key: cord-0715488-bws6kv1p authors: Li, Juan; Yang, Zhen; Zhang, Jie; Wang, An‐ni; Wang, Xiao; Dong, Li‐li; Wang, Fu‐sheng; Wei, Rui‐hong; Li, Yi‐fei; Zhang, Jing‐ping title: The psychological symptoms of patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease (2019) in China: A cross‐sectional study date: 2020-12-04 journal: J Adv Nurs DOI: 10.1111/jan.14701 sha: ec7929527ca13ea2cb0d4fe132601e7be0fabdf9 doc_id: 715488 cord_uid: bws6kv1p AIMS: To determine psychological symptoms of patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 in China and to explore the influencing factors. DESIGN: A cross‐sectional study. METHODS: A convenience sample of 296 mild coronavirus disease 2019 patients were recruited from a Fangcang hospital in Wuhan, Hubei Province, from 3–5 March, 2020. Participants were assessed using a sociodemographic and clinical characteristics questionnaire, and Symptom Check List 90. The binary logistic regression was utilized to explore the influencing factors of psychological symptoms of patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. RESULTS: In total, 296 of 299 patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 participated in the study (response rate: 99.0%). The findings revealed that 12.8% patients with mild symptoms have mental health problems; the most common psychological symptoms are phobic anxiety (58.4%), paranoid ideation (50.7%) and psychoticism (40.2%). Female patients [OR = 3.587, 95% CI (1.694–7.598)] and those having physical symptoms currently [OR = 2.813, 95% CI (1.210–6.539)] are at higher risk, while those in the middle duration of hospitalization [OR = 0.278, 95% CI (0.121–0.639)] protect against mental‐health problems. CONCLUSIONS: The minority of patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 were still suffering from psychological symptoms. Healthcare providers are recommended to pay particular attention to screening these high‐risk groups (women, those in the initial stages of hospitalization and those with physical symptoms currently) and implement targeted psychological care as required. IMPACT: This study found that most patients of coronavirus disease 2019 in Fangcang hospital exhibited normal mental health at par with the general Chinese norm and the minority of them were suffering from psychological symptoms. The findings can provide a reference for healthcare providers to screen high‐risk psychological symptoms groups and implement targeted psychological intervention for patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Since December 2019, with the massive movement of people during the Chinese Spring Festival, a novel coronavirus outbreak of pneumonia has been spreading throughout China swiftly Zhu et al., 2020; Zu et al., 2020) . As of August 16, 2020, a total of more than 21 million cases of COVID-19 and 761,779 deaths worldwide; China has confirmed 83,046 cases and 4,634 deaths (World Health Organization, 2020) . It is reported that the coronavirus disease 2019 has caused more deaths than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome combined, despite a lower-case fatality rate (2%; Elisabeth, 2020) . The novel coronavirus pneumonia has become a public health emergency of international concern (Khot & Nadkar, 2020). To prevent further spreading of the epidemic, one of the most ef- Quarantine can protect the public and reduce the risk of potential contagion, but it comes with negative emotions on patients, which not only are harmful to the patients' mental health (Brooks et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020) but also affect recovery from the disease Wilder-Smith & Freedman, 2020; Xie, 2005) . Yang (2004) conducted a research on the emotional response of SARS patients and found that 96.6% of SARS patients experienced inferiority, loneliness, and abandonment due to isolation during their hospitalization, and 27.6% of patients suffered from depressive or even suicidal thoughts due to the death of family members. A follow-up study of SARS discharge patients (Wang et al., 2003) found that 41% of patients developed post-traumatic stress disorder after the disease was cured, and 30% of patients suffered from psychological problems such as anxiety or depression (Sun, 2005) . Ogoina (2016) also conducted a systematic review of the emotional and behavioural responses of the public, including patients, during the Ebola virus disease outbreak. The results showed that anxiety, fear, and panic were the most common emotions caused by the Ebola outbreak. Similarly, infection with COVID-19, also negatively affects the individuals' psychological adaptation (Bao et al., 2020; Liu, Xu, et al., 2020; Vindegaard & Benros, 2020) because of the uncertain duration of quarantine, unknown disease outcome, insufficient information and medical supplies, fear of infecting others, and stigmatization. Some researchers (Bo et al., 2020) found that 96.2% of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 in Fangcang hospital had significant posttraumatic stress symptoms during hospitalization. These symptoms may lead to loneliness, depression, fear, anxiety, panic, avoidance, sleep disorders, and other behavioural problems, which raised global mental-health professionals' attentions (Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, 2020a; . Researchers have also conducted some studies