Previous functional social and behavioral rhythms affect resilience to COVID-19-related stress among old adults.
Journal
Journal of public health research
ISSN: 2279-9028
Titre abrégé: J Public Health Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101580775
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2022
16 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
06
12
2021
accepted:
10
01
2022
entrez:
18
3
2022
pubmed:
19
3
2022
medline:
19
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Functioning of Social Behavioral Rhythms (SBRs) may affect resilience toward stressful events across different age groups. However, the impact of SBRs on the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in elder people is yet to ascertain, representing the aim of the present report. Follow-up of a peer-reviewed randomized controlled trial on exercise on old adults (³65 years), concurrent to the onset of the pandemic-related lockdown. Post-RCT evaluations occurred after further 12 and 36 weeks since the beginning of the lockdown phase. People with Major Depressive Episode (MDE) at week-48 (follow-up endpoint) were deemed as cases, people without such condition were considered controls. MDE was ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); SBRs functioning at week 12 onward, through the Brief Symptom Rating Scale (BSRS). Seventy-nine individuals (53.2%, females) entered the RCT-follow-up phase. The frequency of MDE did not significantly change before versus during lockdown (OR 2.60, CI95%=0.87-9.13). People with BSRS>1 standard deviation of the whole sample score at week-12 had an inflated risk of DE during lockdown (OR=5.6, 95%CI: 1.5-21.4) compared to those with lower BSRS scores. Such odd hold after excluding individuals with MDD at week-12. The post-hoc analysis could be potentially affected by selection bias. Overall, older adults were resilient during the first phase of the pandemic when functioning of pre-lockdown was still preserved, in contrast to the subsequent evaluations when the impairment of daily rhythms was associated with impaired reliance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Functioning of Social Behavioral Rhythms (SBRs) may affect resilience toward stressful events across different age groups. However, the impact of SBRs on the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in elder people is yet to ascertain, representing the aim of the present report.
DESIGN AND METHODS
METHODS
Follow-up of a peer-reviewed randomized controlled trial on exercise on old adults (³65 years), concurrent to the onset of the pandemic-related lockdown. Post-RCT evaluations occurred after further 12 and 36 weeks since the beginning of the lockdown phase. People with Major Depressive Episode (MDE) at week-48 (follow-up endpoint) were deemed as cases, people without such condition were considered controls. MDE was ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); SBRs functioning at week 12 onward, through the Brief Symptom Rating Scale (BSRS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-nine individuals (53.2%, females) entered the RCT-follow-up phase. The frequency of MDE did not significantly change before versus during lockdown (OR 2.60, CI95%=0.87-9.13). People with BSRS>1 standard deviation of the whole sample score at week-12 had an inflated risk of DE during lockdown (OR=5.6, 95%CI: 1.5-21.4) compared to those with lower BSRS scores. Such odd hold after excluding individuals with MDD at week-12. The post-hoc analysis could be potentially affected by selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, older adults were resilient during the first phase of the pandemic when functioning of pre-lockdown was still preserved, in contrast to the subsequent evaluations when the impairment of daily rhythms was associated with impaired reliance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35299585
doi: 10.4081/jphr.2022.2768
pmc: PMC8973204
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Curr Biol. 2020 Aug 17;30(16):R930-R931
pubmed: 32810450
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 12;7(10):e016085
pubmed: 29025828
Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2021 Apr 16;17:19-25
pubmed: 34040650
Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2021 Sep 16;17:75-80
pubmed: 34733346
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 08;11(3):e0150312
pubmed: 26954568
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Aug 14;69(32):1049-1057
pubmed: 32790653
J Public Health Res. 2021 Aug 05;11(1):
pubmed: 34351101
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014 Oct 01;5:
pubmed: 25317257
Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 03;9:623904
pubmed: 33614587
Int Psychogeriatr. 2019 Oct;31(10):1447-1462
pubmed: 30560747
J Sex Med. 2021 Jan;18(1):35-49
pubmed: 33234430
Br J Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;216(1):6-15
pubmed: 30864533
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Jan 18;76(2):e30-e37
pubmed: 32674138
Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2019 Jan 23;15:10-14
pubmed: 30972137
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 24;12:634765
pubmed: 33716829
JAMA. 1999 Nov 10;282(18):1737-44
pubmed: 10568646
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;21(11):1144-53
pubmed: 23567367
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Jan 18;76(2):e38-e44
pubmed: 32745198
JAMA. 2020 Dec 8;324(22):2253-2254
pubmed: 33216114
Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2014 Jun 13;10:48-52
pubmed: 24987447
J Affect Disord. 2020 Aug 1;273:517-523
pubmed: 32560948
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Sep;79(9):1156-1162
pubmed: 32457048
Physiol Behav. 2014 Jan 17;123:223-30
pubmed: 24432360
Trials. 2021 May 7;22(1):331
pubmed: 33962664
J Public Health Res. 2021 Oct 07;11(1):
pubmed: 34619859
J Clin Invest. 2017 Feb 1;127(2):437-446
pubmed: 28145903
Clin Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;26(6):679-94
pubmed: 16904251