Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic (3) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- BioMed Central (BMC) (1)
- Hogrefe (1)
- SAGE Publications (1)
This article gives an initial overview of the explanatory power of established approaches in comparative political science of various lockdown strategies in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic in 35 democracies. In a macro-comparative statistical analysis of the first wave of the pandemic, I test partisan and veto player theories. I distinguish two phases of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which show distinct patterns of political impacts. In the first phase of implementing lockdown strategies, central governments were relatively uncontested and partisan theory has strong explanatory power. In the second phase of lifting lockdowns, party differences lose relevance, but veto players have a strong influence during this time. The analysis shows that political science theories are useful for analysing political processes not only under normal conditions but also in extreme social crises. Moreover, it provides deeper insights into the democratic decision-making process of advanced democracies in exceptional situations.
Introduction
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a general lockdown was enacted across Germany in March 2020. As a consequence, patients with mental health conditions received limited or no treatment in day hospitals and outpatient settings. To ensure continuity of care, the necessary technological preparations were made to enable the implementation of telemedical care via telephone or video conferencing, and this option was then used as much as possible. The aim of this study was to investigate the satisfaction and acceptance with telemedical care in a heterogeneous patient group of psychiatric outpatients in Germany during the first COVID-19 lockdown.
Methods
In this observational study, patients in ongoing or newly initiated outpatient psychiatric therapy as well as those who had to be discharged from the day clinic ahead of schedule received telemedical treatment via telephone. Data collection to assess the patients’ and therapists’ satisfaction with and acceptance of the telemedical care was adjusted to the treatment setting.
Results
Of 60 recruited patients, 57 could be included in the analysis. 51.6% of the patients and 52.3% of their therapists reported that the discussion of problems and needs worked just as well over the phone as in face-to-face consultations. In the subgroup of patients who were new to therapy due to being discharged from hospital early, acceptance was higher and telemedicine was rated as equally good in 87.5% of contacts. Both patients and therapists felt that telemedicine care during lockdown was an alternative for usual therapy in the outpatient clinic and that the option of telemedicine care should continue for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic.
Discussion
The results show a clear trend towards satisfaction with and acceptance of telemedicine care in a heterogeneous group of unselected psychiatric patients. Although the number of patients is small, the results indicate that the mostly positive results of telemedicine concepts in research projects can probably be transferred to real healthcare settings.
Conclusions
Telemedicine can be employed in healthcare for psychiatric patients either an alternative treatment option to maintain continuity of care or as a potential addition to regular care.
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most serious health and economic crises of the 21st century. From a psychological point of view, the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences can be conceptualized as a multidimensional and potentially toxic stressor for mental health in the general population. This selective literature review provides an overview of longitudinal studies published until June 2021 that have investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the European population. Risk and protective factors identified in the studies are summarized. Forty-two studies that met inclusion and search criteria (COVID-19, mental health, longitudinal, and Europe) in PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases indicate differential effects of the pandemic on mental distress, depression, and anxiety, depending on samples and methods used. Age-specific (e.g., young age), social (e.g., female, ethnical minority, loneliness), as well as physical and mental health-related factors (e.g., pre-pandemic illness) were identified as risk factors for poor mental health. The studies point to several protective factors such as social support, higher cognitive ability, resilience, and self-efficacy. Increasing evidence supports the assumption of the pandemic being a multidimensional stressor on mental health, with some populations appearing more vulnerable than others, although inconsistencies arise. Whether the pandemic will lead to an increase in the prevalence of mental disorders is an open question. Further high-quality longitudinal and multi-national studies and meta-analyses are needed to draw the complete picture of the consequences of the pandemic on mental health.