4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychosocial Factors Associated With Adherence to COVID-19 Preventive Measures in Low-Middle- Income Countries, December 2020 to February 2021

      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

          Objectives: To investigate psychosocial factors associated with adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

          Methods: This online cross-sectional survey included 10,183 adults (median age 45 years) from nine LMICs. Participants were asked about adhering to four COVID-19 preventive measures (physical distancing, wearing a face mask, hand, and cough hygiene); a composite adherence score was calculated, ranging from 0–4 positive responses. Psychosocial measures included worry, anxiety, depression, social and demographic, and COVID-19 related factors.

          Results: Factors associated with adherence to more preventive measures included being a participant from Malaysia or Bangladesh, older age, higher education, belonging to the healthcare sector (either as or worker), having health personnel as a trusted source of COVID-19 information/advice, possessing correct COVID-19 knowledge, worry or fear about being (re)infected with COVID-19, and screening negative for general anxiety symptoms.

          Conclusion: Moderate to high adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures was found, with significant variations across countries. Psychosocial factors (worry, anxiety, knowledge, education, age, and country) seemed determinant in predicting the number of measures to which participants adhered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener.

          A number of self-administered questionnaires are available for assessing depression severity, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9). Because even briefer measures might be desirable for use in busy clinical settings or as part of comprehensive health questionnaires, we evaluated a 2-item version of the PHQ depression module, the PHQ-2. The PHQ-2 inquires about the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia over the past 2 weeks, scoring each as 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("nearly every day"). The PHQ-2 was completed by 6000 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-2 depression severity increased from 0 to 6, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and healthcare utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-2 score > or =3 had a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 92% for major depression. Likelihood ratio and receiver operator characteristic analysis identified a PHQ-2 score of 3 as the optimal cutpoint for screening purposes. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. The construct and criterion validity of the PHQ-2 make it an attractive measure for depression screening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection.

            Anxiety, although as common as depression, has received less attention and is often undetected and undertreated. To determine the current prevalence, impairment, and comorbidity of anxiety disorders in primary care and to evaluate a brief measure for detecting these disorders. Criterion-standard study performed between November 2004 and June 2005. 15 U.S. primary care clinics. 965 randomly sampled patients from consecutive clinic patients who completed a self-report questionnaire and agreed to a follow-up telephone interview. 7-item anxiety measure (Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD]-7 scale) in the clinic, followed by a telephone-administered, structured psychiatric interview by a mental health professional who was blinded to the GAD-7 results. Functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20), depressive and somatic symptoms, and self-reported disability days and physician visits were also assessed. Of the 965 patients, 19.5% (95% CI, 17.0% to 22.1%) had at least 1 anxiety disorder, 8.6% (CI, 6.9% to 10.6%) had posttraumatic stress disorder, 7.6% (CI, 5.9% to 9.4%) had a generalized anxiety disorder, 6.8% (CI, 5.3% to 8.6%) had a panic disorder, and 6.2% (CI, 4.7% to 7.9%) had a social anxiety disorder. Each disorder was associated with substantial impairment that increased significantly (P < 0.001) as the number of anxiety disorders increased. Many patients (41%) with an anxiety disorder reported no current treatment. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis showed that both the GAD-7 scale and its 2 core items (GAD-2) performed well (area under the curve, 0.80 to 0.91) as screening tools for all 4 anxiety disorders. The study included a nonrandom sample of selected primary care practices. Anxiety disorders are prevalent, disabling, and often untreated in primary care. A 2-item screening test may enhance detection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prevalence and Predictors of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Compliance with Precautionary Measures: Age and Sex Matter

