Maurizio Bonati1, Rita Campi2, Michele Zanetti2, Massimo Cartabia2, Francesca Scarpellini2, Antonio Clavenna2, Giulia Segre2. 1. Department of Public Health, Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy. maurizio.bonati@marionegri.it. 2. Department of Public Health, Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quarantine as a preventive action to reduce people's exposure to a contagious disease has substantial psychological impact. We aimed to collect information on psychologically distressing experiences of Italians living in quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From 6 to 20 April 2020 participants filled out an online questionnaire. Demographic and physical symptoms data from the prior 14 days of quarantine were collected. Psychological impact of quarantine was assessed by the COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI). RESULTS: In all, 20,158 participants completed the online survey. Of these, 11,910 (59.1%) were from Lombardy, the region with 37.7% of positive cases identified during the survey period. 30.1% of responders were male. About half (55.9%) of responders were 18-50 years old, 54.3% had a tertiary level of education, 69.5% were workers, 84.1% were living in houses with ≥3 rooms, and 13.7% were living alone. 9.7% had had contact with COVID-19 positive people. Of all responders, 9978 (48.6%) reported a psychological impact, 8897 (43.4%) of whom reported mild or moderate and 1081 (5.2%) severe psychological impact. The multivariate analysis, after adjustments, showed that an increasing CPDI score was associated with gender (female), first-second educational level, being unemployed, living in a ≤2 room house, having had new health problems during the previous 14 days, and not having been out of the house in the previous week. Concerning the type of psychological distress, 2003 responders (9.9%) reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms, 1131 (5.5%) moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, and 802 (3.9%) moderate to severe physical symptoms. A positive correlation was found between responder rate (per 10.000 residents) and positive COVID-19 cases (per 10.000 residents) by region (rs = + 0.83, p = < 0.0001), and between responder rate and region latitude (rs = + 0.91, p = < 0.0001), with a greater response rate in the north. Considering Lombardy Region responders, a negative correlation between CPDI score and distance from place of residence to the red zone (Nembro-Alzano) was found. Higher prevalence of psychological distress was found up to 25 km away from the red zone and, in particular, severe distress up to 15 km. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and mental health professionals should be aware of quarantine's adverse mental health consequences. Factors influencing the success of quarantine and infection control practices for both disease containment and community recovery should be identified and additional support to vulnerable persons at increased risk of adverse psychological and social consequences of quarantine should be guaranteed.
BACKGROUND: Quarantine as a preventive action to reduce people's exposure to a contagious disease has substantial psychological impact. We aimed to collect information on psychologically distressing experiences of Italians living in quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From 6 to 20 April 2020 participants filled out an online questionnaire. Demographic and physical symptoms data from the prior 14 days of quarantine were collected. Psychological impact of quarantine was assessed by the COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI). RESULTS: In all, 20,158 participants completed the online survey. Of these, 11,910 (59.1%) were from Lombardy, the region with 37.7% of positive cases identified during the survey period. 30.1% of responders were male. About half (55.9%) of responders were 18-50 years old, 54.3% had a tertiary level of education, 69.5% were workers, 84.1% were living in houses with ≥3 rooms, and 13.7% were living alone. 9.7% hadhad contact with COVID-19 positive people. Of all responders, 9978 (48.6%) reported a psychological impact, 8897 (43.4%) of whom reported mild or moderate and 1081 (5.2%) severe psychological impact. The multivariate analysis, after adjustments, showed that an increasing CPDI score was associated with gender (female), first-second educational level, being unemployed, living in a ≤2 room house, having had new health problems during the previous 14 days, and not having been out of the house in the previous week. Concerning the type of psychological distress, 2003 responders (9.9%) reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms, 1131 (5.5%) moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, and 802 (3.9%) moderate to severe physical symptoms. A positive correlation was found between responder rate (per 10.000 residents) and positive COVID-19 cases (per 10.000 residents) by region (rs = + 0.83, p = < 0.0001), and between responder rate and region latitude (rs = + 0.91, p = < 0.0001), with a greater response rate in the north. Considering Lombardy Region responders, a negative correlation between CPDI score and distance from place of residence to the red zone (Nembro-Alzano) was found. Higher prevalence of psychological distress was found up to 25 km away from the red zone and, in particular, severe distress up to 15 km. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and mental health professionals should be aware of quarantine's adverse mental health consequences. Factors influencing the success of quarantine and infection control practices for both disease containment and community recovery should be identified and additional support to vulnerable persons at increased risk of adverse psychological and social consequences of quarantine should be guaranteed.
Authors: David S Hui; Esam I Azhar; Tariq A Madani; Francine Ntoumi; Richard Kock; Osman Dar; Giuseppe Ippolito; Timothy D Mchugh; Ziad A Memish; Christian Drosten; Alimuddin Zumla; Eskild Petersen Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Samantha K Brooks; Rebecca K Webster; Louise E Smith; Lisa Woodland; Simon Wessely; Neil Greenberg; Gideon James Rubin Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nino Stocchetti; Giulia Segre; Elisa R Zanier; Michele Zanetti; Rita Campi; Francesca Scarpellini; Antonio Clavenna; Maurizio Bonati Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Dóra Révész; Genís Ona; Giordano N Rossi; Juliana M Rocha; Rafael G Dos Santos; Jaime E C Hallak; Miguel Á Alcázar-Córcoles; José C Bouso Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Mark É Czeisler; Joshua F Wiley; Charles A Czeisler; Shantha M W Rajaratnam; Mark E Howard Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: María Pilar Jiménez; Jennifer A Rieker; José Manuel Reales; Soledad Ballesteros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390