Background:
Adolescence is an important stage of psychological development, and the psychological and mental problems of many adults are affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. The aim of this study was ...to understand the psychological status of this group during the epidemic, and to determine the risk factors leading to psychological stress, as well as protective factors.
Methods:
An online survey was run on April 2, 2020. The participants were 254 adolescents aged 13–16 years from a junior high school in Jiangsu, China. The results were compared with the pre-epidemic data, which came from the psychological status survey routinely carried out by the school. Mental health variables were assessed via the Mental Health Test that included one validity subscale and eight content subscales.
Results:
The number of adolescents with poor mental health increased significantly from 12.3 to 24.2%. There was significant increase in learning anxiety (33.7 vs. 56.4%), sensitivity tendency (19.8 vs. 46%), somatic anxiety (13.9 vs. 40.7%) and phobia tendency (4.4 vs. 10.1%). During the epidemic, there were significant differences between adolescents with normal and poor mental health in family structure, personality, relationship with siblings, daily exercise time, and risk of family members coming in contact with COVID-19. Living in stem family, no siblings, and risk of contracting COVID-19 from family members were significant risk factors for teenagers with poor mental health. Risk of contracting COVID-19 from family members was the most influential risk factor for learning anxiety, self-blaming tendency, sensitivity tendency, and somatic anxiety. Exercising for ≥1 h per day was a significant protective factor for poor mental health.
Conclusions:
During the COVID-19 epidemic, adolescents aged 13–16 years have had psychosocial problems, especially learning anxiety, sensitivity tendency, somatic anxiety, and phobia tendency, as well as risk factors for developing them. Our study provides insights for potential interventions.
The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework is an holistic, settings-based approach to promoting health and educational attainment in school. The effectiveness of ...this approach has not been previously rigorously reviewed.
To assess the effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework in improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement.
We searched the following electronic databases in January 2011 and again in March and April 2013: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Campbell Library, ASSIA, BiblioMap, CAB Abstracts, IBSS, Social Science Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI, Global Health Database, SIGLE, Australian Education Index, British Education Index, Education Resources Information Centre, Database of Education Research, Dissertation Express, Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current controlled trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched relevant websites, handsearched reference lists, and used citation tracking to identify other relevant articles.
We included cluster-randomised controlled trials where randomisation took place at the level of school, district or other geographical area. Participants were children and young people aged four to 18 years, attending schools or colleges. In this review, we define HPS interventions as comprising the following three elements: input to the curriculum; changes to the school's ethos or environment or both; and engagement with families or communities, or both. We compared this intervention against schools that implemented either no intervention or continued with their usual practice, or any programme that included just one or two of the above mentioned HPS elements.
At least two review authors identified relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the trials. We grouped different types of interventions according to the health topic targeted or the approach used, or both. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to provide a summary of results across studies.
We included 67 eligible cluster trials, randomising 1443 schools or districts. This is made up of 1345 schools and 98 districts. The studies tackled a range of health issues: physical activity (4), nutrition (12), physical activity and nutrition combined (18), bullying (7), tobacco (5), alcohol (2), sexual health (2), violence (2), mental health (2), hand-washing (2), multiple risk behaviours (7), cycle-helmet use (1), eating disorders (1), sun protection (1), and oral health (1). The quality of evidence overall was low to moderate as determined by the GRADE approach. 'Risk of bias' assessments identified methodological limitations, including heavy reliance on self-reported data and high attrition rates for some studies. In addition, there was a lack of long-term follow-up data for most studies.We found positive effects for some interventions for: body mass index (BMI), physical activity, physical fitness, fruit and vegetable intake, tobacco use, and being bullied. Intervention effects were generally small but have the potential to produce public health benefits at the population level. We found little evidence of effectiveness for standardised body mass index (zBMI) and no evidence of effectiveness for fat intake, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, violence and bullying others; however, only a small number of studies focused on these latter outcomes. It was not possible to meta-analyse data on other health outcomes due to lack of data. Few studies provided details on adverse events or outcomes related to the interventions. In addition, few studies included any academic, attendance or school-related outcomes. We therefore cannot draw any clear conclusions as to the effectiveness of this approach for improving academic achievement.
The results of this review provide evidence for the effectiveness of some interventions based on the HPS framework for improving certain health outcomes but not others. More well-designed research is required to establish the effectiveness of this approach for other health topics and academic achievement.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several ...studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.
To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.
In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.
We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.
Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.
We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).
Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.
Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life ...circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.
To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).
We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).
For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention, ...they are hyperactive and impulsive.Methylphenidate is the drug most often prescribed to treat children and adolescents with ADHD but, despite its widespread use, this is the first comprehensive systematic review of its benefits and harms.
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.
In February 2015 we searched six databases (CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citations Index), and two trials registers. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of relevant reviews and included trials. We contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture methylphenidate to request published and unpublished data.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. At least 75% of participants needed to have an intellectual quotient of at least 70 (i.e. normal intellectual functioning). Outcomes assessed included ADHD symptoms, serious adverse events, non-serious adverse events, general behaviour and quality of life.
Seventeen review authors participated in data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard methodological procedures expected within Cochrane. Data from parallel-group trials and first period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses; separate analyses were undertaken using post-cross-over data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for high risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, heterogeneity and publication bias.
The studies.We included 38 parallel-group trials (5111 participants randomised) and 147 cross-over trials (7134 participants randomised). Participants included individuals of both sexes, at a boys-to-girls ratio of 5:1, and participants' ages ranged from 3 to 18 years across most studies (in two studies ages ranged from 3 to 21 years). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. Most participants were from high-income countries.The duration of methylphenidate treatment ranged from 1 to 425 days, with an average duration of 75 days. Methylphenidate was compared to placebo (175 trials) or no intervention (10 trials). Risk of Bias.All 185 trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Primary outcomes. Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.64; 19 trials, 1698 participants; very low-quality evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -9.6 points (95% CI -13.75 to -6.38) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points; DuPaul 1991a). A change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS is considered clinically to represent the minimal relevant difference. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious (e.g. life threatening) adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.22; 9 trials, 1532 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.02 to 33.2).
Among those prescribed methylphenidate, 526 per 1000 (range 448 to 615) experienced non-serious adverse events, compared with 408 per 1000 in the control group. This equates to a 29% increase in the overall risk of any non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; 21 trials, 3132 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.29 (CI 1.06 to 1.56). The most common non-serious adverse events were sleep problems and decreased appetite. Children in the methylphenidate group were at 60% greater risk for trouble sleeping/sleep problems (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 13 trials, 2416 participants), and 266% greater risk for decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23; 16 trials, 2962 participants) than children in the control group.Teacher-rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.71; 5 trials, 668 participants; very low-quality evidence).A change of seven points on the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ; range 0 to 100 points; Landgraf 1998) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a MD of 8.0 points (95% CI 5.49 to 10.46) on the CHQ, which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent-reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80; 3 trials, 514 participants; very low-quality evidence).
The results of meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate may improve teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, teacher-reported general behaviour, and parent-reported quality of life among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. However, the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects. Within the short follow-up periods typical of the included trials, there is some evidence that methylphenidate is associated with increased risk of non-serious adverse events, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite, but no evidence that it increases risk of serious adverse events.Better designed trials are needed to assess the benefits of methylphenidate. Given the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the particular difficulties for blinding of participants and outcome assessors point to the advantage of large, 'nocebo tablet' controlled trials. These use a placebo-like substance that causes adverse events in the control arm that are comparable to those associated with methylphenidate. However, for ethical reasons, such trials should first be conducted with adults, who can give their informed consent.Future trials should publish depersonalised individual participant data and report all outcomes, including adverse events. This will enable researchers conducting systematic reviews to assess differences between intervention effects according to age, sex, comorbidity, type of ADHD and dose. Finally, the findings highlight the urgent need for large RCTs of non-pharmacological treatments.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional organisations recommend ...screening all women for IPV rather than asking only women with symptoms (case-finding). Here, we examine the evidence for whether screening benefits women and has no deleterious effects.
To assess the effectiveness of screening for IPV conducted within healthcare settings on identification, referral, re-exposure to violence, and health outcomes for women, and to determine if screening causes any harm.
On 17 February 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, six other databases, and two trial registers. We also searched the reference lists of included articles and the websites of relevant organisations.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of IPV screening where healthcare professionals either directly screened women face-to-face or were informed of the results of screening questionnaires, as compared with usual care (which could include screening that did not involve a healthcare professional).
