COVID‐19 restrictions such as lockdowns or quarantines may increase the risk for social isolation and perceived loneliness. The mechanisms can be modeled by Cacioppo's Evolutionary Theory of Loneliness (ETL), which predicts that a lack of perceived social connectedness may lead, in the long‐term, to mental and physical health consequences. However, the association between COVID‐19 pandemic distress, mental health, and loneliness is not sufficiently understood. The present longitudinal study examined the relationship between distress and depression, and the mediating effects of anxiety and loneliness in a German rehabilitation sample ( N = 403) at two timepoints (≤6 weeks pre‐rehabilitation; ≥12 weeks post‐rehabilitation; mean time between T1 and T2 was 52 days). Change scores between T1 and T2 were examined for the variables COVID‐19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI), anxiety, loneliness, and depression. The results of the serial mediation analysis indicated that anxiety and loneliness were able to explain the relationship between distress and depression with 42% of variance in depression accounted for. Findings extend research on the relationship between COVID‐19 and mental health by considering anxiety and loneliness as sustaining factors of depressive symptoms, thus, successfully applying the ETL. Results stress the necessity to consider anxiety and loneliness in the treatment or prevention of depression.

(1) Background: Obstetric work requires good communication, which can be trained through interventions targeting healthcare providers and pregnant women/patients. This systematic review aims to aggregate the current state of research on communication interventions in obstetrics. (2) Methods: Using the PICOS scheme, we searched for studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English or German between 2000 and 2020. Out of 7018 results, 71 studies were included and evaluated in this synthesis using the Oxford Level of Evidence Scale. (3) Results: The 63 studies that included a communication component revealed a positive effect on different proximal outcomes (i.e., communication skills). Three studies revealed a beneficial effect of communication trainings on distal performance indicators (i.e., patient safety), but only to a limited extent. Most studies simultaneously examined different groups, however, those addressing healthcare providers were more common than those with students (61 vs. 12). Only nine studies targeted expectant mothers. Overall, the evidence level of studies was low (only 11 RCTs), with 24 studies with an evidence level I-II, 35 with level III, and 10 with level IV. (4) Conclusions: Communication trainings should be more frequently applied to improve communication of staff, students, and pregnant women and their partners, thereby improving patient safety.

Background: Adherence to internet-delivered interventions targeting mental health such as online psychotherapeutic aftercare is important for the intervention’s impact. High dropout rates limit the impact and generalizability of findings. Baseline differences may be putting patients at risk for dropping out, making comparisons between online with face-to-face (F2F) therapy and care as usual (CAU) necessary to examine. Objective: This study investigated adherence to online, F2F, and CAU interventions as well as study dropout among these groups and the subjective evaluation of the therapeutic relationship. Sociodemographic, social-cognitive, and health-related variables were considered. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 6023 patients were recruited, and 300 completed the baseline measures (T1), 144 completed T2 (retention 44%-52%), and 95 completed T3 (retention 24%-36%). Sociodemographic variables (eg, age, gender, marital status, educational level), social-cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy, social support), health-related variables (eg, depressiveness), and expectation towards the treatment for patients assigned to online or F2F were measured at T1. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding dropout rates (χ21=0.02-1.06, P≥.30). Regarding adherence to the treatment condition, the online group outperformed the F2F and CAU conditions (P≤.01), indicating that patients randomized into the F2F and CAU control groups were much more likely to show nonadherent behavior in comparison with the online therapy groups. Within study groups, gender differences were significant only in the CAU group at T2, with women being more likely to drop out. At T3, age and marital status were also only significant in the CAU group. Patients in the online therapy group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment than patients in the F2F group (P=.02; Eta²=.09). Relationship satisfaction and success satisfaction were equally high (P>.30; Eta²=.02). Combining all study groups, patients who reported lower depressiveness scores at T1 (T2: odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87; T3: OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.92) were more likely to be retained, and patients who had higher self-efficacy (T2: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.89; T3: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85) were more likely to drop out at T2 and T3. Additionally, at T3, the lower social support that patients reported was related to a higher likelihood of remaining in the study (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). Comparing the 3 intervention groups, positive expectation was significantly related with questionnaire completion at T2 and T3 after controlling for other variables (T2: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.50; T3: OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.51). Conclusions: While online interventions have many advantages over F2F variants such as saving time and effort to commute to F2F therapy, they also create difficulties for therapists and hinder their ability to adequately react to patients’ challenges. Accordingly, patient characteristics that might put them at risk for dropping out or not adhering to the treatment plan should be considered in future research and practice. Online aftercare, as described in this research, should be provided more often to medical rehabilitation patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04989842; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04989842

