Surviving SARS and living through COVID-19: Healthcare worker mental health outcomes and insights for coping.

OBJECTIVE: Explore how previous work during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak affects the psychological response of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers (HCWs) to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multi-centered hospital online survey of HCWs in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Mental health outcomes of HCWs who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and the SARS outbreak were assessed using Impact of Events-Revised scale (IES-R), Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Among 3852 participants, moderate/severe scores for symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (50.2%), anxiety (24.6%), and depression (31.5%) were observed among HCWs. Work during the 2003 SARS outbreak was reported by 1116 respondents (29.1%), who had lower scores for symptoms of PTSD (P = .002), anxiety (P < .001), and depression (P < .001) compared to those who had not worked during the SARS outbreak. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed non-clinical HCWs during this pandemic were at higher risk of anxiety (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15, P = .01) and depressive symptoms (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.34-3.07, P < .001). HCWs using sedatives (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.61-4.03, P < .001), those who cared for only 2-5 patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06-2.38, P = .01), and those who had been in isolation for COVID-19 (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93, P = .05), were at higher risk of moderate/severe symptoms of PTSD. In addition, deterioration in sleep was associated with symptoms of PTSD (OR, 4.68, 95% CI, 3.74-6.30, P < .001), anxiety (OR, 3.09, 95% CI, 2.11-4.53, P < .001), and depression (OR 5.07, 95% CI, 3.48-7.39, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was observed in both clinical and non-clinical HCWs, with no impact from previous SARS work experience. As the pandemic continues, increasing psychological and team support may decrease the mental health impacts.

SARS pandemic exposure impaired early childhood development in China.

Social and mental stressors associated with the pandemic of a novel infectious disease, e.g., COVID-19 or SARS may promote long-term effects on child development. However, reports aimed at identifying the relationship between pandemics and child health are limited. A retrospective study was conducted to associate the SARS pandemic in 2003 with development milestones or physical examinations among longitudinal measurements of 14,647 children. Experiencing SARS during childhood was associated with delayed milestones, with hazard ratios of 3.17 (95% confidence intervals CI: 2.71, 3.70), 3.98 (3.50, 4.53), 4.96 (4.48, 5.49), or 5.57 (5.00, 6.20) for walking independently, saying a complete sentence, counting 0-10, and undressing him/herself for urination, respectively. These results suggest relevant impacts from COVID-19 on child development should be investigated.

History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002-2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to examine the prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, both short-term and long-term, among SARS patients, healthcare workers and the general public of SARS-affected regions, and to examine the protective and risk factors associated with these mental health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature using databases such as Medline, Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, the National Central Library Online Catalog and dissertation databases to identify studies in the English or Chinese language published between January 2003 to May 2020 which reported psychological distress and mental health morbidities among SARS patients, healthcare workers, and the general public in regions with major SARS outbreaks. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6984 titles. Screening resulted in 80 papers for the review, 35 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of post-recovery probable or clinician-diagnosed anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among SARS survivors were 19, 20 and 28%, respectively. The prevalence of these outcomes among studies conducted within and beyond 6 months post-discharge was not significantly different. Certain aspects of mental health-related quality of life measures among SARS survivors remained impaired beyond 6 months post-discharge. The prevalence of probable depressive disorder and PTSD among healthcare workers post-SARS were 12 and 11%, respectively. The general public had increased anxiety levels during SARS, but whether there was a clinically significant population-wide mental health impact remained inconclusive. Narrative synthesis revealed occupational exposure to SARS patients and perceived stigmatisation to be risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers, although causality could not be determined due to the limitations of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The chronicity of psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors should alert us to the potential long-term mental health complications of covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers working in high-risk venues should be given adequate mental health support. Stigmatisation against patients and healthcare workers should be explored and addressed. The significant risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity among included studies limited the certainty of the body of evidence of the review.

Experience of 2003 SARS has a negative psychological impact on healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has instilled fear and stress among healthcare workers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess work stress and associated factors among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak and to evaluate whether prior experience of treating severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) had a positive or negative influence on healthcare workers' stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey in a tertiary hospital in Kaohsiung City, in southern Taiwan. METHODS: The survey was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire to measure the stress levels among healthcare workers from March 20 to April 20, 2020. The stress scales were divided into four subscales: worry of social isolation; discomfort caused by the protective equipment; difficulties and anxiety regarding infection control; and workload of caring for patients. RESULTS: The total stress scores were significantly higher among healthcare workers who were aged 41 or above, female, married, parents and nurses. Those with experience of treating SARS reported having significantly higher stress scores on the subscale measuring the discomfort caused by protective equipment and the workload of caring for patients. During the COVID-19 outbreak, frontline healthcare workers with experience of treating SARS indicated having higher stress levels regarding the workload of caring for patients than did non-frontline healthcare workers with no experience of treating SARS. CONCLUSIONS: Work experience from dealing with the 2003 SARS virus may have had a negative psychological impact on healthcare workers amidst the COVID-19 outbreak.

