. Participants critically reflected on certain methods-related decisions, including the development of draft recommendations and application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework by scientists only. The full potential of the framework might not have been harnessed. Participants' understanding of relevant and valid evidence varied, and the available evidence base was limited. Participants represented different types of expertise, notably expertise informed by scientific evidence and expertise grounded in lived experience, influencing their involvement in the guideline development process and discussions during meetings. Conclusion: Developing an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline in only three months was challenging, notably because of the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and the use of a novel Evidence-to-Decision framework, both unprecedented in Germany. Learning from this process with a view to "institutionalising" the development of public health guidelines and refining methods can contribute to more evidence-informed public health decision-making in Germany and beyond, in general and during a public health emergency.

COVID-19 vaccination rates in hospitalized mentally ill patients compared to the general population in Germany: Results from the COVID Ψ Vac study.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness is known to come along with a large mortality gap compared to thegeneral population and it is a risk for COVID-19 related morbidity andmortality. Achieving high vaccination rates in people with mental illness is therefore important. Reports are conflicting on whether vaccination rates comparable to those of the general population can be achieved and which variables represent risk factors for nonvaccination in people with mental illness. METHODS: The COVID Ψ Vac study collected routine data on vaccination status, diagnostic groups, sociodemographics, and setting characteristics from in- and day-clinic patients of 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany in August 2021. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine risk factors for nonvaccination. RESULTS: Complete vaccination rates were 59% (n = 776) for the hospitalized patients with mental illness versus 64% for the regionally and age-matched general population. Partial vaccination rates were 68% (n = 893) for the hospitalised patients with mental illness versus 67% for the respective general population and six percentage (n = 74) of this hospitalized population were vaccinated during the hospital stay. Rates showed a large variation between hospital sites. An ICD-10 group F1, F2, or F4 main diagnosis, younger age, and coercive accommodation were further risk factors for nonvaccination in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination rates were lower in hospitalized people with mental illness than in the general population. By targeting at-risk groups with low-threshold vaccination programs in all health institutions they get in contact with, vaccination rates comparable to those in the general population can be achieved.

Changes and Challenges in Inpatient Mental Health Care During the First Two High Incidence Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany - Results From the COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey.

Psychiatric inpatient treatment, an important pillar of mental health care, is often of longer duration in Germany than in other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic called for infection prevention and control measures and thereby led to shifts in demand and inpatient capacities. The Germany-wide COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey surveyed department heads of German psychiatric inpatient institutions. It assessed changes in utilization during the first two high incidence phases of the pandemic (spring 2020 and winter 2020/21) and also consequences for care, telemedicine experiences, hygiene measures, treatment of patients with mental illness and co-occuring SARS-CoV-2, and coercive measures in such patients. A total of n = 71 psychiatric departments (of 346 contacted) participated in the survey. The results showed a median decrease of inpatient treatment to 80% of 2019 levels and of day hospital treatment to 50% (first phase) and 70% (second phase). Reductions were mainly due to decreases in elective admissions, and emergency admissions remained unchanged or increased in 87% of departments. Utilization was reduced for affective, anxiety, personality, and addiction disorders but appeared roughly unaffected for psychotic disorders. A lack of integration of patients into their living environment, disease exacerbations, loss of contact, and suicide attempts were reported as problems resulting from reduced capacities and insufficient outpatient treatment alternatives. Almost all departments (96%) treated patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring SARS-CoV-2 infection. The majority established special wards and separate areas for (potentially) infectious patients. Telephone and video consultations were found to provide benefits in affective and anxiety disorders. Involuntary admissions of persons without mental illness because of infection protection law violations were reported by 6% of the hospitals. The survey showed high adaptability of psychiatric departments, which managed large capacity shifts and introduced new services for infectious patients, which include telemedicine services. However, the pandemic exacerbated some of the shortcomings of the German mental health system: Avoidable complications resulted from the lack of cooperation and integrated care sequences between in- and outpatient sectors and limited options for psychiatric hospitals to provide outpatient services. Preventive approaches to handle comparable pandemic situations in the future should focus on addressing these shortcomings.

Cinemeducation in medicine: a mixed methods study on students' motivations and benefits.

BACKGROUND: Cinemeducation courses are used to supplement more standard teaching formats at medical schools and tend to emphasise biopsychosocial aspects of health. The purpose of this paper is to explore why medical students attend the cinemeducation course M23 Cinema (M23C) at LMU Munich and whether a film screening with a subsequent expert and peer discussion benefits their studies and their future careers as medical doctors. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed methods study design was used. Qualitative research, i.e. three focus groups, four expert interviews, one group interview and one narrative interview, was conducted to inform a subsequent quantitative survey. Qualitative data was analysed using qualitative content analysis and quantitative data was analysed descriptively. The findings were integrated using the "following a thread" protocol. RESULTS: In total, 28 people were interviewed and 503 participants responded to the survey distributed at seven M23C screenings. Participants perceive the M23C as informal teaching where they learn about perspectives on certain health topics through the combination of film and discussion while spending time with peers. The reasons for and reported benefits of participation varied with educational background, participation frequency and gender. On average, participants gave 5.7 reasons for attending the M23C. The main reasons for participating were the film, the topic and the ability to discuss these afterwards as well as to spend an evening with peers. Attending the M23C was reported to support the students' memory with regards to certain topics addressed in the M23C when the issues resurface at a later stage, such as during university courses, in the hospital, or in their private life. CONCLUSIONS: The M23C is characterised by its unique combination of film and discussion that encourages participants to reflect upon their opinions, perspectives and experiences. Participating in the M23C amplified the understanding of biopsychosocial aspects of health and illness in students. Thus, cinemeducative approaches such as the M23C may contribute to enabling health professionals to develop and apply humane, empathetic and relational skills.