Objective. The UCLA Loneliness Scale, containing 20 items, is one of the commonly used loneliness scales. Some shorter versions have been developed using factor analysis. The study aimed to shorten the UCLA Loneliness Scale using Rasch and factor analysis methods and test the psychometric properties of the new scale.Methods. The full sample of the study included 719 respondents, divided into three subsamples (205, 324, and 190 for samples 1-3, respectively). The original, 20-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (R-ULS) was shortened using 205 students (sample 1); the shortened scale was then validated for construct and concurrent validity with 324 students (sample 2) and 190 clinical participants (sample 3). Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used for construct validity. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity were assessed by exploring the correlation with other psychological measurements.Results. In sample 1, the R-ULS was shortened to a 6-item scale (RULS-6) that fits the Rasch model. The RULS-6 met the criteria of unidimensionality and local independence without differential item functioning due to age and sex, and good targeting the clinical sample. Person Separation Index (PSI) reflected that reliability from the Rasch perspective was acceptable. However, collapsing categories 2 (sometime) and 3 (rarely) may be required in a clinical sample. When tested in samples 2 and 3, the RULS-6 fits the Rasch measurement model. Convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated with interpersonal problems and attachment scales. As expected, a positive correlation was found between RULS-6 and anxiety, depression subscale, interpersonal difficulties, and somatization subscales denoting concurrent validity. Cronbach's alpha of the RULS-6 was good (.83).Conclusion. Using Rasch analysis, the proposed RULS-6 constituted a 70% reduction of the number of original items, yet preserved the psychometric properties in independent samples of students and psychiatric outpatients.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveThis review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.MethodPublished English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).ResultsAll studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.ConclusionsResults from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.

PurposeThe study evaluated the prevalence of comorbid anxiety disorders in late-life depression (LLD) and identified their associated factors.Patients and methodsThis study involved 190 elderly Thais with depressive disorders diagnosed according to the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Anxiety disorders were also diagnosed by the MINI. The 7-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-7), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Core Symptoms Index, Neuroticism Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale and Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support were completed. Descriptive statistics and ORs were used for analysis.ResultsParticipants included 139 females (73.2%) with a mean age of 68.39±6.74 years. The prevalence of anxiety disorders was 7.4% for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), 4.7% for panic disorder, 5.3% for agoraphobia, 1.1% for social phobia, 2.1% for obsessive–compulsive disorder and 3.7% for post-traumatic stress disorder, with an overall prevalence of 16.84%. The comorbidity of anxiety disorders was associated with gender (P=0.045), history of depressive disorder (P=0.040), family history of depressive disorder (P=0.004), GDS (P=0.037), HAMD-7 (P=0.001), suicidality (P=0.002) and neuroticism (P=0.003). History of alcohol use was not associated.ConclusionThe prevalence of anxiety in LLD was comparable to other studies, with GAD and agoraphobia being the most prevalent. This study confirmed the role of depression severity and neuroticism in developing comorbid anxiety disorders.