Effects of the contact isolation application on anxiety and depression levels of the patients

Abstract

This study was aimed to assess the effects of contact isolation application on anxiety and depression levels of the patients, the effects of certain sociodemographics and patient characteristics on anxiety and depression levels, and the thoughts of the isolated patients about contact isolation. This non-randomized quasi-experimental study was carried out with 60 isolated and 57 non-isolated patients with hospital infection. The data were acquired from Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A (anxiety) and HADS-D (depression)) and patient information form. There was no statistically significant difference between the anxiety and depression levels of the isolated and non-isolated patients. In the isolated patients, the depression points were higher in patients who were, women, received primary education and had lower income levels. Of the patients, 86.4% of them told that they were happy to be in the isolation room. Contact isolation application did not affect anxiety and depression levels of the patients. However, personal attributes increased the development of depression. In contact isolated patients, personal attributes should be taken into consideration in nursing care planning to prevent development of depression.

Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis

“…A total of 3879 papers were retrieved from the three databases; of which, 38 were assessed for eligibility by reading the full text. Of these, 13 studies provided data suitable for the calculation of risk ratio (RR), 5 giving psychological outcomes17–21 and 12 non-psychological19 22–32; and 8 provided data for the calculation of standardised mean differences (SMD), 6 giving psychological outcomes21 30 33–36 and 2 non-psychological 29 37. Further six studies did not provide raw data but are included in the results; three each giving psychological outcomes38–40 and non-psychological outcomes 17 41 42.…”

“…Further six studies did not provide raw data but are included in the results; three each giving psychological outcomes38–40 and non-psychological outcomes 17 41 42. Meta-analyses were possible on two outcomes: anxiety and depression from eight studies by using standardised mean difference 19–21 30 33–36. Where only RR data were given20 21 conversion to standardised mean difference was undertaken using the Campbell Collaboration calculator (https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html).…”

“…Overall, although these studies have limited generalisability, there did not appear to be significant cause for concern regarding bias within the limitations inherent in these study designs. Most studies used established or validated tools17–21 23–25 27 29 30 33–37 or clinical outcomes 22 26 28 31 32…”

“…For the eight studies reporting data on anxiety, the pooled SMD was 1.45 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.34); although within this there was significant heterogeneity (Q=168.11, df=7, p<0.0001; I 2 =95.84%). This was primarily caused by two studies30 34 that showed lower levels of anxiety than the remaining studies. For depression, the SMD was 1.28 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.09); again with significant heterogeneity (Q=154.5, df=7, p<0.0001; I 2 =95.47%), in this case the studies falling into two categories, those with lower30 34 35 and with higher depression scores among those isolated 19 20 33 36.…”

Mental health effects of infection containment strategies: quarantine and isolation—a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Women were at higher risk for depression [18], PTSD [16], and general mental health impairments [8] (1 study each), while men were found to be at higher risk for (non-psychotic) psychological disorder of any kind [19] and at higher risk for alcohol use disorder [20] (1 study each).…”