on the psychological effects of acute infectious diseases on patients. Some studies have demonstrated that gender (Sareen et al., 2013) , age (Yan et al., 2004) , marital status (Liu, 2007) , educational level (Zhang, 2001) , occupations (Gao et al., 2006) , duration of treatment (Guan et al., 2006) , and severity of disease (So et al., 2004) are possible influencing factors leading to changes in the psychological stress response of SARS patients. This suggests that it is important for healthcare providers to recognize the mental-health conditions of different patients and provide psychological care while treating patients with acute infectious diseases according to their varying characteristics. Existing studies (Shigemura et al., 2020; Walton et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) mainly focused on both short-term and long-term psychological effects on general populations and frontline healthcare providers during the COVID-19 epidemic. However, to date, few studies determine the psychological symptoms of patients with COVID-19 and its influencing factors during the outbreak of the COVID-19 in China, providing little guidance for healthcare providers to implement targeted psychological intervention. Additionally, patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19, as the majority of patients, usually have clinically stable and mild physical symptoms, thus, those serious psychological symptoms may likely to be the most troublesome problems for patients with mild symptoms, which may affect their holistic health conditions and rehabilitation. Therefore, the study aims to examine the psychological symptoms and influencing factors of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19, and lay a foundation for healthcare providers to identify and offer psychological interventions for patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 in China or other places affected by the epidemic. China, coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19, mental health condition, patient, psychological symptoms 2 | THE S TUDY This study aims to examine the psychological symptoms and influencing factors of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19. A cross-sectional study was employed according to Strengthening the Reporting for Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. A convenience sample of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 was recruited from one Fangcang hospital in Wuhan, Hubei Province, from 3-5 March, 2020. Firstly, we obtained the ethics approval from our university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the survey approval from nursing managers of the local hospital. Then, the recruitment notice for this study was circulated by a local nurse who worked as a research assistant, through a WeChat group (a widely used social-media platform in China), and contact with potential participants was established. According to the unified national deployment in China, the Fangcang hospitals are mainly used to treat patients with mild symptoms, who are clinically stable and screened by a local, community-based medical institution. The inclusion criteria involved: those who participated in other related researches at the same time. According to the Kendall's sample size calculation principle, the sample size is five to 10 times the number of independent variables (Lewis, 2002) . There were 14 variables in this study, thus, the sample size was 84-168 with a 20% invalid response rate. As the recruitment rate was higher than expected, finally, a total of 296 of 299 patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 participated in the study (response rate: 99.0%). Self-reported sociodemographic and clinical characteristics questionnaire Participants' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected. These included participants' age, gender, marital status, educational level, occupation, place of residence, average monthly earnings, duration of hospitalization, whether family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbours tested positive for COVID-19, whether symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, sore throat, and dyspnoea manifested, and whether patients' self-perceived symptoms improved. Symptom check list 90 (SCL-90) was introduced by Derogatis et al. (1973) as was a widely used self-report psychometric questionnaire. It was composed of 90 items and each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (no) -5 (severe). The SCL-90 was aimed at assessing different symptoms and mental conditions. There are 10 factors of the SCL-90 including somatization, obsessive-compulsive disease, interpersonal sensibility, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism, and other symptoms (reflecting sleep and diet condition). The total score was the sum of 90 item scores, and the score of each factor was equal to the total score of each factor divided by its item number. According to the Chinese norm (Wang, 1984; Yu et al., 2019) , if the total score is more than 160 points, or the total number of positive items is more than 43 (each item with a score more than 1 point), or any factor's mean score is more than 2 points (the total score of a factor, divided by the item number of this factor), this indicates the individual has positive psychological symptoms. In the current