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.

Unlike men, who are disproportionately affected by severe disease progression and mortality from COVID-19, women may be more affected by the economic, social and psychological consequences of the pandemic. Psychological distress and mental health problems are general risk factors for increases in the use of alcohol and other substances as a dysfunctional coping mechanism. Methods: An analysis was carried out of the female subset (n = 2153) of a population-based, cross-sectional online survey (October–December 2020), covering the “second wave” of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Results: Among women, 23% increased their alcohol use, 28.4% increased their nicotine use and 44% increased their illicit substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty percent reported major depressive symptoms and 23.4% symptoms of generalized anxiety. Generalized anxiety proved to be a significant predictor of increases in alcohol and nicotine use in logistic regression. Discussion: The mental health burden remained high during the second wave of COVID-19 and alcohol, nicotine and other substance use increased. However, the association between mental health and substance use was weak. Psychological distress does not seem to be the main motivator of substance use.

Since introducing the first non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to decelerate the spread of the virus, European governments have highlighted the role of “solidarity”. However, the role and levels of solidarity, especially during the past lockdowns, is uncertain. The present study thus explores the levels, the role, and the distribution of received and demonstrated interpersonal solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pooled cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2020 to March 2021 in Germany, including 19,977 participants. Levels of solidarity between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany were compared, possible predictors were examined, and three clusters were defined to unveil distributional patterns of solidarity reception and/or demonstration. To compare solidarity levels between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany, a dummy-coded lockdown variable was introduced and regressed on the two solidarity items. To identify predictors of received and demonstrated solidarity, two multiple linear regression models were computed, testing several demographic and psychological factors. For further exploratory analyses, clusters of “helpers”, “non-helpers”, and “help-receivers and helpers” were computed based on a k-means cluster analysis. Results revealed a lower level of solidarity during the second lockdown compared with the first one. Demonstrated solidarity was positively predicted by adherent safety behavior to avoid COVID-19 infection and by middle age, and negatively by depression symptoms, male gender, and high age. Received solidarity was positively predicted by higher age, by both adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior in avoidance of COVID-19 infection, and by lower educational level. “Helpers” reported little received solidarity but demonstrated high solidarity, “non-helpers” showed both little demonstrated and received solidarity, and “help-receivers and helpers” showed middle–high received and demonstrated solidarity. The three clusters differed the most regarding the variables of age, adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior, fear of COVID-19, subjective risk perceptions regarding contraction of COVID-19 and the respective consequences, and trust in governmental interventions in response to COVID-19. The decrease in interpersonal solidarity over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as its predictors, should be considered regarding prospective impositions. Furthermore, as depressive symptoms were identified to negatively predict interpersonal solidarity, the adequate provision of mental health services, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, becomes even more important.

Background: The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) is a widely used instrument for measuring eHealth literacy (eHL). However, little is known so far about whether the instrument is valid for the assessment of eHL in persons who are affected by the post–COVID-19 condition. This is particularly important as people with the post–COVID-19 condition are frequently affected by false information from the internet. Objective: The objective of our study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the German Revised eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS) in individuals with the post–COVID-19 condition. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to May 2022. The self-assessment survey consisted of the GR-eHEALS, health status– and internet use–related variables, sociodemographic data, and (post)–COVID-19–related medical data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlational analyses, and tests of measurement invariance were deployed. Results: In total, 330 participants were included in the statistical analyses. CFA revealed that the 2-factor model reached an excellent model fit (comparative fit index=1.00, Tucker–Lewis index=0.99, root mean square error of approximation=0.036, standardized root mean square residual=0.038). Convergent validity was confirmed by significant positive correlations between eHL and knowledge of internet-based health promotion programs, experience in using these programs, and the duration of private internet use. In addition, a significantly negative relationship of eHL with internet anxiety supported convergent validity. Further, significant relationships of eHL with mental health status and internal health locus of control confirmed the criterion validity of the instrument. However, relationships of eHL with physical health status and quality of life could not be confirmed. The 2-factor model was fully measurement invariant regarding gender. Regarding age and educational level, partial measurement invariance was confirmed. The subscales as well as the overall GR-eHEALS reached good-to-excellent reliability (Cronbach α≥.86). Conclusions: The GR-eHEALS is a reliable and largely valid instrument for assessing eHL in individuals with the post–COVID-19 condition. Measurement invariance regarding gender was fully confirmed and allows the interpretation of group differences. Regarding age and educational level, group differences should be interpreted with caution. Given the high likelihood that individuals with the post–COVID-19 condition will be confronted with misinformation on the Internet, eHL is a core competency that is highly relevant in this context, in both research and clinical practice. Therefore, future research should also explore alternative instruments to capture eHL to overcome shortcomings in the validity of the GR-eHEALS.

Background: Psychological impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on individuals with chronic medical conditions remain understudied. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the chronic conditions associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The aim of this study was to define the psychological burden of individuals with CKD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 219 individuals with CKD were recruited from the Nephrology Outpatient Unit at the University Hospital Essen, Germany, and completed anonymous surveys incorporating validated psychological assessment tools for generalized anxiety (GAD-7) and depressive symptoms (PHQ-2), along with self-generated items addressing COVID-19-specific concerns and behavioral changes. These participants were propensity score matched with controls from the general German population. Results: Individuals with CKD exhibited lower levels of generalized anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to the general population. However, they reported significantly greater risk perceptions regarding the likelihood of experiencing symptoms, a severe disease course, and death from COVID-19. COVID-19-related fear and associated behavioral changes were more frequently reported among CKD patients. Adherent and dysfunctional safety behaviors predominated among the CKD cohort. Conclusions: This study underscores psychological challenges faced by individuals with CKD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increased risk perceptions and fears of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 emphasize the need for mental health interventions aimed at improving coping strategies alongside physical health management in this vulnerable population.