Introduction No studies have reported mental health symptom comparisons prior to and during COVID-19 in vulnerable medical populations. Objective To compare anxiety and depression symptoms among people with a pre-existing medical condition and factors associated with changes. Methods Pre-COVID-19 Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort data were linked to COVID-19 data from April 2020. Multiple linear and logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with continuous change and ≥ 1 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) change for anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0; MCID = 4.0) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8; MCID = 3.0) symptoms, controlling for pre-COVID-19 levels. Results Mean anxiety symptoms increased 4.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0 to 5.7). Depression symptom change was negligible (0.3 points; 95% CI -0.7 to 0.2). Compared to France ( N = 159), adjusted anxiety symptom change scores were significantly higher in the United Kingdom ( N = 50; 3.3 points, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.6), United States ( N = 128; 2.5 points, 95% CI 0.7 to 4.2), and Canada ( N = 98; 1.9 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 3.8). Odds of ≥1 MCID increase were 2.6 for the United Kingdom (95% CI 1.2 to 5.7) but not significant for the United States (1.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.9) or Canada (1.4, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5). Older age and adequate financial resources were associated with less continuous anxiety increase. Employment and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with lower odds of a ≥ 1 MCID increase. Conclusions Anxiety symptoms, but not depression symptoms, increased dramatically during COVID-19 among people with a pre-existing medical condition.

ObjectiveSome individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc) report positive mental health, despite severe disease manifestations, which may be associated with resilience, but no resilience measure has been validated in SSc. This study was undertaken to assess the validity, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) between English‐ and French‐language versions of the 10‐item Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC‐10) in SSc.MethodsEligible participants were enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient‐centered Intervention Network Cohort and completed the CD‐RISC‐10 between August 2022 and January 2023. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the CD‐RISC‐10 factor structure and conducted DIF analysis across languages with Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes models. We tested convergent validity with another measure of resilience and measures of self‐esteem and depression and anxiety symptoms. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsA total of 962 participants were included in this analysis. CFA supported a single‐factor structure (Tucker–Lewis index = 0.99, comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08 [90% confidence interval (90% CI) 0.07, 0.09]). We found no meaningful DIF. Internal consistency was high (α = 0.93 [95% CI 0.92, 0.94]), and we found that correlations with other measures of psychological functioning were moderate to large (|r| = 0.57–0.78) and confirmed study hypotheses. The scale showed good 1–2‐week test–retest reliability (ICC 0.80 [95% CI 0.75, 0.85]) in a subsample of 230 participants.ConclusionThe CD‐RISC‐10 is a valid and reliable measure of resilience in SSc, with score comparability across English and French versions.image

Background More people with rare diseases likely receive disease education and emotional and practical support from peer-led support groups than any other way. Most rare-disease support groups are delivered outside of the health care system by untrained leaders. Potential benefits may not be achieved and harms, such as dissemination of inaccurate information, may occur. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effects of a rare-disease support group leader education program, which was developed collaboratively by researchers, peer support group leaders, and patient organization leaders, compared to waitlist control, on peer leader self-efficacy among scleroderma support group leaders. Methods The trial was a pragmatic, two-arm partially nested randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation into intervention or waitlist control. Eligible participants were existing or candidate peer support group leaders affiliated with a scleroderma patient organization. Leader training was delivered in groups of 5–6 participants weekly for 13 weeks in 60–90 min sessions via the GoToMeeting® videoconferencing platform. The program included 12 general leader training modules and one module specific to scleroderma. Primary outcome was leader self-efficacy, measured by the Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale (SGLSS) immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes were leader self-efficacy 3 months post-intervention; emotional distress, leader burnout, and volunteer satisfaction post-intervention and 3 months post-intervention; and program satisfaction among intervention participants post-intervention. Results One hundred forty-eight participants were randomised to intervention (N = 74) or waitlist (N = 74). Primary outcome data were provided by 146 (99%) participants. Mean number of sessions attended was 11.4 (standard deviation = 2.6). Mean program satisfaction score (CSQ-8) was 30.3 (standard deviation = 3.0; possible range 8–32). Compared to waitlist control, leader self-efficacy was higher post-intervention [SGLSS; 16.7 points, 95% CI 11.0–22.3; standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.84] and 3 months later (15.6 points, 95% CI 10.2–21.0; SMD 0.73); leader volunteer satisfaction was significantly higher at both assessments, emotional distress was lower post-intervention but not 3 months later, and leader burnout was not significantly different at either assessment. Conclusions Peer support group leader education improved leader self-efficacy substantially. The program could be easily adapted for support group leaders in other rare diseases. Trial registration:NCT03965780; registered on May 29, 2019.

Purpose: Explore trial participants' and research team members' perceptions of the impact of the videoconference-based, supportive care program (SPIN-CHAT Program) during early COVID-19 for individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods: Data were collected cross-sectionally. A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and oneon-one videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews were conducted with SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and research team members. A hybrid inductive-deductive approach and reflexive thematic analysis were used. Results: Of the 40 SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and 28 research team members approached, 30 trial participants (Mean age ¼ 54.9; SD ¼ 13.0 years) and 22 research team members agreed to participate. Those who took part in interviews had similar characteristics to those who declined. Five themes were identified: ( 1) The SPIN-CHAT Program conferred a range of positive psychological health outcomes, (2) People who don't have SSc don't get it: The importance of SSc-specific programming, (3) The group-based format of the SPIN-CHAT Program created a safe space to connect and meet similar others, (4) The structure and schedule of the SPIN-CHAT Program reduced feelings of boredom and contributed to enhanced psychological health, (5) The necessity of knowledge, skills, and tools to self-manage SSc and navigate COVID-19. Conclusion: Participants' and research team members' perspectives elucidated SPIN-CHAT Program benefits and how these benefits may have been realized. Results underscore the importance of social support from similar others, structure, and self-management to enhance psychological health during COVID-19. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335279) � IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION � The videoconference-based, supportive care SPIN-CHAT Program enhanced psychological health amongst individuals affected by systemic sclerosis. � SPIN-CHAT Program participants and research team members shared that being around similar others, program structure, and self-management support were important and may have contributed to enhanced psychological health. � Further efforts are required to explore experiences within supportive care programs to better understand if and how psychological health is impacted.

No abstract