study, total score more than 160 points was considered to be positive for psychological symptoms (Du et al., 2020; Liu, Zhou, et al., 2020) . Chen and Li (2003) indicated that the Cronbach value of the whole scale was 0.97 and the Cronbach value of the 10 subscales was all above 0.69, and reliable. In this study, the Cronbach values of the whole scale and 10 subscales were 0.95 and all above 0.74, respectively, indicating good reliability. The research team which was in charge of the study comprised five trained researchers, including two principal researchers and three research assistants. Prior to the study, three research assistants received a structured training conducted by one of the principal researchers about the purpose and procedures of the study, and key points of data collection. Three research assistants took charge of data collection as investigators and explained the purposes and procedures of the study to the participants and obtained the electronically informed consent. The research assistants communicated face to face with eligible participants at the research site, and distributed a "Survey Star" link (an online crowdsourcing platform in China) to the electronic questionnaire obtained by scanning a Quick Response code. The ethics approval was obtained from the IRB (no: E202073) of our university before data collection. Prior to filling out any questionnaires, all participants were informed about the purpose and procedure of the study and they signed an electronically informed consent form which specified that the whole study was carried out completely voluntarily, anonymously, and confidentially. Additionally, participants have the rights to decline the study at any time without any penalty. Data were inputted and analysed by using IBM SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc.). According to the total score, more than 160 implied positive for psychological symptoms. All samples were divided into the positive cases group (more than 160) and the negative cases group (less than or equal to 160). Non-normal data were described by median (M) and quartile range (Q). Categorical variables were denoted using frequency and percentage and compared using the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. The influencing factors were analysed by the binary logistic regression analysis. We set the significance level α ≤ 0.10 as the criterion for including the variables and α ≥ 0.15 as the criterion for excluding the variables. A two-tailed p < .05 was considered statistically significant. The content appropriateness of measurement was evaluated via expert consultation, including a psychologist, a nurse manager, and two frontline nurses in local Fangcang hospital. Besides, a pilot test of 30 patients with COVID-19 in a Fangcang hospital was conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the measurement. The Cronbach values of the whole scale and 10 subscales were 0.95 and all above 0.74 in the current study, respectively, indicating good reliability. After data collection, all data were carefully examined and inputted into SPSS by two researchers independently. Prior to data analysis, researchers were required to check missing data, outliers. A total of 296 of participants were recruited in the study (response rate: 99.0%). At the beginning of data collection, research assistants distributed 299 questionnaires, and two patients refused to participate in the study and one patient provided invalid responses. The mean age of all participants was 39.70 years (SD 10.14, range from 14-67). In total, 58.4% of participants were men, and the majority of participants were married (77.4%). The average duration of hospitalization was 13.98 days (SD 4.30, range from 1-38 days), as shown in Table 1 . The normality test was performed on the total score; the separate score of each factor subscale and the number of positive items were non-normal. The median and interquartile range are used to denote the total score and each factor score, as shown in Table 2 . The median total score of the SCL-90 scale was 112, the median number of positive items was 20 items, and the median total score of the factor was 1.24. Based on a factor score of more than 2 -considered positive for psychological symptoms -the top three factors with the highest factor-positive rate were phobic anxiety (58.4%), paranoid ideation (50.7%), and psychoticism (40.2%), respectively. The positive case group accounted for 12.8% with 38 participants and the negative case group accounted for 87.2% with 258 participants correspondingly. There were differences in the positive and negative responses of the participants depending on sex, marital status, education level, duration of hospitalization, and whether physical symptoms were being experienced. When the total score is more than 160, it indicates the cases are positive for psychological symptoms. Using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test the differences recorded were statistically significant (p < .05). See Table 3 . Taking the mental-health problem as the dependent variable, gender, marital status, duration of hospitalization, and whether physical symptoms were being experienced were taken as independent variables. As shown in Table 4 , adjusting for other factors, the risk of mental health problems were as follows: three times more