BackgroundThe literature shows the negative psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on frontline healthcare workers. However, few are known about the mental health of physicians and nurses working in general hospitals during the outbreak, caring for patients with COVID-19 or not.ObjectivesThis survey assessed differences in mental health in physicians and nurses working in COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 medical care units.DesignA cross-sectional mixed-mode survey was used to assess burnout, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and stress.SettingA total of 1,244 physicians and nurses from five general hospitals in Belgium, working in COVID-19 care units (CCU), non-COVID-19 care units (NCCU), or both (CCU + NCCU) were informed of the study.ParticipantsSix hundred forty-seven healthcare workers participated in the survey (response rate = 52%).MeasurementsValidated instruments were used to assess the outcomes: the PFI (burnout/professional fulfillment), the ISI (insomnia), and the DASS-21 (depression, anxiety, and stress).ResultsResults showed high prevalence of burnout, insomnia, depression, and anxiety among participants. After adjusting for confounders, multivariate analysis of variance showed no differences between CCU, NCCU, and CCU + NCCU workers. Univariate general linear models showed higher level of burnout, insomnia, and anxiety among nurses in comparison to physicians. Being a nurse, young, isolated, with an increased workload were risk factors for worse mental health outcomes.LimitationsThe mental health of the tested sample, before the outbreak, is unknown. Moreover, this cross-sectional design provides no information on the evolution of the mental health outcomes over time.ConclusionDirectly caring for patients with COVID-19 is not associated with worse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers in general hospitals. High prevalence of burnout, insomnia, depression, and anxiety among physicians and nurses requires special attention, and specific interventions need to be implemented.Protocol RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04344145.

No abstract

Purpose of reviewCancer causes significant impacts on patients and their caregivers. Cancer is also associated with multiple physical and emotional challenges for the patient-caregiver dyad. This patient-caregiver dyad should be considered as a unit of care by healthcare providers and supported through dedicated psychological interventions.Recent findingsTwelve studies that tested dyadic interventions aiming to support patient-caregiver dyads were identified from the period April 2020 to December 2021. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm pilot studies. Half of the interventions were online. Interventions were mostly focused on dyadic adjustment and appeared to be acceptable, feasible and globally effective. However, effects were evident predominantly on individual rather than dyadic outcomes. The interventions targeted either individual psychological outcomes, such as depression and anxiety, and are reported to be effective or various individual outcomes and also appeared to be effective. However, there was a large heterogeneity in quality and sample sizes across all intervention types.SummaryDyadic psychological interventions may be an effective support for patient-caregiver dyads dealing with multiple physical and emotional challenges. Online interventions and the variability of intervention types may respond to dyads specific needs, but though need to be rigorously evaluated through powered RCTs.

Background This study aims to evaluate the mental health status of children, adolescents and their parents during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. Method Analysis compared results before and during the second national lockdown, which started on November 2nd 2020. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between May 2020 and April 2021. Results Two hundred and eighteen adults and 273 children fully completed the survey. Almost one in five children (17.9%) presented moderate-to-severe scores of depression. Adolescents presented a higher level of depression than children (p = 0.007). The rate of moderate-to-severe depression scores (10.8% to 21%, p = 0.007) and internalized symptoms increased during the second lockdown (p < 0.001). Parents' depression (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.027) levels also increased during the second lockdown. Logistic regression showed that the use of psychotropic medication in parents and parents’ depression scores were risk factors for children to have worse depression scores. Conclusion The second lockdown appears to worsen the effects of the pandemic on children’s and parents’ mental health. There is a need to implement specific interventions targeting both children/adolescents and their parents to support them during lockdown periods and improve mental health outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract