The Determinants of COVID-19-Related Stress Among Caregivers of Individuals at High Risk During the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers offer a range of support-physical, emotional, and social-to individuals under their care, thereby exposing themselves to potential mental health risks. During the outbreak of COVID-19, caregivers have emerged as a demographic particularly vulnerable to mental health issues owing to their caregiving roles. The aim of the study is to identify the determinants influencing COVID-19-related stress among caregivers of individuals at elevated risk of coronavirus infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken, utilizing a sample of 1,556 participants who were enlisted via social media and an online survey questionnaire. Participants provided sociodemographic data and completed both the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS) to assess their mental health status. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 30.76±6.97 years. Of these, 42.35% (n = 659) resided with individuals at high risk for COVID-19, and 72.75% were female. Statistically significant differences were observed in DASS-21 subscale scores as well as in CSS scores for contamination, socioeconomic consequences, traumatic stress, perceived danger, compulsive checking, xenophobia, and total scores between those living and not living with COVID-19 high-risk individuals. Factors such as residing with a COVID-19 high-risk individual, education level, and DASS-21 subscale scores were identified as significant predictors of CSS scores. CONCLUSION: The study reveals those caregivers for individuals at high risk for COVID-19 experience elevated levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and COVID-19-related stress. Factors such as living with a high-risk individual, educational level, and mental health status were significant predictors of COVID-19-related stress. Further research is needed to evaluate the mental well-being of caregivers and to develop effective interventions.

The Relationship Between Occupational Functionality and Metacognition in Patients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is one of the most common mental disorders with a loss of functionality in many areas of life. The current study aims to reveal the relationship between occupational functionality and metacognition in OCD patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cross-sectional study sample consisted of 183 participants diagnosed with OCD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria. Participants were evaluated with the Yale-Brown Obsession and Compulsion Scale (Y-BOCS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Metacognition Scale (MCQ-30). The occupational functioning of the participants was determined by the basic version of the semi-structured Longitudinal Follow-up Evaluation form (LIFE-BASE) in interviews with the clinician. The LIFE-BASE form divided the study sample into functional (n=92) and non-functional (n=91). RESULTS: It was determined that the mean age of the study sample was 32.49±8.65 years, and 54.1% (n=99) of them were female. When the two groups were compared, statistically significant differences were found in gender (p<0.001), education (p=0.012), Y-BOCS compulsion (p=0.003), and total scores (p=0.006). In the comparison of the groups, a statistical difference was found between the MCQ-30 Positive Beliefs subscale (p<0.05). However, no statistical difference was found between uncontrollability and danger, cognitive confidence, belief in controlling thoughts, and cognitive awareness. In addition, it was found that gender and the MCQ-30 positive beliefs score could predict occupational functioning. CONCLUSION: The present study is important because it was the first study to show the effects of positive beliefs on occupational functioning in OCD patients. However, further studies are needed on the underlying causes of this effect.

Impact of the first, second and third peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety, depression and stress symptoms of healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Numerous studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, how the mental health of health workers will be affected among the number of peaks during the pandemic has not been evaluated yet. The study aims to investigate the effects of the first, second, and third peaks of COVID-19 on anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms in healthcare workers. METHODS: The current study included 4031 healthcare workers, 1051 during the first peak period, 1409 during the second peak period, and 1571 during the third peak period. The Depression-anxiety-stress scale-21(DASS-21) was used to assess the participants' levels of anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 33.74 ± 7.95, and 2634 (66.3 %) were female. 36.9 %(n = 1486) of the participants were physicians, 41.1 % (n = 1655) were nurses and 22.1 % (n = 890) were other healthcare workers. A statistically significant difference was documented in the DASS-21 anxiety (F(2:4028) = 502.893, p 2. Peak > 1. Peak), DASS-21 depression (F(2:4028) = 46.034, p 2. Peak > 1. Peak), DASS-21 stress (F(2:4028) = 65.548, p 1. Peak), and DASS-21 total scores (F(2:4028) = 156.860, p 2. Peak > 1. Peak) of healthcare workers during all three peak periods. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that as the peak number rises, so do the levels of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers. As a result, it is possible to assert that prolongation of the COVID-19 pandemic worsens mental problems (Tab. 2, Fig. 3, Ref. 35).

The comparison of anxiety, depression and stress symptoms levels of healthcare workers between the first and second COVID-19 peaks.

BACKGROUNDS: Although the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have been investigated, there is no study comparing the effects between the peaks. This study aims to compare the levels of anxiety, depression, and stress of healthcare workers struggling with pandemic between the first and second peaks. METHODS: A total of 2460 healthcare workers, 1051 from the first peak period and 1409 from the second peak period, were included in the study. The first peak measurements of the participants were made between 07.04.2020 and 05.05.2020 and the second peak measurements were made between 22.11.2020 and 20.12.2020 according to the peak period in Turkey. Depression-Anxiety-Stress-21(DASS-21) scale was applied to the participants online by the purpose of the study. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 32.63 ± 7.70, and 66.5% of them were female. A statistically significant difference was found between the income status (p < 0.001), lifestyle (p < 0.001) and COVID-19 test result (p < 0.001), DASS-21 Depression (p < 0.001, t = -5.311), Anxiety (p < 0.001, t = -8.244), Stress (p < 0.001, -10.056) and total(p < 0.001, t = -8.719) scores of the two groups. CONCLUSION: The present study results showed that healthcare workers meticulously struggling with the pandemic had increased anxiety, depression, and stress levels at the second peak of the pandemic compared to the first peak.