AbstractObjectiveThe primary objective of this paper is to present a short measure of perceptions on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life, along with analysis of its reliability and validity in non-clinical and clinical samples.MethodsThe scale was named The COV19 – Impact on Quality of Life (COV19-QoL) and it consists of six items presented in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. The items (i.e. statements) cover main areas of quality of life with regard to mental health. The scale was administered to 1346 participants from the general population in Croatia (the non-clinical sample) and 201 patients with severe mental illness recruited from four European countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia), constituting the clinical sample. The clinical sample was part of the randomised controlled trial IMPULSE funded by the European Commission. Data on age and gender were collected for both samples, along with psychiatric diagnoses collected for the clinical sample.ResultsMain findings included a high internal consistency of the scale and a moderate to strong positive correlation among participants’ scores on different items. Principal component analysis yielded one latent component. The correlation between participants’ age and their results on COV19-QoL was negligible. Participants’ perceived quality of life was the most impacted domain, whereas mental health, personal safety and levels of depression were the least impacted domains by the pandemic.DiscussionThe COV19-QoL is a reliable and valid scale which can be used to explore the impact of COVID-19 on quality of life. The scale can be successfully used by researchers and clinicians interested in the impact of the pandemic on people experiencing various pre-existing mental health issues (e.g. anxiety, mood and personality disorders) as well as those without such issues.

Introduction As a result of high transmission and mortality rates, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide health crisis, isolation, and widespread fear, therefore negatively influencing people’s quality of life (QOL). The goal of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the Persian version of the COVID-19-Impact on Quality of Life (COV19-QoL) scale. Methods After translating the scale using the forward–backward method, face and content validly was qualitatively assessed. Then the scale was distributed to 488 individuals from the general population via online platforms. Construct validity was assessed using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis. In addition, internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and McDonald’s omega, relative stability was assessed using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute stability was calculated through examination of standard error of measurement. Results The EFA revealed one factor that explained 55.96% of the total variance of the scale. Internal consistencies of 0.823 and 0.882 were found using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and McDonald’s omega, respectively. In addition, an ICC of 0.837 (with a two-week interval) was found. Covid-19 had a greater impact on the QOL of healthy participants than that of those with underling conditions (p = 0.004), and also on the QOL of single participants than that of married ones (p = 0.032). Conclusion The Persian version of the COV19-QoL is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to examine the impact of Covid-19 on QOL.

Background Implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources. Methods Thirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants’ accounts. Results Six major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers’ involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention’s implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists’ time constrains. Conclusions This study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe – a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research.

Background: There are limited resources for improving mental health care across Europe, especially in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in South-eastern Europe with fewer specialist staff and less funding. Scaling up psychosocial interventions that utilise available time and resources more effectively could improve care for people with psychosis in these settings. One intervention is DIALOG+, delivered via an app on a tablet computer: patients identify life areas to improve and clinicians use a solution-focussed process to help improve these areas. This intervention was piloted across mental healthcare systems in European LMICs, and focus groups were conducted to explore whether such interventions could use available resources effectively to improve care for psychosis in these settings.Methods: Eleven focus groups were conducted with clinicians and patients with psychosis who used the intervention over three months during the pilot study, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo United Nations Resolution, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which describes factors affecting engagement with healthcare interventions, structured topic guides and guided analysis. Codes from the data were mapped onto the TDF, analysed to identify barriers and facilitators, translated into English and checked for inter-rater reliability.Results: 25 clinicians and 23 patients participated in focus groups. Clinicians' barriers included limited time for sessions and difficulties working with acutely psychotic patients. Patients' barriers were burden of greater concentration when engaging with DIALOG+ and feeling tense or disturbed during the sessions. Facilitators included motivation to use DIALOG+, positive opinions shared by others, perceived benefits for practice and improving clinician-patient conversations, relationships and care.Conclusions: Barriers to using psychosocial interventions could be overcome even if resources cannot be increased. Despite limited time and other barriers to using DIALOG+, perceived benefits to practice and clinician-patient relationships suggest that psychosocial interventions can use available resources effectively to improve care for psychosis.

BackgroundBesides physical complications, COVID-19 is associated with psychological issues such as fear and anxiety. High resilience in nurses enables them to adopt positive coping mechanisms and successfully operate in the stressful environment of COVID-19 wards. The present study aimed to evaluate the correlation between COVID-19 fear and anxiety with resilience in the emergency nurses of the hospital affiliated with Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (west of Iran) in 2021.Materials and methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted on 295 emergency nurses of selected hospitals in Kurdistan province, Iran, in 2021. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), Corona Disease Anxiety Scale (CDAS), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Data analysis was performed in R software version 3.6.3.ResultsThe mean scores of resilience, COVID-19 fear, and COVID-19 anxiety were 55.07 ± 19.82 (ranging from 0 to 100), 20 ± 7.37 (ranging from 7 to 35) and 36.48 ± 13.21 (ranging from 18 to 54) respectively. There was a negative and significant correlation between resilience with COVID-19 fear (r = −0.449, p = 0.001), COVID-19 anxiety (r = 0.458, p = 0.001). A significant correlation was observed between COVID-19 fear and anxiety, which indicated that if the other demographic variables remained unchanged, a one-unit increase in COVID-19 fear and anxiety decreased the mean resilience score by −0.66 (P = 0.008) and −0.34 (P = 0.015), respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19 fear and anxiety were significantly correlated. Therefore, providing training courses for promoting resilience could reduce the fear and anxiety of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.