Background: Since the first cases of the novel coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 were reported in December 2019 in China, the virus has spread in most countries. The aim of the present study was to assess initial data on the mental health burden of the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany and collected complete datasets from 15 704 German residents aged 18 years and over. Besides demographics, generalized anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-2) and psychological distress (DT) were assessed. Furthermore, COVID-19-related fear, trust in governmental actions to face COVID-19 and the subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 were covered. Results: Significantly increased symptoms were highly prevalent in all dimensions: generalized anxiety (44.9%), depression (14.3%), psychological distress (65.2%) and COVID-19-related fear (59%). Females and younger people reported higher mental burden. Trust in governmental actions to face COVID-19 and the subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 are negatively associated with mental health burden. However, the subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 is positively associated with increased COVID-19-related fear. Conclusions: The provision of appropriate psychological interventions for those in need and the provision of transparency and comprehensible information are crucial during the current pandemic.

Objective: This study aimed to assess cancer patients’ psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic by investigating distress (distress-thermometer), health status (EQ-5D-3L), general anxiety (GAD-7), COVID-19-related fear and associated behavioral changes and comparing these to matched healthy controls, using propensity score matching (PSM). Methods: During the first days of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, March 16 to 30, 2020, 150 actually treated cancer patients and 150 matched healthy controls participated in this study. Participants completed an anonymous online survey assessing health status, distress, general anxiety, COVID-19-related fear and behavioral changes (i.e., adherent safety behavior and dysfunctional safety behavior). Results: Cancer patients showed no elevated level of distress, U = 10,657.5, p = 0.428, general anxiety U = 10,015.5, p = 0.099, or COVID-19-related fear compared to healthy controls, U = 10,948, p = 0.680. Both groups showed elevated COVID-19-related fear. Cancer patients reported more adherent safety behavior, such as washing hands more often or avoiding public places, U = 8,285, p < 0.001, d = 0.468. They also reported more dysfunctional safety behavior such as buying larger quantities of basic food, compared to healthy controls U = 9,599, p = 0.029, d = 0.256. Adherent safety behavior could be significantly explained by cancer diagnosis, increased COVID-19-related fear and subjective level of information about COVID-19, R² = 0.215, F(3) = 27.026, p < 0.001. Conclusion: This suggests that cancer patients are more likely to utilize adherent safety behavior. Cancer patients reported comparable levels of distress and anxiety compared to healthy controls. Still, the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with elevated COVID-19-related fear. Therefore, specific interventions are needed to prevent anxiety and improve mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Healthcare professionals (HPs) are the key figures to keep up the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus are one of the most vulnerable groups in this. To this point, the extent of this psychological burden, especially in Europe and Germany, remains unclear. This is the first study investigating German HPs after the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: We performed an online-based cross-sectional study after the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany (10–31 March 2020). In total, 2224 HPs (physicians n = 492, nursing staff n = 1511, paramedics n = 221) and 10 639 non-healthcare professionals (nHPs) were assessed including generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), current health status (EQ-5D-3L), COVID-19-related fear, subjective level of information regarding COVID-19. Results: HPs showed less generalized anxiety, depression and COVID-19-related fear and higher health status and subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 than the nHPs. Within the HP groups, nursing staff were the most psychologically burdened. Subjective levels of information regarding COVID-19 correlated negatively with generalized anxiety levels across all groups. Among HPs, nursing staff showed the highest and paramedics the lowest generalized anxiety levels. Conclusions: In the context of COVID-19, German HPs seem to be less psychological burdened than nHPs, and also less burdened compared with existing international data.

