Prevalence of and risk factors associated with sleep disturbances among HPCD exposed to COVID-19 in China

Yang, Gaoyi; Li, Chunlin; Zhu, Xiao; Yan, Jin; Liu, Jia

doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2020.12.034

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Case-control design, N = 1036, Female = 72.9%, Age = 20-50 years. ISI 8 222 Yang et al, 2021 [ 264 ] China No Healthcare workers [Frontline = 100%, Nurses = 84.4%] Cross-sectional design, N = 1036, Female = 72.9%, Age = 20-50 years. ISI 8 223 Yifan et al, 2020 [ 265 ] China Yes Healthcare workers [Frontline = 100%, Nurses = 100%] Cross-sectional design, N = 140, Female = 84.3%, Age = 29.4 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Jahrami

Alhaj

Humood

et al. 2022

Sleep Medicine Reviews

237

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the extent of sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleven databases and six preprint repositories were searched for the period from November 1, 2019, to July 15, 2021. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to develop random-effect meta-analyses. Two hundred and fifty studies comprising 493,475 participants from 49 countries were included. During COVID-19, the estimated global prevalence of sleep disturbances was 40.49% [37.56; 43.48%]. Bayesian meta-analysis revealed an odds of 0.68 [0.59; 0.77] which translates to a rate of approximately 41%. This provides reassurance that the estimated rate using classical meta-analysis is robust. Six major populations were identified; the estimated prevalence of sleep problem was 52.39% [41.69; 62.88%] among patients infected with COVID-19, 45.96% [36.90; 55.30%] among children and adolescents, 42.47% [37.95; 47.12%] among healthcare workers, 41.50% [32.98; 50.56%] among special populations with healthcare needs, 41.16% [28.76; 54.79%] among university students, and 36.73% [32.32; 41.38%] among the general population. Sleep disturbances were higher during lockdown compared to no lockdown, 42.49% versus 37.97%. Four in every ten individuals reported a sleep problem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients infected with the disease, children, and adolescents appeared to be the most affected groups.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Jahrami

Alhaj

Humood

et al. 2022

Sleep Medicine Reviews

237

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But participants home quarantined due to travel history to a high risk area were significantly more likely to report sleep disturbance and anxiety. Nationwide surveys conducted in the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic found higher prevalence of sleep problems among isolated populations ( Wang et al, 2020 , Yang et al, 2021 ) . Although quarantines were frequently effective in protecting the public from the spread of illness, we should weigh carefully the potential benefits of mandatory mass quarantine against the possible psychological costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sleep disturbance and anxiety symptom among public during the second wave of COVID-19 in Beijing: A web-based cross-sectional survey

Liu

Wang

Sun

et al. 2022

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since January 23, 2020, many frontline healthcare providers who had been dispatched to the COVID-19 epicenter (HPDE) were redeployed to Wuhan and Hubei province, where the medical system was on edge because of the severe COVID-19 epidemic (Yang et al, 2021); however, research about distress among HPDE is still rarely reported. In addition, HPDE had to work in an unfamiliar environment far away from their families and original clinical facilities, which could increase their distress levels compared with those who worked in their original medical facilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distress, Appraisal, and Coping Among the Frontline Healthcare Provider Redeployed to the Epicenter in China During COVID-19 Pandemic

Han

Deng

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The central issue of this research is to evaluate the extent of cognitive appraisal and coping processes within the pandemic encounter and determines their influence on frontline healthcare providers who had been dispatched to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epicenter (HPDE) distress symptoms.Materials and methods: An electronic survey of the HPDE and frontline healthcare providers who worked in their original medical facility (HPOF) was conducted from March 1 to 15, 2020. Two variables, appraisal (measured with an 18-item questionnaire) and coping (measured The Brief Cope questionnaire), were used in the analysis to explain distress symptoms (Impact of Event Scale-Revised).Results: A total of 723 eligible respondents completed the survey with a response rate of 57.3% (351 HPDE and 372 HPOF). The mean IES-R scores of HPDE respondents were 26.47 ± 11.7. Of HPDE respondents, 246 (70.09%) reported distress symptoms (score 9–88). The scores of intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal for HPDE were 10.28 ± 4.7, 8.97 ± 4.3, and 7.20 ± 3.2, respectively. The respondents had higher scores in overall distress and three subscales than HPOF. Appraisal and coping variables explained 77% of the distress variance. Five appraisal variables (health of self, health of family/others, virus spread, vulnerability or loss of control, and general health) were positively associated with distress symptoms. Four coping variables (active coping, positive reframing, self-distraction, and behavioral disengagement) were negatively associated with distress level, whereas self-blame was positively associated with distress symptoms. Regarding the appraisal, the scores of HPDE were significantly higher than HPOF (all p-values < 0.05), whereas being isolated was not significantly different between HDPE nurses and HPOF nurses. HPDE was significantly more likely to use humor, emotional support, instrumental support, self-distractions, venting, substance use, denial, behavioral disengagement, and self-blame (P < 0.05), whereas HPOF was significantly more likely to use active coping and acceptance (P < 0.05). HPDE doctors were significantly more likely than nurses to use active coping and acceptance (P < 0.05), whereas HPDE nurses were significantly more likely to use emotional support and use self-blame (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Frontline healthcare providers who had been dispatched to the COVID-19 epicenter respondents had a higher distress level. Therefore, we should provide proactive psychological support based on specific appraisal and coping variables.

show abstract

Prevalence of and risk factors associated with sleep disturbances among HPCD exposed to COVID-19 in China

Cited by 24 publications

References 15 publications

Sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Sleep disturbance and anxiety symptom among public during the second wave of COVID-19 in Beijing: A web-based cross-sectional survey

Distress, Appraisal, and Coping Among the Frontline Healthcare Provider Redeployed to the Epicenter in China During COVID-19 Pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About