              Effective management of the global pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (also known as COVID-19), resulted in the implementation of severe restrictions in movement and enforcement of social distancing measures. This study aimed to understand and characterize the psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and to identify risks and protective factors that predict changes in mental health status. In addition, the study investigated compliance with precautionary measures (PM) to halt the spread of the virus. The online anonymous survey collected information on sociodemographic data, compliance with PM, quality of life (QOL), and mental health via the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). A total of 1642 adult participants (71.6% women, 28.4% men) completed the survey in the European island country, Cyprus. A large percentage (48%) reported significant financial concerns and 66.7% significant changes in their QOL. About 41% reported symptoms associated with mild anxiety; 23.1% reported moderate-severe anxiety symptoms. Concerning depression, 48% reported mild and 9.2% moderate-severe depression symptoms. Women, younger age (18–29), student status, unemployment status, prior psychiatric history, and those reporting greater negative impact on their QOL, were at higher risk for increased anxiety and depression symptoms (p < 0.05). The youngest age group and males also reported lower levels of compliance with PM. Higher compliance with PM predicted lower depression scores (p < 0.001) but higher anxiety for measures related to personal hygiene. The results of this study provide important data on the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on mental health and QOL and identify a variety of personal and social determinants that serve as risks and protective factors. Furthermore, it has implications for policy makers demonstrating the need for effective mental health programs and guidance for the implementation of PM as a public health strategy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Public Health
                Int J Public Health
                Int J Public Health
                International Journal of Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1661-8556
                1661-8564
                11 May 2022
                2022
                11 May 2022
                : 67
                : 1604398
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Department of Health Education and Behavioral Sciences , Faculty of Public Health Mahidol University , Ratchathewi, Thailand
                [2] 2 Department of Research Administration and Development , University of Limpopo , Polokwane, South Africa
                [3] 3 Department of Psychology , College of Medical and Health Science , Asia University , Taichung, Taiwan
                [4] 4 Department of Family and Preventive Medicine , Faculty of Medicine , Prince of Songkla University , Hat Yai, Thailand
                [5] 5 FETP Division , Department of Diseases Control , Ministry of Public Health , Nonthaburi, Thailand
                [6] 6 Disease Control Coordination , São Paulo State Health Department , São Paulo, Brazil
                [7] 7 Institute of Tropical Pathology and Public Health , Federal University of Goiás , Goiânia, Brazil
                [8] 8 School of Medicine , Health Sciences Unit , Federal University of Jataí , Jataí, Brazil
                [9] 9 School of Social Science , Universiti Sains Malaysia , Gelugor, Malaysia
                [10] 10 Centre for Community Health Studies (ReaCH) , Faculty of Health Sciences , Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia , Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
                [11] 11 Department of Health Science and Biostatistics , Faculty of Health , Arts and Design , Swinburne University of Technology , Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
                [12] 12 Public Health Foundation , Bangladesh (PHF, BD) , Dhaka, Bangladesh
                [13] 13 Department of Primary Care and Mental Health , University of Liverpool , Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [14] 14 Research Unit on Communicable Diseases , Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi , University of Abomey-Calavi , Cotonou, Benin
                [15] 15 Kinshasa School of Public Health , University of Kinshasa , Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
                [16] 16 University of North Carolina UNC Project Malawi , Lilongwe, Malawi
                [17] 17 International Center of Excellence in Research, Faculty of Medicine and Odontostomatology , University of Sciences, Techniques and Technology of Bamako , Bamako, Mali
                [18] 18 Lymphatic Filariasis Research Unit, International Center of Excellence in Research , Faculty of Medicine and Odontostomatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire du Point-G , Bamako, Mali
                [19] 19 School of Public Health , College of Health Sciences , Makerere University , Kampala, Uganda
                [20] 20 Global Health Institute , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                Author notes

                Edited by: Franco Mascayano, Columbia University, United States

                Reviewed by: Dinarte Ballester, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil

                Andréa Tenório Correia da Silva, University of São Paulo, Brazil

                *Correspondence: Karl Peltzer, kfpeltzer@ 123456gmail.com

                This Original Article is part of the IJPH Special Issue “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health”

                Article
                1604398
                10.3389/ijph.2022.1604398
                9130457
                9cdb010b-8a9e-4170-a86c-c436327b8acd
                Copyright © 2022 Pengpid, Peltzer, Sathirapanya, Thitichai, Faria de Moura Villela, Rodrigues Zanuzzi, de Andrade Bandeira, Bono, Siau, Chen, Hasan, Sessou, Ditekemena, Hosseinipour, Dolo, Wanyenze, Nelson Siewe Fodjo and Colebunders.

                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
                : 11 August 2021
                : 14 March 2022
                Categories
                Public Health Archive
                Original Article

                Public health
                psychosocial factors,low-and middle-income countries,covid-19,adherence,preventive measures

                Comments

                Comment on this article