Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Keywords
- longitudinal studies (2)
- mental health (2)
- quality of life (2)
- systematic review (2)
- anxiety (1)
- cohort studies (1)
- cross-sectional studies (1)
- depression (1)
- digital phenotyping (1)
- dual guidance (1)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (6) (remove)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
Background
In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process.
Study design
This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design.
Methods
Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD’s outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2).
Outcomes
Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30% in standard care to 40% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients’ quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians’ satisfaction with the innovative care approach.
Conclusions
This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease.
Occurrence of mental illness and mental health risks among the self-employed: a systematic review
(2021)
We aimed to systematically identify and evaluate all studies of good quality that compared the occurrence of mental disorders in the self-employed versus employees. Adhering to the Cochrane guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and searched three major medical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase), complemented by hand search. We included 26 (three longitudinal and 23 cross-sectional) population-based studies of good quality (using a validated quality assessment tool), with data from 3,128,877 participants in total. The longest of these studies, a Swedish national register evaluation with 25 years follow-up, showed a higher incidence of mental illness among the self-employed compared to white-collar workers, but a lower incidence compared to blue-collar workers. In the second longitudinal study from Sweden the self-employed had a lower incidence of mental illness compared to both blue- and white-collar workers over 15 years, whereas the third longitudinal study (South Korea) did not find a difference regarding the incidence of depressive symptoms over 6 years. Results from the cross-sectional studies showed associations between self-employment and poor general mental health and stress, but were inconsistent regarding other mental outcomes. Most studies from South Korea found a higher prevalence of mental disorders among the self-employed compared to employees, whereas the results of cross-sectional studies from outside Asia were less consistent. In conclusion, we found evidence from population-based studies for a link between self-employment and increased risk of mental illness. Further longitudinal studies are needed examining the potential risk for the development of mental disorders in specific subtypes of the self-employed.
A systematic overview of mental and physical disorders of informal caregivers based on population-based studies with good methodological quality is lacking. Therefore, our aim was to systematically summarize mortality, incidence, and prevalence estimates of chronic diseases in informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. Following PRISMA recommendations, we searched major healthcare databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE and Web of Science) systematically for relevant studies published in the last 10 years (without language restrictions) (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020200314). We included only observational cross-sectional and cohort studies with low risk of bias (risk scores 0–2 out of max 8) that reported the prevalence, incidence, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), mean- or sum-scores for health-related outcomes in informal caregivers and non-caregivers. For a thorough methodological quality assessment, we used a validated checklist. The synthesis of the results was conducted by grouping outcomes. We included 22 studies, which came predominately from the USA and Europe. Informal caregivers had a significantly lower mortality than non-caregivers. Regarding chronic morbidity outcomes, the results from a large longitudinal German health-insurance evaluation showed increased and statistically significant incidences of severe stress, adjustment disorders, depression, diseases of the spine and pain conditions among informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. In cross-sectional evaluations, informal caregiving seemed to be associated with a higher occurrence of depression and of anxiety (ranging from 4 to 51% and 2 to 38%, respectively), pain, hypertension, diabetes and reduced quality of life. Results from our systematic review suggest that informal caregiving may be associated with several mental and physical disorders. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution, as the cross-sectional studies cannot determine temporal relationships. The lower mortality rates compared to non-caregivers may be due to a healthy-carer bias in longitudinal observational studies; however, these and other potential benefits of informal caregiving deserve further attention by researchers.
Physical and mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic is typically assessed via surveys, which might make it difficult to conduct longitudinal studies and might lead to data suffering from recall bias. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) driven smartphone apps can help alleviate such issues, allowing for in situ recordings. Implementing such an app is not trivial, necessitates strict regulatory and legal requirements, and requires short development cycles to appropriately react to abrupt changes in the pandemic. Based on an existing app framework, we developed Corona Health, an app that serves as a platform for deploying questionnaire-based studies in combination with recordings of mobile sensors. In this paper, we present the technical details of Corona Health and provide first insights into the collected data. Through collaborative efforts from experts from public health, medicine, psychology, and computer science, we released Corona Health publicly on Google Play and the Apple App Store (in July 2020) in eight languages and attracted 7290 installations so far. Currently, five studies related to physical and mental well-being are deployed and 17,241 questionnaires have been filled out. Corona Health proves to be a viable tool for conducting research related to the COVID-19 pandemic and can serve as a blueprint for future EMA-based studies. The data we collected will substantially improve our knowledge on mental and physical health states, traits and trajectories as well as its risk and protective factors over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and its diverse prevention measures.
Psychosocial factors affect mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a complex manner, yet gender differences in these interactions remain poorly understood. We investigated whether psychosocial factors such as social support and personal and work-related concerns impact mental health and HRQL differentially in women and men during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between June and October 2020, the first part of a COVID-19-specific program was conducted within the “Characteristics and Course of Heart Failure Stages A-B and Determinants of Progression (STAAB)” cohort study, a representative age- and gender-stratified sample of the general population of Würzburg, Germany. Using psychometric networks, we first established the complex relations between personal social support, personal and work-related concerns, and their interactions with anxiety, depression, and HRQL. Second, we tested for gender differences by comparing expected influence, edge weight differences, and stability of the networks. The network comparison revealed a significant difference in the overall network structure. The male (N = 1370) but not the female network (N = 1520) showed a positive link between work-related concern and anxiety. In both networks, anxiety was the most central variable. These findings provide further evidence that the complex interplay of psychosocial factors with mental health and HRQL decisively depends on gender. Our results are relevant for the development of gender-specific interventions to increase resilience in times of pandemic crisis.
Long-term sequelae in hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may result in limited quality of life. The current study aimed to determine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after COVID-19 hospitalization in non-intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU patients. This is a single-center study at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Germany. Patients eligible were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and December 2020. Patients were interviewed 3 and 12 months after hospital discharge. Questionnaires included the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the generalized anxiety disorder 7 scale (GAD-7), FACIT fatigue scale, perceived stress scale (PSS-10) and posttraumatic symptom scale 10 (PTSS-10). 85 patients were included in the study. The EQ5D-5L-Index significantly differed between non-ICU (0.78 ± 0.33 and 0.84 ± 0.23) and ICU (0.71 ± 0.27; 0.74 ± 0.2) patients after 3- and 12-months. Of non-ICU 87% and 80% of ICU survivors lived at home without support after 12 months. One-third of ICU and half of the non-ICU patients returned to work. A higher percentage of ICU patients was limited in their activities of daily living compared to non-ICU patients. Depression and fatigue were present in one fifth of the ICU patients. Stress levels remained high with only 24% of non-ICU and 3% of ICU patients (p = 0.0186) having low perceived stress. Posttraumatic symptoms were present in 5% of non-ICU and 10% of ICU patients. HRQoL is limited in COVID-19 ICU patients 3- and 12-months post COVID-19 hospitalization, with significantly less improvement at 12-months compared to non-ICU patients. Mental disorders were common highlighting the complexity of post-COVID-19 symptoms as well as the necessity to educate patients and primary care providers about monitoring mental well-being post COVID-19.