COVID-19-related stigma and its sociodemographic correlates: a comparative study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is closely associated with physical and mental health problems; however, little is known about the severity of stigma caused by COVID-19 among its survivors. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare differences in stigma experiences of COVID-19 survivors versus healthy controls after the COVID-19 outbreak peak in China.

Methods

This cross-sectional study comprised 154 COVID-19 survivors and 194 healthy controls recruited through consecutive and convenience sampling methods, respectively. COVID-19 related stigma was measured by the Social Impact Scale (SIS). Stigma differences between the two groups were compared with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and a generalized linear model (GLM) was used to identify independent correlates of COVID-19-related stigma in this study.

Results

Compared with healthy controls, COVID-19 survivors reported more overall stigma ( F _(1,347) = 60.82, p < 0.001), and stigma in domains of social rejection ( F _(1,347) = 56.54, p < 0.001), financial insecurity ( F _(1,347) = 19.96, p < 0.001), internalized shame ( F _(1,347) = 71.40, p < 0.001) and social isolation ( F _(1,347) = 34.73, p < 0.001). Status as a COVID-19 survivor, having family members infected with COVID-19, being married, economic loss during the COVID-19 pandemic, and depressive symptoms were positively associated with higher overall stigma levels (all p values < 0.05).

Conclusion

COVID-19-related stigma is commonly experienced among COVID-19 survivors even though the outbreak has been well-contained in China. Routine assessment of stigma experiences should be conducted on COVID-19 survivors and appropriate psychological assistance, public education, and anti-stigma campaigns and policies should be enforced to reduce stigma within this vulnerable subpopulation.

Related collections

Most cited references 67

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nader Salari, Amin Hosseinian-Far, Rostam Jalali … (2020)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on public mental health. Therefore, monitoring and oversight of the population mental health during crises such as a panedmic is an immediate priority. The aim of this study is to analyze the existing research works and findings in relation to the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, articles that have focused on stress and anxiety prevalence among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were searched in the Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases, without a lower time limit and until May 2020. In order to perform a meta-analysis of the collected studies, the random effects model was used, and the heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I2 index. Moreover. data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. Results The prevalence of stress in 5 studies with a total sample size of 9074 is obtained as 29.6% (95% confidence limit: 24.3–35.4), the prevalence of anxiety in 17 studies with a sample size of 63,439 as 31.9% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–36.7), and the prevalence of depression in 14 studies with a sample size of 44,531 people as 33.7% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–40.6). Conclusion COVID-19 not only causes physical health concerns but also results in a number of psychological disorders. The spread of the new coronavirus can impact the mental health of people in different communities. Thus, it is essential to preserve the mental health of individuals and to develop psychological interventions that can improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

0 comments Cited 1403 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire.

R L Spitzer, K Kroenke, J. Williams (1999)

The Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) was developed as a screening instrument but its administration time has limited its clinical usefulness. To determine if the self-administered PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) has validity and utility for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD. Criterion standard study undertaken between May 1997 and November 1998. Eight primary care clinics in the United States. Of a total of 3000 adult patients (selected by site-specific methods to avoid sampling bias) assessed by 62 primary care physicians (21 general internal medicine, 41 family practice), 585 patients had an interview with a mental health professional within 48 hours of completing the PHQ. Patient Health Questionnaire diagnoses compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; health care use; and treatment/referral decisions. A total of 825 (28%) of the 3000 individuals and 170 (29%) of the 585 had a PHQ diagnosis. There was good agreement between PHQ diagnoses and those of independent mental health professionals (for the diagnosis of any 1 or more PHQ disorder, kappa = 0.65; overall accuracy, 85%; sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 90%), similar to the original PRIME-MD. Patients with PHQ diagnoses had more functional impairment, disability days, and health care use than did patients without PHQ diagnoses (for all group main effects, P<.001). The average time required of the physician to review the PHQ was far less than to administer the original PRIME-MD (<3 minutes for 85% vs 16% of the cases). Although 80% of the physicians reported that routine use of the PHQ would be useful, new management actions were initiated or planned for only 117 (32%) of the 363 patients with 1 or more PHQ diagnoses not previously recognized. Our study suggests that the PHQ has diagnostic validity comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD, and is more efficient to use.

0 comments Cited 798 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Psychosocial impact of COVID-19

Souvik Dubey, Payel Biswas, Ritwik Ghosh … (2020)

Background Along with its high infectivity and fatality rates, the 2019 Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) has caused universal psychosocial impact by causing mass hysteria, economic burden and financial losses. Mass fear of COVID-19, termed as “coronaphobia”, has generated a plethora of psychiatric manifestations across the different strata of the society. So, this review has been undertaken to define psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Methods Pubmed and GoogleScholar are searched with the following key terms- “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV2”, “Pandemic”, “Psychology”, “Psychosocial”, “Psychitry”, “marginalized”, “telemedicine”, “mental health”, “quarantine”, “infodemic”, “social media” and” “internet”. Few news paper reports related to COVID-19 and psychosocial impacts have also been added as per context. Results Disease itself multitude by forced quarantine to combat COVID-19 applied by nationwide lockdowns can produce acute panic, anxiety, obsessive behaviors, hoarding, paranoia, and depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long run. These have been fueled by an “infodemic” spread via different platforms social media. Outbursts of racism, stigmatization, and xenophobia against particular communities are also being widely reported. Nevertheless, frontline healthcare workers are at higher-risk of contracting the disease as well as experiencing adverse psychological outcomes in form of burnout, anxiety, fear of transmitting infection, feeling of incompatibility, depression, increased substance-dependence, and PTSD. Community-based mitigation programs to combat COVID-19 will disrupt children's usual lifestyle and may cause florid mental distress. The psychosocial aspects of older people, their caregivers, psychiatric patients and marginalized communities are affected by this pandemic in different ways and need special attention. Conclusion For better dealing with these psychosocial issues of different strata of the society, psychosocial crisis prevention and intervention models should be urgently developed by the government, health care personnel and other stakeholders. Apt application of internet services, technology and social media to curb both pandemic and infodemic needs to be instigated. Psychosocial preparedness by setting up mental organizations specific for future pandemics is certainly necessary.