Search

The COVID-19 pandemic is a manifestation of trauma exposure that could eventuate in psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and various mental health disturbances, especially in people who have experienced an additional stressor such as a traumatic event. This cross-sectional study assessed the relationship between pandemic-related stressors, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the risk for severe or life-threatening symptoms, and resilience among individuals with a traumatic history amidst the coronavirus disease. This study is part of a longitudinal pan-European research, the ADJUST study. The present study consisted of 14.106 participants. The questionnaires utilized included: sociodemographics, health aspects, the Criterion A section of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5), the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), and the Resilience Evaluation Scale (RES). For the analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were applied. 29% of the respondents reported a traumatic history. Fear of infection, burden of infection, crisis management and communication, restricted activity, risk for severe or life-threatening symptoms of the coronavirus disease, PTSD, and resilience were the predictive factors in the trauma-exposed population. This research provides insights into the stressors that individuals with a traumatic background might experience through the COVID-19 pandemic. Future interventions and worldwide health policies should target trauma-exposed populations to enhance psychological health amidst COVID-19 and other stressful events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to provide effective primary care for refugees and to develop interventions tailored to them, we must know their needs. Little is known of the health needs and experiences of recently arrived refugees and other migrants throughout their journey through Europe. We aimed to gain insight into their health needs, barriers in access and wishes regarding primary health care. Methods: In the spring of 2016, we conducted a qualitative, comparative case study in seven EU countries in a centre of first arrival, two transit centres, two intermediate-stay centres and two longer-stay centres using a Participatory Learning and Action research methodology. A total of 98 refugees and 25 healthcare workers participated in 43 sessions. Transcripts and sessions reports were coded and thematically analyzed by local researchers using the same format at all sites; data were synthesized and further analyzed by two other researchers independently. Results: The main health problems of the participants related to war and to their harsh journey like common infections and psychological distress. They encountered important barriers in accessing healthcare: time pressure, linguistic and cultural differences and lack of continuity of care. They wish for compassionate, culturally sensitive healthcare workers and for more information on procedures and health promotion. Conclusion: Health of refugees on the move in Europe is jeopardized by their bad living circumstances and barriers in access to healthcare. To address their needs, healthcare workers have to be trained in providing integrated, compassionate and cultural competent healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has shown that developing a Train-the-Trainers (TTT) program is important if agencies are to implement guidelines, but the most effective way to deliver a TTT program remains unanswered. This article presents data from a 3-round Internet-based Delphi process, which was used to help develop consensus-based guidelines for a TTT programme to deliver to health and social care professionals throughout Europe a curriculum on traumatic stress. In Round 1, 74 experts rated the importance of statements relating to the TTT field and then reassessed their scores in the light of others' responses in subsequent rounds. Forty-one (67%) of 61 statements achieved consensus (defined as having a mean score >7 or < 3 on the 0-9 rating scales used and 70% of participants scoring 7 and above or 3 and below) for inclusion. Key TTT components included interactive and practical presentations, delivery to groups of 7-12 people over 2 days, external and local expert facilitation, course manuals, refresher courses, and supervision. The Delphi process allowed a consensus to be achieved in an area in which there are limitations in the current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current political crisis, conflicts and riots in many Middle Eastern and African countries have led to massive migration waves towards Europe. European countries, receiving these migratory waves as first port of entry (POE) over the past few years, were confronted with several challenges as a result of the sheer volume of newly arriving refugees. This humanitarian refugee crisis represents the biggest displacement crisis of a generation. Although the refugee crisis created significant challenges for all national healthcare systems across Europe, limited attention has been given to the role of primary health care (PHC) to facilitate an integrated delivery of care by enhancing care provision to refugees upon arrival, on transit or even for longer periods. Evidence-based interventions, encompassing elements of patient-centredness, shared decision-making and compassionate care, could contribute to the assessment of refugee healthcare needs and to the development and the implementation of training programmes for rapid capacity-building for the needs of these vulnerable groups and in the context of integrated PHC care. This article reports on methods used for enhancing PHC for refugees through rapid capacity-building actions in the context of a structured European project under the auspices of the European Commission and funded under the 3rd Health Programme by the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA). The methods include the assessment of the health needs of all the people reaching Europe during the study period, and the identification, development, and testing of educational tools. The developed tools were evaluated following implementation in selected European primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: At present post-disaster activities and plans seem to vary widely. An adequate estimation of the availability of post-disaster psychosocial services across Europe is needed in order to compare them with recently developed evidence-informed psychosocial care guidelines. Here we report on the results of a cross-sectional web-based survey completed in 2008 by two hundred and eighty-six representatives of organizations involved