Scales measuring positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia remain the primary mo Scales measuring positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia remain the primary mode of assessing and diagnosing schizophrenia by clinicians and researchers. The scales are mainly used to monitor the severity of positive and negative symptoms and track treatment response in schizophrenics. Although these scales are widely used, quality as well as general utility of each scale varies. The quality is determined by the validity and reliability of the scales. The utility of the scale is determined by the time of administration and the settings for which the scales can be administered in research or clinical settings. There are relatively fewer articles on the utility of newer scales like CAINS (Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms) and the BNSS (Brief Negative Symptom Scale) that compare them to the older scales PANSS (Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale), SAPS (Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms) SANS (the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms), NSA-16 (Negative Symptom Assessment-16) and CGI-SCH (Clinical Global Impression Schizophrenia. The older scales were developed more than 30 years ago. Since then, our understanding of negative symptoms has evolved and currently there are newer rating scales evaluating the validity of negative symptoms. The older scales do not incorporate the latest research on negative symptoms. CAINS and BNSS are attractive for both their reliability and their concise accessible format, however, a scale that is simpler, accessible, user-friendly, that incorporates a multidimensional model of schizophrenia, addresses the psychosocial and cognitive component has yet to be developed.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the mental health impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on United States (US) healthcare workers (HCWs) after the first surge in the spring of 2020. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the pandemic on HCWs, and the relationship between HCW mental health and demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 concerns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in an urban medical center (September-November 2020) in Baltimore, MD, in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 605 HCWs (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, physician assistants, patient care technicians, respiratory therapists, social workers, mental health therapists, and case managers). MAIN MEASURES: Measures of mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance 4a, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Maslach Burnout Inventory-2 item, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 item), demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 related concerns. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of 1198 HCWs responded to the survey and 14.2% reported depression, 43.1% mild or higher anxiety, 31.6% sleep disturbance, 22.3% posttraumatic stress symptoms, 21.6% depersonalization, 46.0% emotional exhaustion, and 23.1% lower resilience. Relative to HCWs providing in-person care to COVID-19 infected patients none of their working days, those doing so all or most days were more likely to experience worse depression (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7), anxiety (aOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.3), possible PTSD symptoms (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-5.8), and higher burnout (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.0). Worse mental health in several domains was associated with higher health fear (aORs ranged from 2.2 to 5.0), job stressors (aORs ranged from 1.9 to 4.0), perceived social stigma/avoidance (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.9), and workplace safety concerns (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8). CONCLUSIONS: US HCWs experienced significant mental health symptoms eight months into the pandemic. More time spent providing in-person care to COVID-19infected patients and greater COVID-19-related concerns were consistently associated with worse mental health.
Objectives:To study the prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety in hematological cancers (HC) patients.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional survey in all HC patients at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between March 2014 and June 2015. We excluded patients with depression, or generalized anxiety disorder. We conducted a structured face to face interview using an internally developed and validated questionnaire (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 patient’s questionnaire with all participants).Results:Among 211 participants, depression was detected in 98 (46.5%) and anxiety was detected in 47 (22.3%). Thirty-eight (18.1%) had concurrent anxiety and depression. Multiple co-morbidities and tense home atmosphere were predictive for anxiety and depression. We found no association between gender, smoking, income, or being on active therapy and depression or anxiety.Conclusions:Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent in HC patients in KAMC. Health care providers should screen HC cancers for depression and anxiety; as early intervention possibly improve their disease outcome and will likely enhance their psychological wellbeing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.