What We Have Learned from Two Decades of Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Burden of Frontline Healthcare Workers.

In light of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and potential future infectious disease outbreaks, a comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of epidemics and pandemics on healthcare workers' mental health could inform appropriate support interventions. Thus, we aimed to synthesize and quantify the psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among frontline medical staff. We searched four databases up to March 19, 2020 and additional literature, with daily search alerts set up until October 26, 2020. Studies reporting psychological and/or psychosomatic symptoms of healthcare workers caring for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently conducted the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis and involved a third reviewer in case of disagreement. We used random effects modeling to estimate the overall prevalence rates of psychological/psychosomatic symptoms and the I2 statistic. We included 86 studies, reporting data from 75,991 participants. Frontline staff showed a wide range of symptoms, including concern about transmitting the virus to the family (60.39%, 95% CI 42.53-76.96), perceived stress (56.77%, 95% CI 34.21-77.95), concerns about own health (45.97%, 95% CI 31.08-61.23), sleeping difficulties (39.88%, 95% CI 27.70-52.72), burnout (31.81%, 95% CI 13.32-53.89), symptoms of depression (25.72%, 95% CI 18.34-33.86), symptoms of anxiety (25.36%, 95% CI 17.90-33.64), symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (24.51%, 95% CI 18.16-31.46), mental health issues (23.11%, 95% CI 15.98-31.10), and symptoms of somatization (14.68%, 95% CI 10.67-19.18). We found consistent evidence for the pervasive and profound impact of large-scale outbreaks on the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. As the CO-VID-19 crisis continues to unfold, guaranteeing easy access to support structures for the entire healthcare workforce is vitally important.

Experience of 2003 SARS has a negative psychological impact on healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has instilled fear and stress among healthcare workers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess work stress and associated factors among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak and to evaluate whether prior experience of treating severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) had a positive or negative influence on healthcare workers' stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey in a tertiary hospital in Kaohsiung City, in southern Taiwan. METHODS: The survey was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire to measure the stress levels among healthcare workers from March 20 to April 20, 2020. The stress scales were divided into four subscales: worry of social isolation; discomfort caused by the protective equipment; difficulties and anxiety regarding infection control; and workload of caring for patients. RESULTS: The total stress scores were significantly higher among healthcare workers who were aged 41 or above, female, married, parents and nurses. Those with experience of treating SARS reported having significantly higher stress scores on the subscale measuring the discomfort caused by protective equipment and the workload of caring for patients. During the COVID-19 outbreak, frontline healthcare workers with experience of treating SARS indicated having higher stress levels regarding the workload of caring for patients than did non-frontline healthcare workers with no experience of treating SARS. CONCLUSIONS: Work experience from dealing with the 2003 SARS virus may have had a negative psychological impact on healthcare workers amidst the COVID-19 outbreak.

Traditional herbal medicines to overcome stress, anxiety and improve mental health in outbreaks of human coronaviruses.

Mental health condition is including depression and anxiety, and they may impact wellbeing, personal relationships and productivity of both genders. Herbal medicines have been used to treatment of anxiety and depression symptoms for centuries. SARS, MERS and COVID-19 are related to coronavirus types. SARS (sever acute respiratory syndrome, China, 2002), MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, Saudi Arabia, 2012), and SARS-CoV-2 (2019-2020) are the main coronavirus outbreaks. Both anxiety and depression are more serious to be considered and improved for all general public during fight with these diseases. In this mini-review article, we have mentioned the key role some of the most important plants and herbs for treatment of stress and anxiety and improve mental health against SARS and SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of traditional Asian medicine, especially traditional Chinese and Persian medicine.

[Emotional management of the health crisis by coronavirus: A narrative review]. / Manejo emocional de la crisis sanitaria ante el coronavirus: una revisión narrativa.

OBJECTIVE: To make a synthesis of the available scientific evidence in the emotional management of the declared health crisis in the face of coronavirus. METHODS: A bibliographic search was made, without date limit, in Medline, CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, Scopus and Web of Science™ databases using the following keywords "emotional management", "health crisis" and "health crisis response". Initially, 73 studies were identified and, after selecting them according to eligibility criteria, 10 were included. RESULTS: The main recommendations based on the available evidence indicate emotional management measures such as offering support groups to professionals, ensuring their social non-discrimination, strengthening their confidence and control capacity through training actions, as well as reinforcing the recognition of nurses by the community. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The accumulated evidence comes from experience with previous outbreaks of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. Stress was the most studied aspect, concerning issues such as social stigma, professionalism, intention to care, burnout, ethical conflicts, anxiety, depression or guilt. The emotional management of health crises in the face of the coronavirus requires an individual, collective, social and institutional strategy to reinforce security on all fronts and reduce fear through effective control measures using sufficient and adequate material and human resources.

Is Exposure to Epidemic Associated With Older Adults' Health Behavior? Evidence From China's 2002-2004 SARS Outbreak.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether exposure to an epidemic is associated with better health behaviors. METHODS: Using nationally representative survey data collected in 2011 and 2014, we identified middle-aged and older Chinese adults whose communities experienced an outbreak of the 2002-2004 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). We estimated logistic models of health behaviors in the years after the SARS epidemic. RESULTS: Compared to those who lived in communities not hit by the epidemic, respondents who lived in communities with a SARS outbreak in 2002-2004 were more likely to get a physical examination in 2010-2011 and have their blood pressure checked and participate in regular physical exercise in the years following the SARS epidemic. These associations varied by gender and rural-urban residence. DISCUSSION: Exposure to the SARS epidemic could be positively associated with health behavior among middle-aged and older Chinese adults.

What could we learn from SARS when facing the mental health issues related to the COVID-19 outbreak? A nationwide cohort study in Taiwan.

There were several studies about the psychiatric and mental health issues related to the severe adult respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, however, the association between SARS and the overall risk of psychiatric disorders and suicides has, as yet, to be studied in Taiwan. The aim of this study is to examine as to whether SARS is associated with the risk of psychiatric disorders and suicide. A total of 285 patients with SARS and 2850 controls without SARS (1:10) matched for sex, age, insurance premium, comorbidities, residential regions, level of medical care, and index date were selected between February 25 and June 15, 2003 from the Inpatient Database Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. During the 12-year follow-up, in which 79 in the SARS cohort and 340 in the control group developed psychiatric disorders or suicide (4047.41 vs. 1535.32 per 100,000 person-years). Fine and Gray's survival analysis revealed that the SARS cohort was associated with an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicide, and the adjusted subdistribution HR (sHR) was 2.805 (95% CI: 2.182-3.605, p < 0.001) for psychiatric disorders and suicide. The SARS cohort was associated with anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder/acute stress disorder (PTSD/ASD), and suicide. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the SARS group was associated with anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, PTSD/ASD, and suicide after the individuals with a diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and suicide were excluded within the first year, and with anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, while those in the first five years were excluded. In conclusion, SARS was associated with the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicide.

Prevalence of depression during the SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 pandemics: A protocol for overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, has emerged to be the biggest global health threat worldwide. COVID-19 marks the emergence of the third large-scale epidemic related to the coronavirus, after SARS-CoV in 2002 and Middle-East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERSCoV) in 2012. The pandemic has had a harmful effect on the public mental health, especially on depression. Increasing systematic reviews (SRs) of coronavirus were focusing on depression. However, the methodological quality of these SRs is unclear. Therefore, to evaluate and compare the normativity of report of SR, we conducted a comprehensive overview of depression during the SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 pandemics. METHODS: Two independent reviewers will conduct comprehensively searches in PubMed, EMBASE.com, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Chinese biomedical literature database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan fang Database, Chongqing VIP (CQVIP). Reference lists of articles, gray literature, and conference proceedings will also be searched. We will extract the data and assess the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) measurement tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. General characteristics of the eligible SRs will be summarized and described. We will provide AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA assessments in tabular form for each review, the total percentage of each item will be calculated. Endnote X8 and EXCEL will be used. RESULTS: Using the draft search strategy of databases, 8 SRs met the a priori criteria and were included. The overview of SRs will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: Our overview will be a comprehensive synthesis of the existing systemic review on depression with SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY202080003.

