COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries.

BACKGROUND: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.

Factors Associated with Psychological Distress, Fear, and Coping Strategies during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Despite being initially perceived as a local infectious disease, COVID-19 has emerged as one of the most perilous global health threats, significantly impacting the psychological well-being of individuals worldwide. Objective: This cross-sectional descriptive study investigates the psychological distress, fear, and coping mechanisms among Thai people residing in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This online cross-sectional survey targeted Thai individuals during the first and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants aged 18 and above who provided consent self-reported their responses to the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Data collection occurred between November 2020 and January 2021 across four regions of Thailand. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses explored associations between contextual factors and the variables of interest. Results: Out of 498 survey respondents, with an average age of 43.07 (SD = 13.69) years, 81.9% were female, and 61.6% self-identified as healthcare workers, with 47.59% identified as frontline healthcare workers. Findings revealed that 46% of participants experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, 14.3% reported high levels of fear of COVID-19, and 35.1% exhibited low resilient coping. Factors such as changes in employment status or financial situations, comorbidities, contact with known or suspected COVID-19 cases, recent healthcare utilization for COVID-19-related stress, and elevated fear of COVID-19 were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. Conversely, being nurses and perceived better mental health status were linked to more effective coping strategies. Conclusion: These results emphasize the critical importance of government interventions to safeguard the psychological well-being of healthcare workers and the broader Thai population. Urgent measures to bolster resilience among these groups during and after the pandemic are imperative.

Surrogate decision-maker for end-of-life care in terminally ill patients at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand.

Surrogate decision-maker for end-of-life care is indicated at certain points during care for patients with terminal illnesses. This study aimed at identifying person(s) to whom northern Thai patients with terminal illnesses wished to transfer their decisions on end-of-life care and for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. From interviews with 152 eligible subjects, 57.2% had a high regard for their physicians' authority in making decisions on end-of-life care, 28.3% transferred their decisions to relative(s) and only 14.5% opted for shared decision-making among relative(s) and physicians. In the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 44.1% of subjects expressed a desire for family to make decisions together with physicians, 33.6% gave directives to the family alone and only 22.4% transferred their decisions to physicians. The differences that were observed in patients' preferences between the two situations indicate that patients should be assessed individually and adequate information for decision-making should be provided.