No abstract

Aim: To develop the Self-Care in COVID-19 (SCOVID) scale and to test its psychometric characteristics in the general population. Methods: We tested SCOVID scale content validity with 19 experts. For factorial and construct validity, reliability, and measurement error, we administered the 20-item SCOVID scale to a sample of 461 Italians in May/June 2020 (mean age: 48.8, SD ± 15.8). Results: SCOVID scale item content validity ranged between 0.85–1.00, and the total scale content validity was 0.94. Confirmatory factor analysis supported SCOVID scale factorial validity (comparative fit index = 0.91; root mean square error of approximation = 0.05). Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with other instrument scores measuring self-efficacy, positivity, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Reliability estimates were good with factor score determinacy, composite reliability, global reliability index, Cronbach’s alpha, and test-retest reliability ranging between 0.71–0.91. The standard error of measurement was adequate. Conclusions: The SCOVID scale is a new instrument measuring self-care in the COVID-19 pandemic with adequate validity and reliability. The SCOVID scale can be used in practice and research for assessing self-care in the COVID-19 pandemic to preventing COVID-19 infection and maintaining wellbeing in the general population.

Aims:To examine the distribution of dyadic care types in multiple chronic conditions, compare self-care and caregiver contributions to patients' self-care in each care type and identify the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with each care type.Design: Secondary analysis of a multicentre, cross-sectional study.Methods: Patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled from outpatient clinics and community settings. The Dyadic Symptom Management Type Scale was used to categorize dyads by type. Self-care, self-efficacy, comorbidities and cognitive impairment were measured in patients, whereas caregiver contributions to patient self-care, self-efficacy, caregiver burden and hours of caregiving were measured in caregivers. Sociodemographic characteristics perceived social support and mutuality were measured in both patients and caregivers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.Results: A sample of 541 patient-caregiver dyads was examined. The most frequent dyadic care type was the collaborative-oriented (63%). In the patient-oriented type, patients scored higher on self-care compared with caregivers; in the caregiver-oriented and collaborative types, caregivers scored higher than patients supporting the typology. The patient-oriented type was associated with younger, healthier male patients with better cognitive status, who scored higher for mutuality and whose caregivers scored lower for burden. The caregiver-oriented type was associated with older, less educated patients, with caregivers experiencing higher burden and unemployment.The collaborative type was associated with sicker patients, with the caregiver more probably to be female and employed, with higher perceived social support, mutuality and burden. The incongruent dyadic care type was associated with lower caregiver mutuality.Impact: In the context of multiple chronic conditions, clinicians should consider targeting any educational interventions aimed at improving patient self-care and caregiver contributions to self-care by dyadic care types.

Background: Infants, young children, and their mothers are vulnerable in humanitarian emergencies. The health benefits of optimal breastfeeding practices in emergency settings have been demonstrated by many researchers. Infant and Young Children Feeding in Emergency guidelines illustrate a series of interventions to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding, but unfortunately, these recommendations are still scarcely applied. Research Aims: (1) To review the literature describing the effectiveness of breastfeeding protection, promotion, and support interventions in humanitarian emergency contexts; (2) to describe the influence of interventions on breastfeeding initiation, exclusivity, and duration; and (3) to evaluate relevant mother and infant/child outcomes available in the literature. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Psychology Database, JSTOR, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Ovid were searched for articles that examined breastfeeding protection, promotion, or support interventions and the resulting outcomes without any time limits ( N = 10). Articles that did not include the interventions and related outcomes were excluded ( n = 1,391). Results: Improved breastfeeding outcomes were reported in four (40%) papers, and three (30%) highlighted a behavioral change in infant and young child feeding practices following the implementation of the interventions. Increased knowledge about appropriate infant and young child feeding practices among mothers and humanitarian/health staff was reported in eight (80%) papers. However, outcomes were sometimes only generically reported, and some of the included papers had a low strength of evidence. Conclusion: In the literature, there is a great dearth of studies evaluating the influence of interventions aimed at improving breastfeeding in emergency settings. More evidence is urgently needed to encourage and implement optimal breastfeeding practices.