Impact of coronavirus syndromes on physical and mental health of health care workers: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) are at high risk of developing physical/mental health outcomes related to coronavirus syndromes. Nature and frequency of these outcomes are undetermined. METHODS: PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant (PROSPERO-CRD42020180205) systematic review of Web of Science/grey literature until 15th April 2020, to identify studies reporting physical/mental health outcomes in HCW infected/exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome -SARS-, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome -MERS-, Novel coronavirus -COVID-19-. Proportion random effect meta-analyses, I2 statistic, quality assessment and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: 115 articles were included (n=60,458 HCW, age 36.1±7.1, 77.1% female). Physical health outcomes: 75.9% HCW infected by SARS/MERS/COVID-19 reported fever (95%CI=65.9-83.7%, k=12, n=949), 47.9% cough (95%CI=39.2-56.8%, k=14, n=970), 43.6% myalgias (95%CI=31.9-56.0%, k=13, n=898), 42.3% chills (95%CI=20.2-67.9%, k=7, n=716), 41.2% fatigue (95%CI=18.2-68.8%, k=6, n=386), 34.6% headaches (95%CI=23.1-48.2%, k=11, n=893), 31.2% dyspnoea (95%CI=23.2-40.5%, k=12, n=1003), 25.3% sore throat (95%CI=18.8-33.2%, k=8, n=747), 22.2% nausea/vomiting (95%CI=14.9-31.8%, k=6, n=662), 18.8% diarrhoea (95%CI=11.9-28.4%, k=9, n=824). Mental health outcomes: 62.5% HCW exposed to SARS/MERS/COVID-19 reported general health concerns (95%CI=57.0-67,8%, k=2, n=2254), 43.7% fear (95%CI=33.9-54.0%, k=4, n=584), 37.9% insomnia (95%CI=30.9-45.5%, k=6, n=5067), 37.8% psychological distress (95%CI=28.4-48.2%, k=15, n=24,346), 34.4% burnout (95%CI=19.3-53.5%, k=3, n=1337), 29.0% anxiety features (95%CI=14.2-50.3%, k=6, n=9191), 26.3% depressive symptoms (95%CI=12.5-47.1%, k=8, n=9893), 20.7% post-traumatic stress disorder features (95%CI=13.2-31%, k=11, n=3826), 16.1% somatisation (95%CI=0.2-96.0%, k=2, n=2184), 14.0% stigmatisation feelings (95%CI=6.4-28.1%, k=2, n=411). LIMITATIONS: Limited amount of evidence for some outcomes and suboptimal design in several studies included. CONCLUSIONS: SARS/MERS/COVID-19 have a substantial impact on the physical and mental health of HCW, which should become a priority for public health strategies.

[Epidemic emergencies and social stigma. Which lessons should we learn from SARS and Ebola epidemics for the current CoViD-19 pandemics?] / Emergenze epidemiche e stigma sociale. Quali insegnamenti trarre dalle precedenti epidemie di SARS ed Ebola da applicare nell'attuale pandemia CoViD-19?

Scientific literature produced during the most recent international epidemic emergencies, such as SARS and Ebola, highlights that infected persons are often labeled, rejected, discriminated and subjected to loss of status due to their perceived link with the disease. Such experiences of discrimination may have detrimental effects on both patients, their family members, friends and communities. It is also possible that those who have been infected with COVD-19 may experience shame, guilt and sense of isolation arising from social stigma. It is therefore important to take full advantage of experiences gained during past epidemic crises, in order to implement timely measures to tackle this further negative consequence of the pandemic.

Social and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: The experiences of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

This article discusses the value of studying past social and psychological responses to pandemics and natural disasters in understanding reactions to coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). By examining severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) experiences in both Taiwan and Hong Kong, we indicate that psychological trauma might be a pathway whereby the COVID-19 outbreak affects long-term health and well-being and that psychological and collective trauma caused by the COVID-19 may relate to future preparedness and risk awareness. We conclude with a consideration of social-psychological processes for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections after hospitalization or intensive care unit admission. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult SARS and MERS survivors 3 months after admission or 2 months after discharge were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 Level of Evidence Tool. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates for prevalence/severity of outcomes up to 6 months after hospital discharge, and beyond 6 months after discharge. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,169 identified studies, 28 were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that common complications up to 6 months after discharge were: impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (prevalence 27%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15­45%); and reduced exercise capacity (mean 6-min walking distance 461 m, CI 450­473 m). The prevalences of post-traumatic stress disorder (39%, 95% CI 31­47%), depression (33%, 95% CI 20­50%) and anxiety (30%, 95% CI 10­61) beyond 6 months after discharge were considerable. Low scores on Short-Form 36 were identified beyond 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSION: Lung function abnormalities, psychological impairment and reduced exercise capacity were common in SARS and MERS survivors. Clinicians should anticipate and investigate similar long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors.

[Health professionals facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: What are the mental health risks?] / Les professionnels de santé face à la pandémie de la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) : quels risques pour leur santé mentale ?