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standardised estimation of the odds ratio (OR). For continuous data, either a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated. All are presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
We included 13 trials that recruited 14,959 women from diverse healthcare settings (antenatal clinics, women's health clinics, emergency departments, primary care) predominantly located in high-income countries and urban settings. The majority of studies minimised selection bias; performance bias was the greatest threat to validity. The overall quality of the body of evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, and imprecision.We excluded five of 13 studies from the primary analysis as they either did not report identification data, or the way in which they did was not consistent with clinical identification by healthcare providers. In the remaining eight studies (n = 10,074), screening increased clinical identification of victims/survivors (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.87, moderate quality evidence).Subgroup analyses suggested increases in identification in antenatal care (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.82 to 11.27, two studies, n = 663, moderate quality evidence); maternal health services (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.87, one study, n = 829, moderate quality evidence); and emergency departments (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.03 to 7.19, three studies, n = 2608, moderate quality evidence); but not in hospital-based primary care (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.94, one study, n = 293, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies (n = 1298) measured referrals to domestic violence support services following clinical identification. We detected no evidence of an effect on referrals (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.64 to 7.86, low quality evidence).Four of 13 studies (n = 2765) investigated prevalence (excluded from main analysis as rates were not clinically recorded); detection of IPV did not differ between face-to-face screening and computer/written-based assessment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.36, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies measured women's experience of violence (three to 18 months after screening) and found no evidence that screening decreased IPV.Only one study reported on women's health with no differences observable at 18 months.Although no study reported adverse effects from screening interventions, harm outcomes were only measured immediately afterwards and only one study reported outcomes at three months.There was insufficient evidence on which to judge whether screening increases uptake of specialist services, and no studies included an economic evaluation.
The evidence shows that screening increases the identification of women experiencing IPV in healthcare settings. Overall, however, rates were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of IPV in women seeking healthcare. Pregnant women in antenatal settings may be more likely to disclose IPV when screened, however, rigorous research is needed to confirm this. There was no evidence of an effect for other outcomes (referral, re-exposure to violence, health measures, lack of harm arising from screening). Thus, while screening increases identification, there is insufficient evidence to justify screening in healthcare settings. Furthermore, there remains a need for studies comparing universal screening to case-finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing in order to inform IPV identification policies in healthcare settings.
Introduction
Background :The profile of “frequent visitors” at the psychiatric emergencies (PE) has not been sufficiently investigated in Greece.
Objectives
In this study we aimed to investigate the ...prevalence and relevant parameters of frequent PE visits in a Greek University Psychiatric Hospital for the year 2017.
Methods
In a retrospective study, we analyzed data of patients who presented in the PE of Eginition University Hospital in Athens during 2017. Frequent visitors were grouped under this category if they had at least five visits per year. Clinical and sociodemographic data of the patients were further related to number of visits.
Results
84 patients were characterized as frequent visitors carrying out 9.8% of the total number of visits. 50% were women and 70% of them were living with family members. Anxiety, depressive and psychotic symptoms were the most frequent major complaints at the time of their visit, whereas psychosocial problems were associated with increased number of visits. Moreover, in terms of the underlying diagnosis substance use disorders significantly related to more frequent visits
Conclusions
Psychosocial problems and the diagnosis of substance use disorders significantly correlated to the number of visits at the PE of a university hospital setting in Greece for 2017.
Disclosure
No significant relationships.
After the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, upgraded quarantine and physical distancing strategy, strict infection measures, and government's strict lockdown have been ...abided to confront the spread of the COVID-19 in Thailand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population are now arising. Yet, information on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population have not been comprehensively reported in Thailand. As such, we conduct a cross-sectional study, a national online survey to describe the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand.
This study is a repeated cross-sectional study, an open online voluntary national-based survey during the wave I (April 21-May 4, 2020) follow-up in the wave II (August 3-16, 2020), wave III (November 15-28, 2020), and a 1-year follow-up survey (wave IV: April 21-May 4, 2021) in Thailand. Health care workers at the hospitals and the adult general population will be invited to participate in the online survey via the SurveyMonkey that limits one-time participation per unique internet protocol address. The target sample size of at least 1182 health care workers and 1310 general populations will be required to complete the online survey for each wave of the survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and a set of measurement tools for mental and psychosocial problems for each subcohort including depression, anxiety, stress, resilient copings, neuroticism, perceived social support, wellbeing, somatic symptoms, insomnia, burnout (for healthcare workers), and public stigma toward COVID-19 infection (for the general population) will be collected. For all estimates of prevalence, we will weigh data for all wave analyses under the complex design of the survey. Subgroup analyses stratified by key characteristics will also be done to analyze the proportion differences. For the repeated cross-sectional survey, we will combine the data from the wave I to wave IV survey to analyze changes in the mental health status. We will perform multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to explore associations with individual-level and region-level/hospital-level predictors. We also plan to perform an ancillary systematic review and meta-analysis by incorporating data from our findings to all available evidence.
Our findings will provide information on the short- and long-term mental health status as well as the psychosocial responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in a national sample of health care workers and the general population in Thailand.
This prospective, nationally based, a repeated cross-sectional study will describe the mental health status and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health and Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University. The findings will be disseminated through public, scientific, and professional meetings, and publications in peer-reviewed journals.
