Psychological effects of, and compliance with, self-isolation among COVID-19 patients in South Batinah Governorate, Oman: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background Covid-19 pandemic has left deep psychological impacts, especially among infected patients. It is extremely important to understand the extent of those effects, while improving the compliance with isolation measures at the same time. Objectives To detect prevalence of stress using two psychological scales and examine the stress associated factors, also to identify self-isolation compliance rates among COVID-19 patients. Methods Cross-sectional research was conducted from 15 November to 22 December 2020, involving 379 patient participants selected via systematic random sampling. Kessler 10 Psychological Distress (K10) and the impact of event scale-revised (IES-R) tests were used to ascertain the levels of distress. Results K10 measure revealed elevated stress amongst 121 (31.9%) of participants, whereas IES_R indicated the level was 37.7%. Using the K10 indicated the multivariate analysis was significant for females (OR = 2.482, 95% CI: 1.532–4.021), patients with financial problems (OR = 2.332, 95% CI: 1.270–4.282) and patients experiencing shortages of essentials (OR = 4.920, 95% CI: 2.524–9.590). The IES-R scale indicated that only female and patients experiencing shortages scored significantly in multivariate analysis, (OR = 1.895, 95% CI: 1.1223–2.935) and (OR = 2.928, 95% CI: 1.1580–5.424), respectively. Those undergoing shorter isolation periods reported lower levels of stress on both K10, p=0.016 and IES-R, p=0.002. Approximately 90% of patients used their own towels during isolation. Moreover, 80.2% slept in separate rooms and 74% used masks in the presence of other family members. Essential supply shortages were reported by 14.2% of respondents. Conclusions Self-compliance rates were not optimal, while psychological distress was more prevalent among some groups. Intervention is imperative to minimize stress and improve self-isolation compliance.

Measuring and increasing rates of self-isolation in the context of infectious diseases: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

“…[41] One study reported two prevalence estimates. [76] Twenty prevalence estimates were at very high risk of bias, [21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31–37, 40, 47, 69–72, 74, 76–78] 14 were at high risk, [21, 22, 27, 38, 44–46, 73, 79, 81–83, 85] ten had some concerns, [25, 26, 30, 39, 42, 43, 48–68, 80, 84] and one was at low risk. [75] Full details for each study are reported in Supplement S6.…”

“…[30] Twelve studies reported “self-isolate” or “quarantine” (or some such variant), but did not define required behaviours. [25, 33, 34, 42, 43, 47, 74, 75, 79, 80, 83–85] There was no mention of a definition of self-isolation in eight studies. [23, 24, 26–29, 31, 32]…”

Impacts on psychological status and quality of life of people positive with COVID-19 in Bangladesh

“…In a study, Algamdi (2021) found that medication had taken 8.7% and hospitalization 91.3% 30 . In another study, a total of 53% of participants completed the two-week isolation term, with 36.4% experiencing longer periods of isolation 31 .…”

“…18 The psychological impact increases as the score rises. According to Creamer et al, the psychological impact of the IES-R score was classified as normal (0-23), mild (24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), moderate (33-36), and severe (>37) 19 . The maximal reliability of this tool is excellent, and the three factors have good convergent validity 20 .…”

Transmission dynamics, responses, and clinical features for the first 1100 COVID-19 cases in South Batinah, Oman: Major lessons from a provincial perspective

“…Our previous study in SBG, in patients diagnosed in the same period, indicated suboptimal compliance with self-isolation measures. 22 …”