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major sanitary crisis worldwide. Half of the world has been placed in quarantine. In France, this large-scale health crisis urgently triggered the restructuring and reorganization of health service delivery to support emergency services, medical intensive care units and continuing care units. Health professionals mobilized all their resources to provide emergency aid in a general climate of uncertainty. Concerns about the mental health, psychological adjustment, and recovery of health care workers treating and caring for patients with COVID-19 are now arising. The goal of the present article is to provide up-to-date information on potential mental health risks associated with exposure of health professionals to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors performed a narrative review identifying relevant results in the scientific and medical literature considering previous epidemics of 2003 (SARS-CoV-1) and 2009 (H1N1) with the more recent data about the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlighted most relevant data concerning the disease characteristics, the organizational factors and personal factors that may contribute to developing psychological distress and other mental health symptoms. RESULTS: The disease characteristics of the current COVID-19 pandemic provoked a generalized climate of wariness and uncertainty, particularly among health professionals, due to a range of causes such as the rapid spread of COVID-19, the severity of symptoms it can cause in a segment of infected individuals, the lack of knowledge of the disease, and deaths among health professionals. Stress may also be caused by organizational factors, such as depletion of personal protection equipment, concerns about not being able to provide competent care if deployed to new area, concerns about rapidly changing information, lack of access to up-to-date information and communication, lack of specific drugs, the shortage of ventilators and intensive care unit beds necessary to care for the surge of critically ill patients, and significant change in their daily social and family life. Further risk factors have been identified, including feelings of being inadequately supported, concerns about health of self, fear of taking home infection to family members or others, and not having rapid access to testing through occupational health if needed, being isolated, feelings of uncertainty and social stigmatization, overwhelming workload, or insecure attachment. Additionally, we discussed positive social and organizational factors that contribute to enhance resilience in the face of the pandemic. There is a consensus in all the relevant literature that health care professionals are at an increased risk of high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder, which could have long-term psychological implications. CONCLUSIONS: In the long run, this tragic health crisis should significantly enhance our understanding of the mental health risk factors among the health care professionals facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting information such as this is essential to plan future prevention strategies. Protecting health care professionals is indeed an important component of public health measures to address large-scale health crisis. Thus, interventions to promote mental well-being in health care professionals exposed to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented, and to strengthen prevention and response strategies by training health care professionals on mental help and crisis management.

[Suicidal behavior in light of COVID-19 outbreak: Clinical challenges and treatment perspectives]. / Épidémie de COVID-19 et prise en charge des conduites suicidaires : challenge et perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic affected today more than 3,000,000 worldwide, and more than half of humanity has been placed in quarantine. The scientific community and the political authorities fear an epidemic of suicide secondary to this crisis. The aim of this review is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the dimensions of the suicidal process and its interaction with the various risk factors. We also propose innovative strategies to manage suicidal behavior in the context of pandemic. METHODS: We carried out a narrative review of international publications dealing with major pandemics (COVID-19, SARS) and their influence on suicidal vulnerability. RESULTS: Many factors are likely to increase the emergence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts during this crisis. Social distancing and quarantine could increase the feeling of disconnection and the perception of social pain in vulnerable individuals. Some populations at high suicidal risk could be further impacted by the current pandemic: the elderly, medical staff and individuals exposed to economic insecurity. Several innovative tools adapted to the constraints of social distancing and quarantine may prevent suicide risk: e-health, VigilanS, buddhist-derived practices and art engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This unprecedented crisis may interact with certain dimensions of the suicidal process. However, it is time to innovate. Several suicide prevention tools all have their place in new modes of care and should be tested on a large scale.

A Comparison of China's Risk Communication in Response to SARS and H7N9 Using Principles Drawn From International Practice.

BACKGROUND: China's emergency management of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was heavily criticized, whereas the H7N9 response was praised by the international community.AimsThe aims of this study were to examine and compare the strengths and weaknesses of risk communication conducted in response to SARS and H7N9 and their associated social impacts on affected communities in China. METHOD: A qualitative comparative case study approach was employed in the present study, using a set of 8 risk communication principles selected from international literature to suit the Chinese context for the comparative analysis of emergency responses of SARS and H7N9. RESULTS: The study found significant differences in the risk communication conducted in the 2 cases. The SARS outbreak fully exposed China's lack of experience in public health risk communication. By contrast, the Chinese government's risk communication strategies had improved significantly during the H7N9 outbreak.DiscussionTrust is the basis for communication. Maintaining an open and honest attitude and actively engaging stakeholders to address their risk information needs will serve to build trust and facilitate multi-sector collaborations in dealing with a public health crisis. CONCLUSIONS: From SARS to H7N9, risk communication practices in China greatly improved, which, in turn, lessened adverse social impacts and improved outcomes in emergency management of public health crises. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:587-598).