The relationship between resilience, anxiety and depression among patients with mild symptoms of COVID‐19 in China: A cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To explore the role of resilience in anxiety and depression and to clarify their relationships among patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China. Background: The outbreak of COVID-19 has negatively affected some individuals, but resilience plays a decisive role in the response of individuals under pressure and can help them deal with pressure more effectively. Design: The cross-sectional descriptive correlational survey was reported in line with the STROBE guidelines. Subject and setting: In total, 296 patients from FangCang Hospital in Wuhan, Hubei, China, with mild symptoms of COVID-19 were recruited. Methods: Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. The data collected included their demographic information, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: A small number of patients in this study had above threshold anxiety (subthreshold anxiety and major anxiety) and depression (subthreshold depression and major depression). The mean total resilience score of the participants was slightly below the normal level of ordinary Chinese adults. Resilience was inversely associated with and was a protective factor for both anxiety and depression in our samples. Risk factors for anxiety include being female and having colleagues with COVID-19, while a risk factor for depression was having family members with COVID-19. Conclusions: This study shows that after taking the general demographics into consideration, higher levels of resilience were associated with lower anxiety and depression among mild COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Relevance to clinical practice: Health professionals, especially clinical nurses, need to be aware of the psychological status of COVID-19 patients and promote resilience to improve their mental health. | 4021 ZHANG et Al.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in COVID‐19 patients: a meta‐analysis

“…Twenty-seven (87%) studies 43,44,[70][71][72][73][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]107 were conducted in China, and the remaining four studies were, respectively, conducted in Italy, 75 Ecuador, 95 Turkey, 74 and Iran. 106 Twenty-eight (90%) studies were cross-sectional studies, 43,44,[70][71][72][73][74][75][85][86][87][88]90,[92][93][94][95][96][97][98]…”

“…The median NOS was 3 (range 2-4). Twelve (39%) studies 43,44,72,73,75,85,92,93,95,96,105,106 had a high risk of bias (quality score <3), and 19 (61%) studies 70,71,74,86,[88][89][90][91]94,[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]107,108 had a low risk of bias (quality score ≥3). While a majority of the studies employed appropriate statistical methods, used validated screening tools, and had low nonrespondent rates, very few studies justified their choice of sample size or used random sampling.…”

“…3), nine studies 88,95,96,[98][99][100][106][107][108] used the criteria of PHQ-9 ≥5 with a pooled prevalence of 52% (95% CI: 45-59%, I 2 = 83%) and four studies 85,89,92,94 used SDS ≥50 with a pooled prevalence of 53% (95% CI: 42-65%, I 2 = 86%). Other criteria included HADS-D ≥8, 93,101 SDS ≥53, 43,44 and SCL-90 (depression subscale) ≥2, 104,105 which were used by two studies each and yielded a pooled prevalence of 20% (95% CI: 16-23%, I 2 = 0%), 53% (95% CI: 6-97%, I 2 = 97%), and 19% (95% CI: 17-22%, I 2 = 0%), respectively. The remaining studies used unvalidated custom questionnaires or interviews.…”

“…There were significant subgroup differences between different screening tool subgroups (P < 0.01). Nineteen studies, 43,44,85,[87][88][89][92][93][94][95][96][98][99][100][101][104][105][106][107] using validated screening tools, yielded a pooled depression prevalence of 45% (95% CI: 36-54%, I 2 = 96%). Four studies, 70,71,73,75 using unvalidated screening tools, reported a pooled prevalence of 47% (95% CI: 15-80%, I 2 = 97%).…”

“…For anxiety assessment methods (see Fig. 4), nine studies 43,44,85,86,[89][90][91][92]94 used the criteria of SAS ≥50 with a pooled prevalence of 54% (95% CI: 32-75%, I 2 = 98%), seven studies 95,96,98,99,[106][107][108] used GAD-7 ≥5 with a pooled prevalence of 47% (95% CI: 37-58%, I 2 = 86%), three studies 93,101,103 used HADS-A ≥8 with a pooled prevalence of 34% (95% CI: 19-51%, I 2 = 91%), and two studies 104,105 used SCL-90 (anxiety subscale) ≥2 with a pooled prevalence of 18% (95% CI: 15-21%, I 2 = 0%). The remaining studies used unvalidated custom questionnaires or interviews.…”