RuralCovidLife: A new resource for the impact of the pandemic on rural Scotland.

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

RuralCovidLife is part of Generation Scotland’s CovidLife project, investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures on people in Scotland. The RuralCovidLife project focuses on Scotland’s rural communities, and how they have been impacted by the pandemic.

During survey development, Generation Scotland consulted with people living or working in rural communities, and collaborated with a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group composed of rural community leaders. Through this consultation work, the RuralCovidLife survey was developed to assess the issues most pertinent to people in rural communities, such as mental health, employment, transport, connectivity, and local communities.

Between 14th October and 30th November 2020, 3,365 participants from rural areas in Scotland took part in the survey. Participant ages ranged from 16 to 96 (mean = 58.4, standard deviation [SD] = 13.3), and the majority of the participants were female (70.5%). Over half (51.3%) had taken part in the original CovidLife survey.

RuralCovidLife includes a subsample (n = 523) of participants from the Generation Scotland cohort. Pre-pandemic data on health and lifestyle, as well as biological samples, are available for these participants. These participants’ data can also be linked to past and future healthcare records, allowing analysis of retrospective and prospective health outcomes.

Like Generation Scotland, RuralCovidLife is designed as a resource for researchers. RuralCovidLife data, as well as the linked Generation Scotland data, is available for use by external researchers following approval from the Generation Scotland Access Committee. RuralCovidLife can be used to investigate mental health, well-being, and behaviour in participants living in rural areas during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as comparisons with non-rural samples. Moreover, the sub-sample with full Generation Scotland data and linkage can be used to investigate the long-term health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in rural communities.

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

Robert L Spitzer, Kurt Kroenke, Janet B W Williams … (2006)

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

0 comments Cited 7186 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

K Kroenke, R L Spitzer, J. Williams (2001)

While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.

0 comments Cited 6092 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

Emily A. Holmes, Rory C O'Connor, V. Perry … (2020)

Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.

0 comments Cited 2596 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Anna J Stevenson: Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-4771

Charlotte F Huggins: Role: Data CurationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-4771

Alison Forbes: Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project Administration

Jim Hume: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Grant Fulton: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Claire Thirlwall: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Janet Miles: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-5560

Chloe Fawns-Ritchie: Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7493-2228

Archie Campbell: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0198-5078

Clifford Nangle: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: MethodologyRole: Project Administration

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-1158

Rebecca Dawson: Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Project Administration

Rachel Edwards: Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project Administration

Robin Flaig: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8007-1279

Louise Hartley: Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Project Administration

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3304-394X

Christie Levein: Role: Project Administration

Daniel L McCartney: Role: Data Curation

Ian J Deary: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1733-263X

Caroline Hayward: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Supervision

Riccardo E Marioni: Role: Conceptualization

Andrew M McIntosh: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Supervision

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-4588

Cathie Sudlow: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding Acquisition

David J Porteous: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1249-6106

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Wellcome Open Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Wellcome Open Res

Title: Wellcome Open Research

Publisher: F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )

ISSN (Electronic): 2398-502X

Publication date (Electronic): 23 May 2022

Publication date Collection: 2021

Volume: 6

Electronic Location Identifier: 317

Affiliations

[1 ]Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK

[2 ]Support in Mind Scotland, Edinburgh, EH16 5GA, UK

[3 ]Fulton Fisheries Consultancies Limited, Isle of Harris, HS3 3DX, UK

[4 ]Directorate of Public Health, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Dumfries, DG1 2DD, UK

[5 ]The GALE Centre, Gairloch, IV21 2BH, UK

[6 ]Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK

[7 ]Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK

[8 ]MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK

[9 ]Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH10 5HF, UK

[1 ]Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, England, UK

[1 ]Centre for Women’s Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

University of Edinburgh, UK

Author notes

[a ] chuggins@ 123456ed.ac.uk

[b ] daniel.mccartney@ 123456ed.ac.uk

^x Joint first author

Competing interests: Members of the PPIE panel involved in development of study also acted as co-authors.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Author information

Anna J Stevenson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-4771

Charlotte F Huggins https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-4771

Janet Miles https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-5560

Chloe Fawns-Ritchie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7493-2228

Archie Campbell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0198-5078

Clifford Nangle https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-1158

Robin Flaig https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8007-1279

Louise Hartley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3304-394X

Ian J Deary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1733-263X

Andrew M McIntosh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-4588

David J Porteous https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1249-6106

Article

DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17325.2

PMC ID: 11079587

PubMed ID: 38726350

SO-VID: d50d9de0-93f5-4a17-b23b-803ed33cdd2a

License:

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

History

Date accepted : 18 May 2022

Funding

Funded by: Wellcome Trust - University of Edinburgh Institutional Strategic Support Fund

Award ID: ISSF3

Funded by: Wellcome Trust

Award ID: 216767

Funded by: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate

Award ID: CZD/16/6

Funded by: Scottish Funding Council

Award ID: HR03006

This work was supported by Wellcome [216767]; the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates [CZD/16/6]; the Scottish Funding Council [HR03006]; the Wellcome Trust-University of Edinburgh Institutional Strategic Support Fund [ISSF3].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

RuralCovidLife: A new resource for the impact of the pandemic on rural Scotland.

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 20

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 411

Most referenced authors 567