(1) The aim of the study is to assess the psychological burden of individuals with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to matched controls. (2) Over the course of eight weeks, 9 April to 3 June 2020, 253 individuals with diabetes and 253 matched controls, using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed an anonymous survey including demographics, depressive symptoms (PHQ-2), generalized anxiety (GAD-7), COVID-19-related fear, risk perception, and safety behavior. (3) While patients with diabetes expected their risk of infection similar to controls, they reported a higher probability of the occurrence of symptoms, severe course, and dying of COVID-19. Patients with diabetes showed no elevated generalized anxiety or depressive symptoms. However, they reported higher COVID-19-related fear and more adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior compared to controls. (4) From a public health view, it seems encouraging that despite the somatic risk condition, generalized anxiety and depression are not higher in patients with diabetes than in controls. Patients with diabetes report higher COVID-19-related fear, increased risk perception, and behavioral changes. This suggests that individuals with diabetes, as a significant risk group of severe COVID-19, show an adequate perception and functional reaction to the current pandemic.

Background: Governmental restrictions of daily life are key elements in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, but they have also put a strain on people’s mental health. Preventive policies differ all over the world as well as over different periods of time, and depend mostly on current infection rates. In Germany, there were two periods of restraint of varying severity, during which the government used different combinations of containment and mitigation measures to protect risk groups and to lower the number of hospitalizations.Methods: In two online studies, we aimed to determine differences and similarities in COVID-19-related fear, generalized anxiety, depression and distress levels, as well as in the adherence to safety behaviour between the first lockdown in March and April and the second lockdown in November.Results: This study showed continued high psychological burden and even increased levels of depression symptoms, as well as less safety behaviour in the second phase of restrictions.Conclusions: The results hint at a prolonged negative impact on people’s mental health and their safety behaviour despite lesser restrictions in the second lockdown, which may be interpreted as pandemic fatigue and hence strengthens the argument for a low-threshold access to psychological care.

Background: Diabetes is a very common chronic disease that exerts massive physiological and psychological burdens on patients. The digitalization of mental health care has generated effective e-mental health approaches, which offer an indubitable practical value for patient treatment. However, before implementing and optimizing e-mental health tools, their acceptance and underlying barriers and resources should be first determined for developing and establishing effective patient-oriented interventions. Objective: This study aims to assess the acceptance of e-mental health interventions among patients with diabetes and explore its underlying barriers and resources. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany from April 9, 2020, to June 15, 2020, through a web-based survey for which patients were recruited via web-based diabetes channels. The eligibility requirements were adult age (18 years or older), a good command of the German language, internet access, and a diagnosis of diabetes. Acceptance was measured using a modified questionnaire, which was based on the well-established Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and assessed health-related internet use, acceptance of e-mental health interventions, and its barriers and resources. Mental health was measured using validated and established instruments, namely the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and Distress Thermometer. In addition, sociodemographic and medical data regarding diabetes were collected. Results: Of the 340 participants who started the survey, 261 (76.8%) completed it and the final sample comprised 258 participants with complete data sets. The acceptance of e-mental health interventions in patients with diabetes was overall moderate (mean 3.02, SD 1.14). Gender and having a mental disorder had a significant influence on acceptance (P<.001). In an extended UTAUT regression model (UTAUT predictors plus sociodemographics and mental health variables), distress (β=.11; P=.03) as well as the UTAUT predictors performance expectancy (β=.50; P<.001), effort expectancy (β=.15; P=.001), and social influence (β=.28; P<.001) significantly predicted acceptance. The comparison between an extended UTAUT regression model (13 predictors) and the UTAUT-only regression model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence) revealed no significant difference in explained variance (F10,244=1.567; P=.12). Conclusions: This study supports the viability of the UTAUT model and its predictors in assessing the acceptance of e-mental health interventions among patients with diabetes. Three UTAUT predictors reached a notable amount of explained variance of 75% in the acceptance, indicating that it is a very useful and efficient method for measuring e-mental health intervention acceptance in patients with diabetes. Owing to the close link between acceptance and use, acceptance-facilitating interventions focusing on these three UTAUT predictors should be fostered to bring forward the highly needed establishment of effective e-mental health interventions in psychodiabetology.