Search

The world is social distancing and compulsory confinement has caused stress, psychological instability, stigmatization, fear, and discrimination in the general population. In this cross-sectional survey study, we administered the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to hospital medical and nonmedical personnel. A total of 1,216 participants were surveyed from May 25 to May 29 of 2020. We asked all the staff for their participation in the study and physical copies of the survey were distributed to the staff willing to participate. All surveys were answered anonymously. We found that the global FCV-19S mean score was 16.4 ± 6.1, with a significant difference between women and men’s scores. Medical students presented higher scores than experienced medical personnel. Additionally, the medical and nursing personnel presented a higher level of fear than hospital staff who did not work directly with COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggest that greater knowledge of medicine or infectious diseases could decrease the overall psychological impact of the pandemic disease.

Jean-Philippe Rozon,1,2 Mélanie Hébert,2 Serge Bourgault,2 Mathieu Caissie,2 Laurence Letartre,2 Eric Tourville,2 Ali Dirani2 1Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Universitaire d’Ophtalmologie, CHU de Québec – Université Laval, Québec, QC, CanadaCorrespondence: Ali DiraniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050 Ste-Foy Street, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, CanadaTel +1 418 525-4444Fax +1 418 682-7557Email drdirani@gmail.comPurpose: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, news related to the pandemic has created a feeling of fear, particularly among high-risk groups including elderly patients. This study aimed to assess the fear associated with COVID-19 and to evaluate the fear of vision decrease related to the delay of treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients (nAMD) during the pandemic.Patients and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional study of 160 actively treated patients with nAMD enrolled between September and November 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Québec, Canada. For each participant, demographic and clinical data were collected. The anxiety was rated in a questionnaire composed of two sections: the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) and eight additional questions to assess ophthalmology-related COVID-19 statements.Results: The mean ± standard deviation level of FCV-19S was 17.05± 4.38. In the multivariable analysis, it was significantly higher in women (p< 0.001) and lower in patients with a high school education vs elementary school (p=0.009). In the ophthalmology-related statements, 16% feared vision loss because of difficulties in maintaining regular follow-ups during the pandemic. The female gender was significantly associated with a higher tendency to postpone their appointment (p=0.03). No association was found between the patients’ underlying disease characteristics and higher fear of vision loss.Conclusion: Despite the massive impact of the pandemic, anxiety related to COVID-19 and delaying ophthalmology treatments remained relatively low in nAMD patients. Greater explanations to address this fear may reduce anxiety level, especially among female patients and those with an elementary school education.Keywords: vision loss fear, fear assessment, Fear of COVID-19 Scale, anti-VEGF

COVID-19 is a major source of fear, stress, and anxiety as well as a major factor impacting the health and wellbeing of people worldwide. The present study builds on the recently developed "Fear of COVID-19 Scale" (Ahorsu et al., In International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8, 2020). The sample comprised of 850 participants, male and female young adults from Russia and Belarus. The majority of survey participants are university students and graduates. Females, students, and others from Russia report higher levels of COVID-19-related fear than those from Belarus. Respondents from Russia and Belarus report less fear than people from Iran who were surveyed earlier. The scale used for the present survey evidenced a good Cronbach's Alpha measure of internal consistency or reliability (0.809). Clearly, further research is needed across locations and over time about the nature and extent of fear caused by COVID 19. Overall, the FCV-19S appears to be a valuable and brief instrument that may provide useful information for intervention and policy purposes to migrate fear and problem behavior linked to infectious disease outbreaks.

Background Low levels of agreement between caregiver and child reports of acute pain are well documented. Aims This study builds on prior research through exploring factors that may contribute to low caregiver–child concordance. Specifically, the study examined the influence of adult and child sex on adult judgments of children’s pain and fear during venipuncture and examined whether trait parental pain catastrophizing, empathy, and anxiety predicted judgment accuracy. Methods Using a judgment study paradigm, 160 participants (82 women) viewed 20 10-s video clips of children (10 boys, 10 girls) undergoing venipuncture and rated each child’s pain and fear. Adults’ ratings were compared to the children’s own ratings. Adults completed measures of trait parental pain catastrophizing, dispositional empathy, and trait anxiety. Results Adults accurately judged boys’ pain and fear significantly more often than that of girls. Further, adults underestimated and overestimated girls’ pain and overestimated girls’ fear significantly more frequently than that of boys. No effects of adult sex or adult by child sex interactions emerged. Parental pain catastrophizing significantly predicted underestimation of girls’ pain, with adults who engaged in more catastrophizing being less likely to underestimate girls’ pain. The variables did not predict adult judgment of child pain for women and men separately and did not predict adult judgment of child fear when examined by adult sex, child sex, or both combined. Conclusions Child sex influences adult pain and fear judgments, with girls being more vulnerable to inaccurate assessment than boys. Higher levels of parental pain catastrophizing may buffer against adults’ propensities to underestimate girls’ pain.

The presence of COVID-19 has had psychological consequences among health personnel; these include fear, anxiety, and depression. In the current study, we used the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to assess the response to fear within health staff in Mexico. This was a cross-sectional survey study in which we administered the Spanish version of the FCV-19S to hospital staff. The FCV-19S is a seven-item questionnaire that assesses the severity of fear caused by COVID-19. A total of 2860 participants-1641 female and 1218 male personnel from three hospitals-were included in the study. The internal reliability of the scale was good, with Cronbach's alpha of .902. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the seven items of the FCV-19S, showing good model fit (χ 2 (7) = 29.40, p < .001; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .010; AIC = 71.40). We found a global FCV-19S mean score of 19.3 ± 6.9, with a significant difference in scores between women and men. Our survey shows a significantly higher level of fear in nursing and administrative personnel, which may be explained by the nursing staff being in close contact with infected patients and the administrative staff lacking understanding of the possible implications of the infection, compared with nonclinical hospital personnel. Our results are consistent with those of other researchers. We must remember that fear is a reaction and that we must be courageous enough to trust validated infection prevention practices to provide the highest standard of care, in the safest environment that we can, for as long as we can.

Background: Low levels of agreement between caregiver and child reports of acute pain are well documented. Aims: This study builds on prior research through exploring factors that may contribute to low caregiver-child concordance. Specifically, the study examined the influence of adult and child sex on adult judgments of children's pain and fear during venipuncture and examined whether trait parental pain catastrophizing, empathy, and anxiety predicted judgment accuracy. Methods: Using a judgment study paradigm, 160 participants (82 women) viewed 20 10-s video clips of children (10 boys, 10 girls) undergoing venipuncture and rated each child's pain and fear. Adults' ratings were compared to the children's own ratings. Adults completed measures of trait parental pain catastrophizing, dispositional empathy, and trait anxiety. Results: Adults accurately judged boys' pain and fear significantly more often than that of girls. Further, adults underestimated and overestimated girls' pain and overestimated girls' fear significantly more frequently than that of boys. No effects of adult sex or adult by child sex interactions emerged. Parental pain catastrophizing significantly predicted underestimation of girls' pain, with adults who engaged in more catastrophizing being less likely to underestimate girls' pain. The variables did not predict adult judgment of child pain for women and men separately and did not predict adult judgment of child fear when examined by adult sex, child sex, or both combined. Conclusions: Child sex influences adult pain and fear judgments, with girls being more vulnerable to inaccurate assessment than boys. Higher levels of parental pain catastrophizing may buffer against adults' propensities to underestimate girls' pain.