17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Linear Regression Analysis of Sleep Quality in People with Insomnia in Wuhan City during the COVID-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Objective

          COVID-19 has evolved into a major global public health event. The number of people reporting insomnia is growing exponentially during the pandemic. This study aimed to explore the relationship between aggravated insomnia and COVID-19-induced psychological impact on the public, lifestyle changes, and anxiety about the future.

          Methods

          In this cross-sectional study, we used the questionnaires from 400 subjects who were obtained from the Department of Encephalopathy of the Wuhan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between July 2020 and July 2021. The data collected for the study included demographic characteristics of the participants and psychological scales consisting of the Spiegel Sleep Questionnaire, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). The independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare the results. Correlation analysis of variables affecting insomnia was performed using Pearson correlation analysis. The degree of influence of the variables on insomnia was determined using linear regression, and a regression equation was derived.

          Results

          A total of 400 insomnia patients participated in the survey. The median age was 45.75 ± 15.04 years. The average score of the Spiegel Sleep Questionnaire was 17.29 ± 6.36, that of SAS was 52.47 ± 10.39, that of SDS was 65.89 ± 8.72, and that of FCV-19S was 16.09 ± 6.81. The scores of FCV-19S, SAS, and SDS were closely related to insomnia, and the influencing degree was in the following order: fear, depression, and anxiety (OR = 1.30, 0.709, and 0.63, respectively).

          Conclusion

          Fear of COVID-19 can be one of the primary contributors to worsening insomnia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence

          Summary The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic

            Summary Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I 2 statistics, and assessment of study quality. Findings 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. Interpretation If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. Funding Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Coronavirus Anxiety Scale: A brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety

              Mental health concerns of people impacted by the coronavirus pandemic have not been adequately addressed. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the properties of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), which is a brief mental health screener to identify probable cases of dysfunctional anxiety associated with the COVID-19 crisis. This 5-item scale, which was based on 775 adults with anxiety over the coronavirus, demonstrated solid reliability and validity. Elevated CAS scores were found to be associated with coronavirus diagnosis, impairment, alcohol/drug coping, negative religious coping, extreme hopelessness, suicidal ideation, as well as attitudes toward President Trump and Chinese products. The CAS discriminates well between persons with and without dysfunctional anxiety using an optimized cut score of ≥ 9 (90% sensitivity and 85% specificity). These results support the CAS as an efficient and valid tool for clinical research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Clin Pract
                Int J Clin Pract
                IJCLP
                International Journal of Clinical Practice
                Hindawi
                1368-5031
                1742-1241
                2023
                7 April 2023
                : 2023
                : 6746045
                Affiliations
                1Department of Encephalopathy, The Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan, Hubei 430014, China
                2Clinical College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuchang, Wuhan, Hubei 430065, China
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Bing Niu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2647-9251
                https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2839-2824
                Article
                10.1155/2023/6746045
                10104741
                040d083e-8dfd-45f3-a40e-fe19e7fec847
                Copyright © 2023 Hai-Tao Jin et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 December 2022
                : 20 February 2023
                : 22 March 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
                Award ID: 2018YFC1705602
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article