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

      Assessment of Levels of Anxiety and Fear of Covid-19 in a Population of Pregnant Women in Spain

      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

          Objective

          The aim of the study was to assess the levels of fear and anxiety in the particularly vulnerable population group of women during pregnancy.

          Methods

          Cross-sectional study between March 2022 and July 2022 involving 978 pregnant women aged 16 to 50 years. It was carried out based on the scale for the assessment of fear and anxiety in pregnant women (AMICO_Pregnant) and the collection of sociodemographic data. Normality analysis was performed prior to univariate and bivariate statistical analysis.

          Results

          The sample was composed of a total of 978 pregnant women. The mean of the AMICO_Pregnant scale was intermediate (5.04 points; SD=2.36). The bivariate analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between the AMICO_Pregnant scale and the following variables: vaccination schedule status, contact with the disease, weeks of gestation, altered delivery or birth plan.

          Conclusion

          Women with pregnancies closer to term, with no contact with the disease, without a complete vaccination schedule, or who had undergone changes in their delivery or birth plans, showed higher levels of fear and anxiety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

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

          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.
            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: found
              Is Open Access

              Predictors of Mortality for Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Caused by SARS-CoV-2: A Prospective Cohort Study

              To identify factors associated with the death for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. All clinical and laboratory parameters were collected prospectively from a cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were hospitalised to Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China, between December 25, 2019 and February 7, 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate the relationship between each variable and the risk for death of COVID-19 pneumonia patients. A total of 179 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (97 male and 82 female) were included in the present prospective study, of whom 21 died. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥65 years (odd ratio, 3.765; 95% confidence interval, 1.146‒17.394; p=0.023), preexisting concurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases (2.464; 0.755‒8.044; p=0.007), CD3+CD8+ T cells ≤75 cell·μL−1 (3.982; 1.132‒14.006; p<0.001), and cardiac troponin I≥0.05 ng·mL−1 (4.077; 1.166‒14.253; p<0.001) were associated with an increase in risk of mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia. In the sex‒, age‒, and comorbid illness-matched case study, CD3+CD8+ T cells ≤75 cell·μL−1 and cardiac troponin I≥0.05 ng·mL−1 remained to be the predictors for high mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia. We identified four risk factors, age ≥65 years, preexisting concurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases, CD3+CD8+ T cells ≤75 cell·μL−1, and cardiac troponin I≥0.05 ng·mL−1, especially the latter two factors, were predictors for mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychol Res Behav Manag
                Psychol Res Behav Manag
                prbm
                Psychology Research and Behavior Management
                Dove
                1179-1578
                16 November 2023
                2023
                : 16
                : 4665-4676
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Málaga , Málaga, Spain
                [2 ]Obstetrics and Gynecology Area, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga , Málaga, Spain
                [3 ]Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Ceuta University Hospital, Midwifery Teaching Unit of Ceuta, University of Granada , Ceuta, Spain
                [4 ]Department of Sociology, Social Work and Public Health, Faculty of Labour Sciences, University of Huelva , Huelva, Spain
                [5 ]Safety and Health Postgraduate Programme, Universidad Espíritu Santo , Guayaquil, Ecuador
                [6 ]Department of Nursing. University of Seville , Seville, Spain
                [7 ]Unidade Científico-Pedagógica de Enfermagem de Saúde Materna, Obstétrica e Ginecológica, UICISA: E. Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra , Coimbra, Portugal
                [8 ]Department of Nursing, Health School, University of Algarve , Faro, Portugal
                [9 ]Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing, Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra , Coimbra, Portugal
                [10 ]Centro Universitario de Enfermería Cruz Roja , Sevilla, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Juan Gómez-Salgado, Department of Sociology, Social Work and Public Health, Faculty of Labour Sciences, University of Huelva. Avda. Tres de Marzo , S/N, 21007, Huelva, Spain, Tel +34 959219700, Email salgado@uhu.es
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9053-7730
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-0838
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-5277
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8286-3381
                Article
                432792
                10.2147/PRBM.S432792
                10660725
                38024653
                f80dfe53-32ef-4c22-9815-890532669b25
                © 2023 Muñoz-Vela et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 28 July 2023
                : 14 October 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, References: 62, Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: Funding;
                This research has not received any public or private funding.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                pregnancy,covid-19,fear,anxiety,questionnaire,mental health,public health
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                pregnancy, covid-19, fear, anxiety, questionnaire, mental health, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article