Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Background: The study aimed to compare psychopathological expressions during the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, as declared on March 11th 2020 by the World Health Organization, with respect to which institutional variables might distinguish the impact of COVID-19 in medical and non-medical professionals. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed nationwide between 16th March and the 26th April 2020 in Poland. A total of 2039 respondents representing all healthcare providers (59.8%) as well as other professionals filled in the sociodemographic section, the General Health Questionnaire-28 and the author’s questionnaire with questions related to exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the availability of protective measures, quarantine, change of working hours and place of employment during the pandemic, as well as feelings associated with the state of the pandemic. Results: Medical professionals more often presented with relevant psychopathological symptoms (GHQ-28 (General Health Questionnaire-28) total score >24) than the non-medical group (60.8% vs. 48.0%, respectively) such as anxiety, insomnia and somatic symptoms even after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Male sex, older age and appropriate protective equipment were associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores in medical professionals, whereas among non-medical professionals, male sex was associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores. Conclusions: Somatic and anxiety symptoms as well as insomnia are more prevalent among medical staff than workers in other professions. Targeting the determinants of these differences should be included in interventions aimed at restoring psychological well-being in this specific population. Apparently, there are present gender differences in psychological responses that are independent of profession.

The COVID-19 pandemic had led universities to introduce lockdowns, which has led to significant shifts in students’ lives. Classes were moved online, students had to leave dorms and move; they had to forgo regular meetings with their peers. Subsequently, a vital demand for examining students’ mental health emerged. The data were collected at a time when universities in Poland were under lockdowns. Participants represented students of many different fields of study. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) was used. Student’s subjective evaluation of online learning and their adaptation to academic life shifts were reviewed. A total of 1123 participants took part in this study. Relationship analysis included tests, such as U Mann–Whitney, appropriate for specific variables. The impact of variables connected with the pandemic on the GHQ scores was tested using multivariate regression analysis. The results were considered significant at a p-value set at 0.05. Overall, 76.96% of the participants manifested psychopathological symptoms measured by the GHQ. Four demographical variables were possibly associated with the GHQ scores: female sex, living in a big city, necessity to move back home, and being in a relationship. Negative correlations between subjective evaluation of variables concerning e-learning, such as its efficiency or quality, and the GHQ scores were found. Some variables were found to be potential protective factors, whereas others could have contributed to worsened mental health. The study provides data on students’ worsened mental health due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shifts in academic life it caused. Therefore, recommendations for early psychosocial interventions among students are strongly advised.

Objectives: The MEETINGDEM research project aimed to implement the combined Dutch Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP) for community-dwelling people with dementia and caregivers within Italy, Poland and UK and to assess whether comparable benefits were found in these countries as in the Netherlands. Method: Nine pilot Meeting Centres (MCs) participated (Italy-5, Poland-2, UK-2). Effectiveness of MCSP was compared to usual care (UC) on caregiver outcomes measuring competence (SSCQ), mental health (GHQ-12), emotional distress (NPI-Q) and loneliness (UCLA) analysed by ANCOVAs in a 6-month pre-test/post-test controlled trial. Interviews using standardised measures were completed with caregivers. Results: Pre/post data were collected for 93 caregivers receiving MCSP and 74 receiving UC. No statistically significant differences on the outcome measures were found overall. At a country level MC caregivers in Italy showed significant better general mental health (p = 0.04, d = 0.55) and less caregiver distress (p = 0.02, d = 0.62) at post-test than the UC group. Caregiver satisfaction was rated on a sample at 3 months (n = 81) and 6 months (n = 84). The majority of caregivers reported feeling less burdened and more supported by participating in MCSP. Conclusion: The moderate positive effect on sense of competence and the greater mental health benefit for lonely caregivers using the MCSP compared to UC as found in the original Dutch studies were not replicated. However, subject to study limitations, caregivers in Italy using MCSP benefitted more regarding their mental health and emotional distress than caregivers using UC. Further evaluation of the benefits of MCSP within these countries in larger study samples is recommended.

Objectives: Until now little research has been done to answer the question of whether people with dementia experience stigma. No previous studies investigated possible differences between countries and cultures. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the experience of stigma (with social isolation, social rejection and internalised shame as components) among people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 180) in Italy (n = 79), Poland (n = 47) and the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 54); and to investigate possible relationships with demographical and clinical outcomes. Methods: A one group multinational cross-sectional design was used. Stigma was measured with the Stigma Impact Scale (SIS), quality of life aspects with Dementia Quality of Life scale (DQOL) and Quality of Life Alzheimer’s Disease scale (QOL-AD), social support with Duke Social Support Index (DSSI), cognitive functioning with Global Deterioration Scale (GDS). Results: The level of stigmatisation (SIS) among study participants varied from 2 to 65 (median = 33.5; Q₁ = 27; Q₃ = 41). People with dementia in the UK experienced a higher level of stigmatisation than people in Italy and Poland. The experienced stigmatisation negatively correlated with social support (DSSI; rho = −0.42, p = 0.000) and quality of life (QOL-AD; rho = −0.39, p = 0.000). People who experienced a higher level of stigmatisation scored higher in negative mood DQOL subscale (rho = 0.28, p = 0.0002). Conclusion: There is a strong need for research into the individual experience of people with dementia across the world. This could help in providing support and care services that match their experience, needs, preferences; and in designing well informed awareness campaigns based on their voice.