Background: Hand hygiene is crucial to avoid healthcare‐associated infections and the transmission of COVID‐19. Although the WHO has issued global hand hygiene recommendations for healthcare, adherence remains challenging. Considering social‐cognitive theories such as the health action process approach (HAPA) can help to improve healthcare workers’ adherence. This study aimed to observe adherence and to assess determinants in obstetric hospitals during and after the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: In all, 267 observations of behaviour were conducted in two German obstetric university hospitals over three time periods ( pre‐COVID‐19 pandemic , heightened awareness , and strict precautions ). In addition, 115 healthcare workers answered questionnaires regarding social‐cognitive determinants of hand hygiene behaviour. Multiple regression and multiple mediation analyses were used to analyse associations. Results: Adherence to hand hygiene recommendations increased from 47 per cent pre‐COVID‐19 pandemic to 95 per cent just before lockdown while simple measures against the pandemic were taken. Self‐efficacy was associated with the intention to sanitise hands (β = .397, p < .001). Coping self‐efficacy mediated the association of intention with hand hygiene adherence. Conclusions: Obstetric healthcare workers seem to adapt their hand hygiene behaviour to prevent infections facing the global COVID‐19 pandemic. To further improve interventions, social‐cognitive determinants should be considered, especially intention and (coping) self‐efficacy.

Patient safety is an important objective in health care. Preventable adverse events (pAEs) as the counterpart to patient safety are harmful incidents that fell behind health care standards and have led to temporary or permanent harm or death. As safe communication and mutual understanding are of crucial importance for providing a high quality of care under everyday conditions, we aimed to identify barriers and facilitators that impact safe communication in obstetrics from the subjective perspective of health care workers. A qualitative study with 20 semi-structured interviews at two university hospitals in Germany was conducted to explore everyday perceptions from a subjective perspective (subjective theories). Physicians, midwives, and nurses in a wide span of professional experience and positions were enrolled. We identified a structural area of conflict at the professional interface between midwives and physicians. Mandatory interprofessional meetings, acceptance of subjective mistakes, mutual understanding, and debriefings of conflict situations are reported to improve collaboration. Additionally, emergency trainings, trainings in precise communication, and handovers are proposed to reduce risks for pAEs. Furthermore, the participants reported time-constraints and understaffing as a huge burden that hinders safe communication. Concluding, safety culture and organizational management are closely entwined and strategies should address various levels of which communication trainings are promising.

Background: Because the clinical patterns and symptoms that persist after a COVID-19 infection are diverse, a diagnosis of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is difficult to implement. The current research project therefore aims to evaluate the feasibility and the practicability of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral treatment program consisting of a low-threshold online screening and holistic assessment for PACS. Furthermore, it aims to evaluate digital interventions and the use of so-called personal guides that may help to facilitate the recovery of PACS.Methods: This German study consists of a low-threshold online screening for PACS where positively screened participants will be supported throughout by personal pilots. The personal pilots are aimed at empowering patients and helping them to navigate through the study and different treatment options. Patients will then be randomly assigned either to an intervention group (IG) or an active control group (ACG). The IG will receive a comprehensive assessment of physiological and psychological functioning to inform future treatment. The ACG does not receive the assessment but both groups will receive a treatment consisting of an individual digital treatment program (digital intervention platform and an intervention via a chatbot). This digital intervention is based on the needs identified during the assessment for participants in the IG. Compared to that, the ACG will receive a more common digital treatment program aiming to reduce PACS symptoms. Importantly, a third comparison group (CompG) will be recruited that does not receive any treatment. A propensity score matching will take place, ensuring comparability between the participants. Primary endpoints of the study are symptom reduction and return to work. Secondary outcomes comprise, for example, social participation and activities in daily life. Furthermore, the feasibility and applicability of the online screening tool, the holistic assessment, digital trainings, and personal pilots will be evaluated.Discussion: This is one of the first large-scale studies to improve the diagnosis and the care of patients with PACS by means of empowerment. It is to be evaluated whether the methods utilized can be used for the German and international population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05238415; date of registration: February 14, 2022