Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


suck pdf from google scholar
PDF vom PMID35112416  :  Publisher
PDF vom PMID35112416

suck abstract from ncbi

Nephropedia Template TP Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia

  • The first wave of COVID-19 and concurrent social restrictions were not associated with a negative impact on mental health and psychiatric well-being #MMPMID35112416
  • Love TJ; Wessman I; Gislason GK; Rognvaldsson S; Thorsteinsdottir S; Sigurdardottir GA; Thordardottir AR; Eythorsson E; Asgeirsdottir TL; Aspelund T; Bjornsson AS; Kristinsson SY
  • J Intern Med 2022[Jun]; 291 (6): 837-848 PMID35112416show ga
  • BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it have substantially affected the daily lives of most of the world's population. OBJECTIVE: We describe the impact of the first COVID-19 wave and associated social restrictions on the mental health of a large adult population. METHODS: We performed a cohort study nested in a prospective randomized clinical trial, comparing responses during the first COVID-19 wave to previous responses. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) of the population moving up one severity category on validated instruments used to measure stress (PSS-10), anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Responses were linked to inpatient and outpatient ICD-10 codes from registries. Models were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and pre-existing diagnoses of mental illness. RESULTS: Of 63,848 invited participants, 42,253 (66%) responded. The median age was 60 (inter-quartile range 53-68) and 19,032 (45%) were male. Responses during the first wave of COVID-19 did not suggest increased stress (OR 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.01; p = 0.28) or anxiety (OR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.05; p = 0.61), but were associated with decreased depression (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93, p < 0.0001) and increased satisfaction with life (OR 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16, p < 0.0001). A secondary analysis of repeated measures data showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Social restrictions were sufficient to contain the pandemic but did not negatively impact validated measures of mental illness or psychiatric well-being. However, responses to individual questions showed signs of fear and stress. This may represent a normal, rather than pathological, population response to a stressful situation.
  • |*COVID-19/epidemiology[MESH]
  • |Adult[MESH]
  • |Anxiety/epidemiology[MESH]
  • |Cohort Studies[MESH]
  • |Cross-Sectional Studies[MESH]
  • |Depression/epidemiology[MESH]
  • |Female[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]
  • |Male[MESH]
  • |Mental Health[MESH]
  • |Middle Aged[MESH]
  • |Prospective Studies[MESH]

  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    837 6.291 2022