Dementia in people with intellectual disability (ID) is frequent but hard to recognise. Evidence-based recommendations for suitable instruments are lacking. The present study set out to evaluate informant-based dementia assessment instruments and to provide evidence-based recommendations for instruments most suitable in clinical practice and research. A systematic review was conducted across ten international electronic databases. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, including a risk of bias assessment, was applied to extract information and to evaluate measurement properties and the quality of available evidence. In total, 42 studies evaluating 18 informant-based assessment instruments were analysed. For screening purposes, we recommend the Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome Scale (BPSD-DS), the Cognitive Scale for Down Syndrome (CS-DS), and the Dementia Screening Questionnaire for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (DSQIID). For a more thorough dementia assessment, we recommend the Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders of Older People with Down's Syndrome and Others with Intellectual Disabilities (CAMDEX-DS). Our study informs clinicians and researchers about adequate, well-evaluated dementia assessment instruments for people with ID, and highlights the need for high quality studies, especially regarding content validity.

Background: The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is well documented. However, only a few studies investigated mental health in later phases of the pandemic and after its official end. Moreover, little is known about people's psychological burden related to the pandemic and other global crises post-pandemic.Objective: Study's first objective was to compare mental health outcomes in the general population over the course of the pandemic and ten months post-pandemic. The second objective was to explore people's psychological burden regarding the pandemic, in comparison to current wars, climate crises, inflation, and poor government management and/or corruption in the post-pandemic era.Method: Participants from the general population of Austria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, and Portugal (68.8% female, M_age = 41.55) were assessed online up to four times between June 2020 and March 2024 (baseline sample: N = 7913). Adjustment Disorder New Module - 8 (ADNM-8), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) were used to measure adjustment disorder, depression, and well-being. Prevalence rates were calculated and repeated measures ANOVAs applied to assess mental health at four time points. One-way repeated measures ANOVA was run to explore how the different global crises were related to participants' burden.Results: Temporal variations in mental health were evident across four assessment waves, with highest levels of probable adjustment disorder and depression in winter 2020/2021 (T2). A slight improvement of mental health was found at later time points. Current wars and inflation were the greatest sources of psychological burden at the post-pandemic assessment, revealing some cross-country differences.Conclusion: Although mental health differences in the general population were not as pronounced as in the acute phase of the pandemic, psychosocial support is still needed post-pandemic. This is likely to be due to other global crises that take a toll on people's mental health.

Since the long-term mental health impact of COVID-19 is not yet fully understood, the present study explored changes in mental health outcomes and pandemic-related coping behaviors across four pandemic stages. The main objective was to gain insights into the dynamics of mental health and coping, considering different pandemic features at different assessment waves. The final sample consisted of N = 243 adults from the Austrian general population. Data were collected at four timepoints (between June 2020 and December 2021) via LimeSurvey, an open-source online survey tool. Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), adjustment disorder (AD), anxiety, and depression were assessed using validated instruments: Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5), AD-New Module 8 (ADNM-8), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4). We also administered the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS) to address pandemic-related coping behaviors. Cochran’s Q test and repeated measures ANOVAs were applied to assess changes over time. The results indicated that prevalence rates of AD (χ²(2) = 16.88, p = 0.001), depression (χ²(3) = 18.69, p < 0.001), and anxiety (χ²(3) = 19.10, p < 0.001) significantly changed across four assessment waves. Changes in mean scores of the assessed mental health outcomes were also observed. For pandemic-related coping, we found differences in the subscales: healthy lifestyle: F(3, 651) = 5.11, prevention adherence: F(2.73, 592.35) = 21.88, and joyful activities: F(3, 651) = 5.03. Taken together, our study showed a higher mental health burden in wintertime than in summertime, indicating an increased need for psychosocial support in times of stricter measures, higher incidences, and higher death rates. Furthermore, the observed decrease in adaptive coping behaviors suggests that easy-to-implement coping strategies should be actively promoted in order to maintain mental health during and in the aftermath of pandemics.

The complex system of stressors related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the global population, provoking a broad range of psychological reactions. Although numerous... Antecedentes: El complejo sistema de factores estresantes relacionados con la pandemia por la COVID-19 ha afectado a la población mundial, generando un amplio rango de reacciones psicológicas. A pe... COVID-19 疫情相关复杂应激源系统影响了全球人口，引发了广泛的心理反应。尽管大量研究调查了 COVID-19 对心理健康的影响，但定性研究和跨国比较仍然很少见。本定性研究旨在探索六个欧洲国家 COVID-19 相关的自我认知挑战和机遇。总体目标是为疫情早期阶段的个人主观体验提供不同的描述。本研究包括来自奥地利、克罗地亚、格鲁吉亚、希腊、波兰和葡萄牙的 N = 7309 名参与者。我们通...

Background: This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic. Methods: The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ², RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria. Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 ‘Problems with Childcare’, Factor 2 ‘Work-related Problems’, Factor 3 ‘Restricted Face-to-Face Contact’, Factor 4 ‘Burden of Infection ‘, Factor 5 ‘Crisis Management and Communication’, Factor 6 ‘Difficult Housing Condition’, Factor 7 ‘Fear of Infection’, Factor 8 ‘Restricted Access to Resources’, Factor 9 ‘Restricted Activity’). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ² (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ² (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ² (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor. Conclusion: The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a health emergency resulting in multiple stressors that may be related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Objective: This study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors, and PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study were used. N = 4,607 trauma-exposed participants aged 18 years and above were recruited from the general populations of eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. We assessed sociodemographic (e.g. gender), pandemic-related (e.g. news consumption), and health-related (e.g. general health condition) risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and probable PTSD (PC-PTSD-5). The relationships between these variables were examined using logistic regression on multiple imputed data sets. Results: The prevalence of probable PTSD was 17.7%. Factors associated with an increased risk for PTSD were younger age, female gender, more than 3 h of daily pandemic-related news consumption (vs. no consumption), a satisfactory, poor, or very poor health condition (vs. a very good condition), a current or previous diagnosis of a mental disorder, and trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a reduced risk for PTSD included a medium and high income (vs. very low income), face-to-face contact less than once a week or 3–7 times a week (vs. no contact), and digital social contact less than once a week or 1–7 days a week (vs. no contact). Pandemic-related stressors associated with an increased risk for PTSD included governmental crisis management and communication, restricted resources, restricted social contact, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusion: We identified risk and protective factors as well as stressors that may help identify trauma-exposed individuals at risk for PTSD, enabling more efficient and rapid access to care.