期刊文献+

比较分析住院精神病患者与医护人员感染新冠病毒-19 (Omicron)感染后心理状况指标的差异

Comparative Analysis of the Differences in Mental Health Indicators between Inpatient Psychiatric Patients and Medical Personnel after Infection with COVID-19 (Omicron)
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:主要调查精神病住院患者和医护人员感染后的抑郁、焦虑和感知应激水平的变化情况并进行比较分析。方法:收集2022年11月10日至12月22日所有住院患者(A组):99例,平均年龄45.51 ± 13.57岁,其中男64例,年龄16~85岁,平均年龄43.37 ± 14.31;女35例,19~70岁,平均年龄38.09 ± 11.52。医护人员(B组):59例,35.60 ± 6.00,其中,男,14例,24~49岁,平均34.50 ± 6.89;女45例,26~52岁,平均35.95 ± 5.73。两组均使用中国9项版本患者健康状态问卷(PHQ-9)、7项版本版广泛性焦虑量表(GAD-7)和10项版本感知应激量表(PSS-10);分别了解抑郁、焦虑和感知应激状态。结果:两组间三种量表的总分,均未达到有临床意义的界限值。在两组间的总分值比较显示,其中患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)和广泛性焦虑量表(GAD-7),存在组间的显著性差异(P 0.05)。另外,患者组中症状频率显示,坐立不安(19%)、无法控制的担忧(15%)、难以放松(10%)、疲乏感(9%)、易激惹(5%)。未经特殊处理经过观察持续时间均未超过2周。结论:本研究在针对住院精神疾病患者和在院医护人员感染后的心理健康指标(PHQ-9和GAD-7),进行比较分析显示虽然两组的总分值均未达到有临床意义的界限值,但还是显示组间存在有显著性差异。表明精神疾病患者在应对感染新冠病毒后的出现继发抑郁和焦虑的概率高于医护人员,这也证实了患者应对突发公共卫生事件的应对能力受到精神疾病的削弱。压力感知能力测查在总分值上,组间比较在统计学上没有显著性差异(P > 0.05)。 Objective: The main survey includes depression, anxiety and the level of stress perception after in-fection with COVID-19 between two groups of inpatient psychiatric patients and medical personnel, and conduct comparative analysis. Method: Collect all inpatients (Group A) from November 10, 2022 to December 22, 2022: 99 cases, with an average age of 45.51 ± 13.57 years. Among them, there were 64 males, aged from 16 to 85 years old, with an average age of 43.37 ± 14.31, and 35 females, aged from 19 to 70 years old, with an average age of 38.09 ± 11.52. Medical staff (Group B): 59 cases, 35.60 ± 6.00 years old, including 14 males, aged from 24 to 49 years old with an average of 34.50 ± 6.89 years old, and 45 females, aged from 26 to 52 years old with an average of 35.95 ± 5.73 years old. Both groups used PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PSS-10 scales to measure depression, anxiety and stress perception levels, respectively. Results: Although the total score of all scales did not reach the clinically significant threshold in both groups, the comparison of total scores between the two groups showed that there was a significant difference in the results of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales (P 0.05).
出处 《临床医学进展》 2023年第5期8045-8049,共5页 Advances in Clinical Medicine
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献46

  • 1韩慧琴,陈珏,谢斌.新型冠状病毒肺炎患者治愈后的心理问题和干预策略建议[J].上海医学,2020(3):175-180. 被引量:40
  • 2Hsieh YH, Hsu CY, Liu CY, et al. The Levels of Stress and Depression among Interns and Clerks in Three Medical Centers in Taiwan- A Cross-sectional Study[ J]. Chang Gung Med J, 2011,34(3) : 278 -285.
  • 3Lombard JH. Depression, psychological stress, vascular dysfunction, and cardiovascular disease: thinking outside the barrel[ J]. J Appl Physiol, 2010, 108(5): 1025-1026.
  • 4Danzer SC. Depression, stress, epilepsy and adult neurogenesis [J]. ExpNeurol, 2012, 233(1): 22-32.
  • 5Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of per- ceived stress[J]. J Health Soe Behav, 1983, 24(3): 385 -396.
  • 6Leung DY, Lain TH, Chan SS. Three versions of Perceived Stress Scale : validation in a sample of Chinese cardiac patients who smoke [J]. BMC Public Health, 2010, 10: 513.
  • 7Chen CH, Tseng YF, Chou FH, et al. Effects of support group intervention in postnatally distressed women. A controlled study in Taiwan [ J]. J Psychosom Res, 2000, 49 (6) : 395 - 399.
  • 8Wang Z, Chen J, Boyd JE, et al. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perceived Stress Scale in policewomen [ J]. PLoS One, 2011, 6(12) : e28610.
  • 9Mimura C, Griffiths P. A Japanese version of the Perceived Stress Scale: cross-cultural translation and equivalence assessment [ J 1. BMC Psychiatry, 2008, 8: 85.
  • 10Reis RS, Hino AA, Anez CR. Perceived stress scale: reliability and validity study in Brazil[ J]..l Health Psychol, 2010, 15( 1 ) : 107 - 114.

共引文献258

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部