Khanh Ngoc Cong Duong1, Tien Nguyen Le Bao2, Phuong Thi Lan Nguyen3, Thanh Vo Van2,4, Toi Phung Lam1,5, Anh Pham Gia6, Luerat Anuratpanich3, Bay Vo Van7. 1. Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, TH. 2. Institute of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Viet Duc Hospital, Hanoi, VN. 3. Social Economics and Administrative Pharmacy Program (SEAP), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, TH. 4. Department of Surgery, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, VN. 5. Health Strategy and Policy Institute, Ministry of Health, Hanoi, VN. 6. Oncology Department, Viet Duc Hospital, Hanoi, VN. 7. Department of Pharmacy, Thong Nhat Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam, 01 Ly Thuong Kiet Street, Ward 7, Tan Binh District, Ho Chi Minh City, VN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first nationwide lockdown due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been imposed in Vietnam between April 1 and 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 to society's psychological health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during COVID-19 social distancing. The associated factors were explored by using regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 respondents completed the survey. There were 35.9%, 23.5%, 14.1%, and 22.3% who suffered from psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively. Those respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had higher IES-R score, DASS-21 depression, anxiety and stress than those in good/very good health status (beta-coefficient regression (B) = 9.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 6.43 to 11.89), B = 5.85, 95% CI, 4.49 to 7.21, B = 3.64, 95% CI, 2.64 to 4.63, and B = 5.19, 95% CI, 3.83 to 6.56, respectively). Those who were in bad or very bad health condition suffered more severe depression, anxiety and stress (B = 9.57, 95% CI, 4.54 to 14.59, B = 7.24, 95% CI, 3.55 to 10.9, and B = 10.60, 95% CI, 5.56 to 15.65, respectively). Unemployment was more likely associated with depression and stress (B = 3.34, 95% CI, 1.68 to 5.01, and B = 2.34, 95% CI, 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding concerns about COVID-19, more than half (54.5%) expressed concern on their children aged below 18 years, which increased their IES-R score and DASS-21 stress score (B = 7.81, 95% CI, 4.98 to 10.64, and B = 1.75, 95% CI, 0.27 to 3.24, respectively). Majority (94.6%) were confident on the doctor's expertise in COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B = -7.84, 95% CI, -14.58 to -1.11). CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the impacts on mental health of COVID-19 during the nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. The study provides useful evidence for policy decision-makers to develop and implement interventions to mitigate these impacts.
BACKGROUND: The first nationwide lockdown due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been imposed in Vietnam between April 1 and 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 to society's psychological health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during COVID-19 social distancing. The associated factors were explored by using regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 respondents completed the survey. There were 35.9%, 23.5%, 14.1%, and 22.3% who suffered from psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively. Those respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had higher IES-R score, DASS-21 depression, anxiety and stress than those in good/very good health status (beta-coefficient regression (B) = 9.16, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 6.43 to 11.89), B = 5.85, 95% CI, 4.49 to 7.21, B = 3.64, 95% CI, 2.64 to 4.63, and B = 5.19, 95% CI, 3.83 to 6.56, respectively). Those who were in bad or very bad health condition suffered more severe depression, anxiety and stress (B = 9.57, 95% CI, 4.54 to 14.59, B = 7.24, 95% CI, 3.55 to 10.9, and B = 10.60, 95% CI, 5.56 to 15.65, respectively). Unemployment was more likely associated with depression and stress (B = 3.34, 95% CI, 1.68 to 5.01, and B = 2.34, 95% CI, 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding concerns about COVID-19, more than half (54.5%) expressed concern on their children aged below 18 years, which increased their IES-R score and DASS-21 stress score (B = 7.81, 95% CI, 4.98 to 10.64, and B = 1.75, 95% CI, 0.27 to 3.24, respectively). Majority (94.6%) were confident on the doctor's expertise in COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B = -7.84, 95% CI, -14.58 to -1.11). CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the impacts on mental health of COVID-19 during the nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. The study provides useful evidence for policy decision-makers to develop and implement interventions to mitigate these impacts.
Authors: Cuiyan Wang; María Inmaculada López-Núñez; Riyu Pan; Xiaoyang Wan; Yilin Tan; Linkang Xu; Faith Choo; Roger Ho; Cyrus Ho; Marta E Aparicio García Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-05-21
Authors: Phuong Thi Lan Nguyen; Tien Bao Le Nguyen; Anh Gia Pham; Khanh Ngoc Cong Duong; Mac Ardy Junio Gloria; Thanh Van Vo; Bay Van Vo; Toi Lam Phung Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-03-19
Authors: Farah Yasmin; Hafsa Nazir Jatoi; Muhammad Saif Abbasi; Muhammad Sohaib Asghar; Sarush Ahmed Siddiqui; Hamza Nauman; Abdullah Khan Khattak; Muhammad Tanveer Alam Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-03-15
Authors: Hafsah Saeed; Ardalan Eslami; Najah T Nassif; Ann M Simpson; Sara Lal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Paula Rodríguez-Fernández; Josefa González-Santos; Mirian Santamaría-Peláez; Raúl Soto-Cámara; Esteban Sánchez-González; Jerónimo J González-Bernal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.390