TCTR20200425001.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes any violence (physical, sexual or psychological/emotional) by a current or former partner. This review reflects the current understanding of IPV as a ...profoundly gendered issue, perpetrated most often by men against women. IPV may result in substantial physical and mental health impacts for survivors. Women affected by IPV are more likely to have contact with healthcare providers (HCPs) (e.g. nurses, doctors, midwives), even though women often do not disclose the violence. Training HCPs on IPV, including how to respond to survivors of IPV, is an important intervention to improve HCPs' knowledge, attitudes and practice, and subsequently the care and health outcomes for IPV survivors.
To assess the effectiveness of training programmes that seek to improve HCPs' identification of and response to IPV against women, compared to no intervention, wait-list, placebo or training as usual.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases up to June 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registries and relevant websites. In addition, we contacted primary authors of included studies to ask if they knew of any relevant studies not identified in the search. We evaluated the reference lists of all included studies and systematic reviews for inclusion. We applied no restrictions by search dates or language.
All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing IPV training or educational programmes for HCPs compared with no training, wait-list, training as usual, placebo, or a sub-component of the intervention.
We used standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed risks of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the effects of IPV training in a meta-analysis. Other analyses were synthesised in a narrative manner. We assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE approach.
We included 19 trials involving 1662 participants. Three-quarters of all studies were conducted in the USA, with single studies from Australia, Iran, Mexico, Turkey and the Netherlands. Twelve trials compared IPV training versus no training, and seven trials compared the effects of IPV training to training as usual or a sub-component of the intervention in the comparison group, or both. Study participants included 618 medical staff/students, 460 nurses/students, 348 dentists/students, 161 counsellors or psychologists/students, 70 midwives and 5 social workers. Studies were heterogeneous and varied across training content delivered, pedagogy and time to follow-up (immediately post training to 24 months). The risk of bias assessment highlighted unclear reporting across many areas of bias. The GRADE assessment of the studies found that the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes was low to very low, with studies often reporting on perceived or self-reported outcomes rather than actual HCPs' practices or outcomes for women. Eleven of the 19 included studies received some form of research grant funding to complete the research. Within 12 months post-intervention, the evidence suggests that compared to no intervention, wait-list or placebo, IPV training: · may improve HCPs' attitudes towards IPV survivors (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.03; 8 studies, 641 participants; low-certainty evidence); · may have a large effect on HCPs' self-perceived readiness to respond to IPV survivors, although the evidence was uncertain (SMD 2.44, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.37; 6 studies, 487 participants; very low-certainty evidence); · may have a large effect on HCPs' knowledge of IPV, although the evidence was uncertain (SMD 6.56, 95% CI 2.49 to 10.63; 3 studies, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence); · may make little to no difference to HCPs' referral practices of women to support agencies, although this is based on only one study (with 49 clinics) assessed to be very low certainty; · has an uncertain effect on HCPs' response behaviours (based on two studies of very low certainty), with one trial (with 27 participants) reporting that trained HCPs were more likely to successfully provide advice on safety planning during their interactions with standardised patients, and the other study (with 49 clinics) reporting no clear impact on safety planning practices; · may improve identification of IPV at six months post-training (RR 4.54, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.09) as in one study (with 54 participants), although three studies (with 48 participants) reported little to no effects of training on identification or documentation of IPV, or both. No studies assessed the impact of training HCPs on the mental health of women survivors of IPV compared to no intervention, wait-list or placebo. When IPV training was compared to training as usual or a sub-component of the intervention, or both, no clear effects were seen on HCPs' attitudes/beliefs, safety planning, and referral to services or mental health outcomes for women. Inconsistent results were seen for HCPs' readiness to respond (improvements in two out of three studies) and HCPs' IPV knowledge (improved in two out of four studies). One study found that IPV training improved HCPs' validation responses. No adverse IPV-related events were reported in any of the studies identified in this review.
Overall, IPV training for HCPs may be effective for outcomes that are precursors to behaviour change. There is some, albeit weak evidence that IPV training may improve HCPs' attitudes towards IPV. Training may also improve IPV knowledge and HCPs' self-perceived readiness to respond to those affected by IPV, although we are not certain about this evidence. Although supportive evidence is weak and inconsistent, training may improve HCPs' actual responses, including the use of safety planning, identification and documentation of IPV in women's case histories. The sustained effect of training on these outcomes beyond 12 months is undetermined. Our confidence in these findings is reduced by the substantial level of heterogeneity across studies and the unclear risk of bias around randomisation and blinding of participants, as well as high risk of bias from attrition in many studies. Further research is needed that overcomes these limitations, as well as assesses the impacts of IPV training on HCPs' behavioral outcomes and the well-being of women survivors of IPV.
PDF
