Background The COVID-19 pandemic impacts the whole world. So far, nothing is known about the course of psychological disturbances, such as fear, anxiety, and sleep disturbances of this pandemic over time in Europe. Methods Aim of this web-based survey was to assess the mental health burden of the German public over a period of 50 days after the COVID-19 outbreak. 16,245 individuals responded regarding sleep disturbances, COVID-19-fear, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7). Data were put in relation to infection rates, number of deaths and the German stock index. Results The specific fear increased rapidly in concordance with infection numbers. However, no relation to the number of deaths was found, COVID-19-fear developed reversed to the stock index. Initially, 13.5% of the respondents reported a reduced sleep quality, and 7.2% a moderate generalized anxiety; proceeding simultaneously with high peaks. Finally, more than twice as many respondents showed psychological burdens. Conclusion The COVID-19-fear decreased within six weeks to the level before the shutdown, indicating a habituation to the threatening situation. However, generalized anxiety remained elevated over time. Sleep disturbances, generalized anxiety as well as economical stock alterations develop in advance to infectiological trends which demands consequent and comprehensible information policies.

Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been keeping the world in suspense. Proven risk factors for a severe course of COVID-19 are common diseases like diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular or respiratory disorders. Until today, little is known about the psychological burden of individuals suffering from these high-risk diseases regard to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to define the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on behavior and mental health in individuals at high risk for developing a severe COVID-19 course. Items assessed generalized anxiety (GAD-7), COVID-19-related fear, adherent/dysfunctional safety behavior, and the subjective risk perception of regarding symptoms, having a severe course and dying because of COVID-19. Data were compared between participants with the high risk diseases and individuals without any of those diseases. 16,983 respondents completed the study. Generalized anxiety, COVID-19-related fear, adherent/dysfunctional safety behavior and subjective risk perception were elevated in participants with high-risk diseases. The increased COVID-19-related fear as a functional concern is a conclusion on the increased risk of a severe course. The functionality of the fear is reflected in people’s increased need for security and includes an increase in both adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior that underlines the need for psychological support strategies.

The outbreak of the novel SARS CoV-2-virus (COVID-19) is pushing national and international healthcare systems to their limits. The aspect of mental health issues, which has been neglected (so far) in times of social isolation and governmental restrictions, now demands innovative and situation-based approaches to support psychological burdened people. The developed e-mental health intervention ‘CoPE It’ offers manualized, evidence-based psychotherapeutic/psychological support to overcome psychological distress in times of COVID-19. E-mental health approaches offer great possibilities to support burdened people during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic effectively.

Background Governmental restrictions of daily life are key elements in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, but they have also put a strain on people’s mental health. Preventive policies differ all over the world as well as over different periods of time, and depend mostly on current infection rates. In Germany, there were two periods of restraint of varying severity, during which the government used different combinations of containment and mitigation measures to protect risk groups and to lower the number of hospitalizations. Methods In two online studies, we aimed to determine differences and similarities in COVID-19-related fear, generalized anxiety, depression and distress levels, as well as in the adherence to safety behaviour between the first lockdown in March and April and the second lockdown in November. Results This study showed continued high psychological burden and even increased levels of depression symptoms, as well as less safety behaviour in the second phase of restrictions. Conclusions The results hint at a prolonged negative impact on people’s mental health and their safety behaviour despite lesser restrictions in the second lockdown, which may be interpreted as pandemic fatigue and hence strengthens the argument for a low-threshold access to psychological care.

No abstract

At a time of growing governmental restrictions and ‘physical distancing’ in order to decelerate the spread of COVID-19, psychological challenges are increasing. Social media plays an important role in maintaining social contact as well as exerting political influence. World leaders use it not only to keep citizens informed but also to boost morale and manage people’s fears. However, some leaders do not follow this approach; an example is the German Chancellor. In a large online survey, we aimed to determine levels of COVID-19 fear, generalized anxiety, depression, safety behaviour, trust in government and risk perception in Germany. A total of 12 244 respondents participated during the period of restraint and the public shutdown in March 2020. Concurrent with the German Chancellor’s speech, a reduction of anxiety and depression was noticeable in the German population. It appears that, in addition to using social media platforms like Twitter, different—and sometimes more conservative—channels for providing information can also be effective.

(1) The aim of the study is to assess the psychological burden of individuals with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to matched controls. (2) Over the course of eight weeks, 9 April to 3 June 2020, 253 individuals with diabetes and 253 matched controls, using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed an anonymous survey including demographics, depressive symptoms (PHQ-2), generalized anxiety (GAD-7), COVID-19-related fear, risk perception, and safety behavior. (3) While patients with diabetes expected their risk of infection similar to controls, they reported a higher probability of the occurrence of symptoms, severe course, and dying of COVID-19. Patients with diabetes showed no elevated generalized anxiety or depressive symptoms. However, they reported higher COVID-19-related fear and more adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior compared to controls. (4) From a public health view, it seems encouraging that despite the somatic risk condition, generalized anxiety and depression are not higher in patients with diabetes than in controls. Patients with diabetes report higher COVID-19-related fear, increased risk perception, and behavioral changes. This suggests that individuals with diabetes, as a significant risk group of severe COVID-19, show an adequate perception and functional reaction to the current pandemic.

Background: Impulsivity is a risk factor for binge eating disorder, and binge eating (BE) equates to impulsive eating behaviour. Hence, we developed IMPULS, a cognitive behavioural group intervention focusing on impulsive eating. Methods: We randomised 41 patients to the IMPULS group and 39 to the control group. The IMPULS group participated in the IMPULS treatment, while both groups completed weekly self-observations. We compared both groups concerning BE episodes in the past 4 weeks at the end of treatment (primary outcome). As secondary outcomes, we investigated eating pathology, depression, general impulsivity and body mass index (BMI) at the end of treatment and in a 3-month follow-up. Results: The primary outcome failed, because BE episodes in the past 4 weeks were reduced in both groups at the end of treatment. At follow-up, the IMPULS group showed further improvement, contrary to the control group. The BE days/episodes in the 2 months before were overall reduced in both groups. Eating pathology was reduced in the IMPULS group at the end of treatment and partly in both groups at the follow-up. Depression was only reduced in the IMPULS group. General impulsivity and BMI did not change. Conclusions: The IMPULS study has a negative primary outcome. However, secondary outcomes indicate that the IMPULS treatment might be promising, as BE, eating pathology and depression were reduced in the IMPULS group. The initially reduced BE in the control group might represent a short-term effect from the self-observations. General impulsivity and BMI might need a longer time or more intensive treatment to change.