Compliance and psychological impact of the quarantine experience during SARS

Reynolds, Donna; Garay, Jason; Deamond, Sherri; Moran, Kathy; Styra, Rima; Devereaux, Sheri; Gold, Wayne L.; McGeer, Allison

doi:10.1037/e508992013-054

Cited by 30 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not clear how this might extend to experiences of loneliness. However, one study conducted during the SARS outbreak did find that loneliness was reported by both healthcare workers and nonhealthcare workers (Reynolds et al, 2008).…”

Section: Loneliness and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from The COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study

Groarke¹,

Berry²,

Graham‐Wisener³

et al. 2020

Preprint

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Loneliness is a significant public health issue. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in lockdown measures limiting social contact. The UK public are worried about the impact of these measures on mental health outcomes. Understanding the prevalence and predictors of loneliness at this time is a priority issue for research. Design: The study employed a cross-sectional online survey design. Method: Baseline data collected between March 23rd and April 24th 2020 from UK adults in the COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study were analysed (N = 1963, 18-87 years, M = 37.11, SD = 12.86, 70% female). Logistic regression analysis was used to look at the influence of sociodemographic, social, health and COVID-19 specific factors on loneliness. Results: The prevalence of loneliness was 27% (530/1963). Risk factors for loneliness were younger age group (OR: 4.67 – 5.31), being separated or divorced (OR: 2.29), meeting clinical criteria for major depression (OR: 1.74), greater emotion regulation difficulties (OR: 1.04), and poor quality sleep due to the COVID-19 crisis (OR: 1.30). Higher levels of social support (OR: 0.92), being married/co-habiting (OR: 0.35) and living with a great number of adults (OR: 0.87) were protective factors. Conclusions: Rates of loneliness during the initial phase of lockdown were high. Risk factors were not specific to the COVID-19 crisis. Findings suggest that supportive interventions to reduce loneliness should prioritise younger people and those with mental health symptoms. Improving emotion regulation and sleep quality may be optimal initial targets to reduce the impact of COVID-19 regulations on mental health outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Loneliness and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from The COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study

Groarke¹,

Berry²,

Graham‐Wisener³

et al. 2020

Preprint

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies from previous outbreaks, such as the SARS epidemic (Reynolds et al, 2008) or the Influenza A virus (Liao et al, 2014), revealed adverse psychological responses. Similar concerns over mental health are emerging with COVID-19, revealing a variety of psychological symptoms in the general population (Cao et al, 2020;S.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 in Portugal: exploring the immediate psychological impact on the general population

Paulino¹,

Dumas-Diniz²,

Brissos³

et al. 2020

Psychology, Health & Medicine

103

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like previous pandemics, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has direct and indirect effects, including in mental health. To evaluate the immediate psychological impact of COVID-19, we conducted an online survey in Portugal (24-27 March 2020), using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). From the 10,529 participants (M = 31.33; SD = 9.73), 83.4% were women, had a mean age of 31.2 years, and 70.9% were active workers. Depression, anxiety, and stress were rated as moderate to severe in 11.7%, 16.9%, and 5.6% of the sample, respectively. Moreover, 49.2% of participants reported a moderate or severe psychological impact of the outbreak. Women, the unemployed, those with lower education, living in rural areas, and with flu-like symptoms or chronic disorders were risk factors. Further research is needed to identify vulnerable groups to better inform and adapt mental health policies and interventions.

show abstract

“…Major concerns during a pandemic include shortage of supply of basic needs, inadequate information/misinformation and the stigma of being (Desclaux et al, 2017;DiGiovanni et al, 2004;Jeong et al, 2016;Reynolds et al, 2008). Several studies studying stigma during a pandemic have shown that discrimination is endorsed, evident by individuals being treated differently: avoidance, withdrawal of social invitations, fear and suspicion, and making critical comments (DiGiovanni et al, 2004;Reynolds et al, 2008). In the current literature, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are known sequelae of pandemics (Brooks et al, 2020;DiGiovanni et al, 2004;Hawryluck et al, 2004;Pan et al, 2005;Pellecchia et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of psychological distress among the public in Oman amid coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a cross-sectional analytical study

Sinawi

Balushi

Al-Mahrouqi

et al. 2020

Psychology, Health & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global, virulent pandemic disease that emerged in December 2019, with both short-and longterm psychological repercussions being inevitable. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of psychological distress, defined by the presence of either depression or anxiety, among the public in Oman during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a web-based, cross-sectional study conducted using governmental and private institutional e-mail systems and social media platforms. Anxiety and depression were assessed using both the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent predictors. There were a total of 1538 participants in this study (75% female). The prevalence of psychological distress was 30%. Being female, having financial instability, being treated for mental illness and self-medication for coping with stress were independent predictors of psychological distress among the study sample (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.69, confidence interval [CI] = 1.24-2.29; OR = 2.05, CI = 1.54-2.74; OR = 5.35, CI = 3.50-8.18; OR = 7.23, CI = 3.06-17.09, respectively). The results from this study will help public health officials in Oman to plan for and mitigate psychological repercussions of the current and future pandemics.

show abstract

Compliance and psychological impact of the quarantine experience during SARS

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from The COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study

Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from The COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study

COVID-19 in Portugal: exploring the immediate psychological impact on the general population

Predictors of psychological distress among the public in Oman amid coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a cross-sectional analytical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About