The evaluation of interventions and policies designed to promote resilience, and research to understand the determinants and associations, require reliable and valid measures to ensure data quality. This paper systematically reviews the psychometric rigour of resilience measurement scales developed for use in general and clinical populations.

Background: Meeting the needs of relatives when a family member is dying can help facilitate better psychological adjustment in their grief. However, end of life experiences for families are likely to have been deleteriously impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. Understanding how families’ needs can be met during a global pandemic will have current/future relevance for clinical practice and policy. Aim: To explore relatives’ experiences and needs when a family member was dying during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Interpretative qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: A total of 19 relatives whose family member died during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Results: In the absence of direct physical contact, it was important for families to have a clear understanding of their family member’s condition and declining health, stay connected with them in the final weeks/days of life and have the opportunity for a final contact before they died. Health and social care professionals were instrumental to providing these aspects of care, but faced practical challenges in achieving these. Results are presented within three themes: (1) entering into the final weeks and days of life during a pandemic, (2) navigating the final weeks of life during a pandemic and (3) the importance of ‘saying goodbye’ in a pandemic. Conclusions: Health and social care professionals can have an important role in mitigating the absence of relatives’ visits at end of life during a pandemic. Strategies include prioritising virtual connectedness and creating alternative opportunities for relatives to ‘say goodbye’.

The over-purchasing and hoarding of necessities is a common response to crises, especially in developed economies where there is normally an expectation of plentiful supply. This behaviour was observed internationally during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the absence of actual scarcity, this behaviour can be described as ‘panic buying’ and can lead to temporary shortages. However, there have been few psychological studies of this phenomenon. Here we propose a psychological model of over-purchasing informed by animal foraging theory and make predictions about variables that predict over-purchasing by either exacerbating or mitigating the anticipation of future scarcity. These variables include additional scarcity cues (e.g. loss of income), distress (e.g. depression), psychological factors that draw attention to these cues (e.g. neuroticism) or to reassuring messages (eg. analytical reasoning) or which facilitate over-purchasing (e.g. income). We tested our model in parallel nationally representative internet surveys of the adult general population conducted in the United Kingdom (UK: N = 2025) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI: N = 1041) 52 and 31 days after the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were detected in the UK and RoI, respectively. About three quarters of participants reported minimal over-purchasing. There was more over-purchasing in RoI vs UK and in urban vs rural areas. When over-purchasing occurred, in both countries it was observed across a wide range of product categories and was accounted for by a single latent factor. It was positively predicted by household income, the presence of children at home, psychological distress (depression, death anxiety), threat sensitivity (right wing authoritarianism) and mistrust of others (paranoia). Analytic reasoning ability had an inhibitory effect. Predictor variables accounted for 36% and 34% of the variance in over-purchasing in the UK and RoI respectively. With some caveats, the data supported our model and points to strategies to mitigate over-purchasing in future crises.

Despite the severe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals do not develop high levels of psychological distress and can be termed resilient. Using the ecological resilience model, we examined factors promoting or hindering resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 1034 participants (49.9±16.2 years; females 51.2%) from Italian general population, 70% displayed resilient outcomes and 30% reported moderate-severe anxiety and/or depression. A binary regression model revealed that factors promoting resilience were mostly psychological (e.g., trait resilience, conscientiousness) together with social distancing. Conversely, factors hindering resilience included COVID-19-anxiety, COVID-19-related PTSD symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty, loneliness, living with children, higher education, and living in regions where the virus was starting to spread. In conclusion, the ecological resilience model in the COVID-19 pandemic explained 64% of the variance and identified factors promoting or hindering resilient outcomes. Critically, these findings can inform psychological interventions supporting individuals by strengthening factors associated with resilience.

Background: Health and social care professionals’ ability to address the needs of patients and their relatives at end of life is likely to have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: To explore health and social care professionals’ experiences of providing end of life care during the COVID-19 pandemic to help inform current/future clinical practice and policy. Design: A qualitative interview study. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Setting/participants: Sixteen health and social care professionals working across a range of clinical settings in supporting dying patients during the first wave (March–June 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Results: Participants reported emotional and practical challenges to providing end of life care during the pandemic, including increases in patient numbers, reduced staffing levels and relying on virtual platforms for sensitive, emotive conversations with relatives. Participants were central to promoting connections between patients and their families at end of life and creating opportunities for a final contact before the death. However, the provision of support varied as a consequence of the pressures of the pandemic. Results are discussed under two themes: (1) challenges and facilitators to providing end of life care, and (2) support needs of relatives when a family member was dying during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: There is a need for flexible visiting arrangements at end of life during a pandemic. A systems-level approach is necessary to promote the wellbeing of health and social care professionals providing end of life care during and after a pandemic.

Objective: to examine if a low level of social engagement is a precursor for mortality. Methods: a case‐control design, controlling for physical health, age and sex examining social engagement and morale. We took measures on 3 occasions, 4 years apart. Results: a low level of social engagement was an important precursor of 8‐year mortality. There were intermediate significant differences for social engagement, physical health and morale. Conclusions: levels of social engagement either have a direct effect on mortality, or represent hidden health problems, acting as a marker for later ill health. Social engagement may also have a role in intermediate declines in physical health and morale.