Background: Depression and anxiety are common among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Not only do they worsen quality of life, but also worsen the prognosis of the IBD. Yet, there are no widely accepted guidelines for screening for depression or anxiety in this population. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a self-administered questionnaire designed to measure anxiety and depression in the physically ill. The purpose of this study was to establish the utility of the HADS as a screening tool in IBD patients. Methods: Seventy-nine IBD patients (age 29.86 ± 8.36, 51.9% female, 77.2% Crohn’s disease) were recruited consecutively at the day treatment unit, Gastroenterology Department, Sheba Medical Center. They were asked to complete the HADS, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The scores of the HADS depression and anxiety subscales were correlated with the BDI and STAI scores, and the rates of above-threshold scores were calculated and compared between the three questionnaires and findings from previous studies. Results: The two HADS subscales significantly correlated with and the BDI ( r_s = .69, p < 0.001) and STAI state and trait anxiety ( r_s = .853, p < 0.001; r_s = .744, p < 0.001, respectively). The usual HADS cut-off scores yielded adequate rate of anxiety but lower than expected depression rates. Conclusions: Our findings suggest the HADS as a valid screening tool for anxiety and depression in IBD patients. We recommend administering it routinely in gastrointestinal (GI) follow-ups using a lower cut-off score for depression than anxiety (greater than 7 vs greater than 11, respectively).

Background: Worldwide national surveys show a rising mental health burden among children and adolescents (C&A) during COVID-19. The objective of the current study is to verify the expected rise in visits to psychiatric outpatient clinics of C&A, especially of new patients. Methods: a cross-sectional study focusing on visits as recorded in electronic medical records of eight heterogeneous C&A psychiatric outpatient clinics. The assessment was based on visits held from March to December of 2019 (before the pandemic) in comparison to visits held in 2020 (during the pandemic). Results: The number of visits was similar for both periods. However, in 2020, 17% of the visits used telepsychiatry (N = 9885). Excluding telepsychiatry reveals a monthly decrease in traditional in-person activities between 2020 and 2019 (691.6 ± 370.8 in 2020 vs. 809.1 ± 422.8 in 2019, mean difference = −117.5, t (69) = −4.07, p = 0.0002, Cohen’s d = −0.30). Acceptation of new patients declined during 2020, compared to 2019 (50.0 ± 38.2 in 2020 vs. 62.8 ± 42.9 in 2019; Z = −3.12, p = 0.002, r = 0.44). Telepsychiatry was not used for new patients. Conclusions: The activity of C&A psychiatric outpatient clinics did not rise but was guarded due to the use of telepsychiatry. The decline in visits of new patients was explained by the lack of use of telepsychiatry for these patients. This calls for expanding the use of telepsychiatry, especially for new patients.

Background: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has prompted extensive research into lingering effects, especially in ‘Long COVID’ patients. Despite exploration, contributing factors remain elusive; Objective: This study explores the potential link between distinctive personality profiles, particularly type D personality, and an increased risk of Long COVID; Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study at Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center’s Post-COVID clinic analyzed data from 373 Long COVID patients through comprehensive questionnaires covering Long COVID syndrome, Fibromyalgia criteria, personality assessments, social support, and subjective evaluations of cognitive decline, health and life quality. In total, 116 out of 373 patients completed the questionnaire, yielding a 31% participation rate; Results: Cluster analysis revealed two groups, with Cluster 1 (N = 58) exhibiting Type D personality traits while Cluster 2 (N = 56) not meeting criteria for Type D personality. In comparison to Cluster 2, Cluster 1 patients reported heightened anxiety, depression, reduced social support, increased pain symptoms, manifestations of fibromyalgia, cognitive decline, and poor sleep quality, contributing to a diminished quality-of-life perception; Conclusions: findings highlight diverse personality profiles among Long COVID patients, emphasizing the need for tailored care. This approach shows potential for improving Long COVID patient care, aligning with the evolving personalized medicine paradigm.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing global crisis, with a multitude of factors that affect mental health worldwide. Here, we explore potential predictors for the emergence and maintenance of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) in the general population in Israel. Methods: Across the span of 16 months, 2,478 people completed a repeated self-report survey which inquired psychiatric symptoms and pandemic related stress factors (PRSF). PRSF were divided into four clusters of environmental stressors: financial, health-related, fatigue and sense of protection by authorities. We applied mixed-effects linear models to assess how each stressor contributes to depression, anxiety and PTSS at each time point, alongside a longitudinal exploration among participants who completed at least two consecutive surveys ( n =400). Results: Fatigue was the strongest predictor for depression, anxiety and PTSS at all time points ( standardized β between 0.28-0.60, p <.0001), and predicted deterioration overtime ( β between 0.22-0.36, p <.0001). Financial concerns associated with depression and anxiety at all time points ( β between 0.13- 0.26, p <.01), and with their deterioration overtime ( β between 0.16-0.18, p <.0001), while health related concerns were uniquely associated with anxiety and PTSS at all time points ( β between 0.14-0.29, p <.01) and their deterioration ( β between 0.11-0.16, p <.001), but not with depression. Improvement in sense of protection overtime associated with decrease in depression and anxiety ( β between −0.09 to −0.16, p <.01). Conclusions: Our findings accentuate the multitude of risk factors for psychiatric morbidity during COVID-19, and the dynamics in their association with different aspects of psychopathology at various time points.