in psychosocial responses to trauma and disaster from thirty-three different countries across Europe. The survey addressed planning and delivery of psychosocial care after disaster, methods of screening and diagnosis, types of interventions used, and other aspects of psychosocial care after trauma. The findings showed that planning and delivery of psychosocial care was inconsistent across Europe. Countries in East Europe seemed to have less central coordination of the post-disaster psychosocial response and fewer post-disaster guidelines that were integrated into specific disaster or contingency plans. Several forms of psychological debriefing, for which there is no evidence of efficacy to date, were still used in several areas particularly in North Europe. East European countries delivered evidence-based interventions for PTSD less frequently, whilst in South- and South-Eastern European countries anxiety suppressing medication such as benzodiazepines were prescribed more frequently to disaster victims than in other areas. Countries across Europe are currently providing sub-optimal psychosocial care for disaster victims. This short report shows that there is an urgent need for some countries to abandon non-effective interventions and others to develop more evidence based and effective services to facilitate the care of those involved in future disasters. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused multiple stressors that may lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder. Objective: We longitudinally examined relationships between risk and protective factors, pandemic-related stressors and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as whether these relationships differed by the time of assessment. Method: The European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) ADJUST Study included N = 15,169 participants aged 18 years and above. Participants from 11 European countries were recruited and screened three times at 6-month intervals from June 2020 to January 2022. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender), stressors (e.g. fear of infection), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (AjD, ADNM-8) and their interaction with time of assessment were examined using mixed linear regression. Results: The following predictors were significantly associated with higher AjD symptom levels: female or diverse gender; older age; pandemic-related news consumption >30 min a day; a current or previous mental health disorder; trauma exposure before or during the pandemic; a good, satisfactory or poor health status (vs. very good); burden related to governmental crisis management and communication; fear of infection; restricted social contact; work-related problems; restricted activity; and difficult housing conditions. The following predictors were associated with lower AjD levels: self-employment or retirement; working in healthcare; and face-to-face contact ≥ once a week with loved ones or friends. The effects of the following predictors on AjD symptoms differed by the time of assessment in the course of the pandemic: a current or previous mental disorder; burden related to governmental crisis management; income reduction; and a current trauma exposure. Conclusions: We identified risk factors and stressors predicting AjD symptom levels at different stages of the pandemic. For some predictors, the effects on mental health may change at different stages of a pandemic.

Background: The four-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) is a widely used screening measure for depression and anxiety., Objectives: This study aimed to test factor structure and measurement invariance in an adult sample of the general population across seven European countries., Method: A total sample of 9230 adults, 71.3 % female, M age  = 44.35 (SD = 14.11) from seven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, Portugal, and Sweden) participated in the study. We applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the factor structure and measurement invariance testing to evaluate measurement equivalence across countries, gender, and age groups., Results: The CFA yielded that a two-factor PHQ-4 model with separate depression and anxiety factors had the best fit. Partial scalar measurement invariance was established across different groups based on gender, age, and country., Conclusions: The PHQ-4 is a valid and reliable measure that can be applied to screen for depression and anxiety in the general population., Limitations: The limitation of the study includes the sampling, which resulted in the sample structure with the majority of females, predominantly of high education and from urban communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposes individuals to multiple stressors, such as quarantine, physical distancing, job loss, risk of infection, and loss of loved ones. Such a complex array of stressors potentially lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder., Objective: This cross-sectional exploratory study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, stressors, and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Data from the first wave of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) longitudinal ADJUST Study were used. N =  15,563 participants aged 18 years and above were recruited in eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender, diagnosis of a mental health disorder), stressors (e.g. fear of infection, restricted face-to-face contact), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (ADNM-8) were examined using multivariate linear regression., Results: The prevalence of self-reported probable adjustment disorder was 18.2%. Risk factors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were female gender, older age, being at risk for severe COVID-19 illness, poorer general health status, current or previous trauma exposure, a current or previous mental health disorder, and longer exposure to COVID-19 news. Protective factors related to lower levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were higher income, being retired, and having more face-to-face contact with loved ones or friends. Pandemic-related stressors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder included fear of infection, governmental crisis management, restricted social contact, work-related problems, restricted activity, and difficult housing conditions., Conclusions: We identified stressors, risk, and protective factors that may help identify individuals at higher risk for adjustment disorder., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial interests that could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)