3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Eighteen months into the COVID-19 pandemic: The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in Southeast Asia and the associated demographic factors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Mental health has become a growing concern in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to determine the prevalence of mental health symptoms 18 months after the pandemic's declaration. Our cross-sectional study conducted among 18- to 65-year-old adults ( N = 33,454) in October 2021 using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) found a high prevalence of severe to extremely severe anxiety (49%), depression (47%) and stress (36%) symptoms in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore. Multiple logistic regression showed that female and non-binary genders were associated with increased odds of severe/extremely severe symptoms of anxiety (female: aOR 1.44 [95% CI 1.37–1.52]; non-binary aOR 1.46 [1.16–1.84]), depression (female: aOR 1.39 [1.32–1.47]; non-binary aOR 1.42 [1.13–1.79]), and stress (female: aOR 1.48 [CI 1.40–1.57]; non-binary aOR 1.42 [1.12–1.78]). In all three symptom domains, the odds of severe/extremely severe symptoms decreased across age groups. Middle- and high-income respondents had lower odds of reporting severe/extremely severe anxiety (middle-income: aOR 0.79 [0.75–0.84]; high-income aOR 0.77 [0.69–0.86]) and depression (middle-income: aOR 0.85 [0.80–0.90]; high-income aOR 0.84 [0.76–0.94]) symptoms compared to low-income respondents, while only middle-income respondents had lower odds of experiencing severe/extremely severe stress symptoms (aOR 0.89 [0.84–0.95]). Compared to residents of Malaysia, residents of Indonesia were more likely to experience severe/extremely severe anxiety symptoms (aOR 1.08 [1.03–1.15]) but less likely to experience depression (aOR 0.69 [0.65–0.73]) or stress symptoms (aOR 0.92 [0.87–0.97]). Respondents living in Singapore had increased odds of reporting severe/extremely severe depression symptoms (aOR 1.33 [1.16–1.52]), while respondents residing in Thailand were more likely to experience severe/extremely severe stress symptoms (aOR 1.46 [1.37–1.55]). This study provides insights into the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the point prevalence of psychological distress in Southeast Asia one and a half years after the beginning of the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • 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: not found

            The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories

            The psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) were evaluated in a normal sample of N = 717 who were also administered the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The DASS was shown to possess satisfactory psychometric properties, and the factor structure was substantiated both by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In comparison to the BDI and BAI, the DASS scales showed greater separation in factor loadings. The DASS Anxiety scale correlated 0.81 with the BAI, and the DASS Depression scale correlated 0.74 with the BDI. Factor analyses suggested that the BDI differs from the DASS Depression scale primarily in that the BDI includes items such as weight loss, insomnia, somatic preoccupation and irritability, which fail to discriminate between depression and other affective states. The factor structure of the combined BDI and BAI items was virtually identical to that reported by Beck for a sample of diagnosed depressed and anxious patients, supporting the view that these clinical states are more severe expressions of the same states that may be discerned in normals. Implications of the results for the conceptualisation of depression, anxiety and tension/stress are considered, and the utility of the DASS scales in discriminating between these constructs is discussed.
              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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                04 August 2022
                2022
                04 August 2022
                : 10
                : 863323
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Naluri Hidup Sdn Bhd , Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
                [2] 2Ministry of Health , Putrajaya, Malaysia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Daria Smirnova, Samara State Medical University, Russia

                Reviewed by: Foong Ming Moy, University of Malaya, Malaysia; Salmi Razali, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

                *Correspondence: Wendy Wan Ying Tay drwendytay@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Public Mental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.863323
                9387355
                35991032
                ca1e2dbb-ad05-44c0-ad01-29c5e7cd9187
                Copyright © 2022 Tay, Jesuthasan, Wan, Ong and Mustapha.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 27 January 2022
                : 01 July 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 71, Pages: 12, Words: 8720
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                mental health,covid-19,anxiety,depression,stress
                mental health, covid-19, anxiety, depression, stress

                Comments

                Comment on this article