likely in women than men (p = .001); 0.278 times more likely for patients who stayed in hospital for 11-20 days than patients who spent less than 10 days (p = .003); and three times more likely in patients exhibiting physical symptoms than patients without symptoms (p = .016). According to the total score, greater than 160 implied positive for psychological symptoms, the results indicated that the patients with In the current study, the minority of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 were still suffering from psychological symptoms and the most common psychological symptoms are phobic anxiety, par- The findings demonstrate that the prevalence of psychological symptoms varies with gender, duration of hospitalization, and current manifestation of physical symptoms. Women and those exhibiting physical symptoms currently are at high risk for psychological symptoms. Being in the middle duration of hospitalization is a protective measure against psychological symptoms in this mildly affected sample. This finding corresponds to previously conducted studies (Pineles & Borba, 2018; Vindegaard & Benros, 2020) which found that women were more likely to suffer from psychological symptoms. Women who have suffered a traumatic event are twice as likely to be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder than men (Garza & Jovanovic, 2017) . Some previous studies have suggested that women may have lower tolerance to stress, higher rates of negative beliefs, and poorer behavioural responses to distress compared to men (Pineles & Borba, 2018; Street & Dardis, 2018) . Note: Positive cases of 10 factors: any factor's mean score is more than 2 points (the total score of a factor, divided by the item number of this factor). Abbreviations: M, median; Q, quartile range; SCL, symptom check list. psychological symptoms, compared to patients of middle stage of hospitalization. In the initial stage of disease, patients tend to have more psychological symptoms due to fear of an unknown disease prognosis, unfamiliar isolation environment, strict protective measures from healthcare providers, and rigorous treatment procedures (Brooks et al., 2020) . As the length of hospitalization increases, patients have more chances to gain disease-related knowledge and understanding of their health condition. They are also more likely to accept the illness, adapt to the medical environment, and increase their confidence in recovery in the next stage of disease. In terms of physical symptoms, compared with patients who have no significant physical symptoms, patients who are experiencing physical symptoms, especially fever, fatigue, and dyspnoea, have less confidence about the recovery from the disease and are more worried about relapse and facing discrimination, which is consistent with previous studies (Guan et al., 2006) . Therefore, we urge the need for a more effective and holistic approach to provide mental health care for high-risk patients, especially while providing health care for the women, individuals in the initial stage of hospitalization, and patients presently exhibiting physical symptoms of COVID-19. There are several potential limitations to consider when inter- The current study has demonstrated that most patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 in a Fangcang hospital experienced normal mental health in general, according to the Chinese norms. However, 12.8% of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 still exhibited psychological symptoms, and phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism were the most prominent symptoms. Additionally, healthcare providers are recommended to pay attention to female patients, those in the initial stage of hospitalization, and those experiencing physical symptoms, while providing mental-health care. We appeal to provide targeted psychological intervention according to patients' characteristics to avoid more serious psychiatric illness. The authors would like to thank all participants and researchers for their great contribution to this study. Note: Personnel of enterprises and institutions include those who work in educational, technical or cultural service institutions, such as teachers and office workers. Positive cases of psychological symptoms: the SCL-90 total score is more than 160; correspondingly, negative cases of psychological symptoms: the SCL-90 total score is less than or equal to 160. When we conducted the Chi-square test, if expected count of more than one-fifth of the cells is less than 5 or the minimum expected count is less than 1, we used the Fisher's exact test to calculate the probability. *p < .05; **p < .01. Quarantine and isolation Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak Re-testing reliability, validity and norm applicability of SCL-90 The SCL 90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale Receptiveness and preferences of health-related smartphone applications among Vietnamese youth and young adults Assessment of mental health among nursing staff at different levels Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic Coronavirus: Covid-19 has killed more people than SARS and MERS combined, despite lower case fatality rate A follow-up study of post-traumatic stress disorder of SARS patients after discharge Impact of gender on child and adolescent PTSD Analysis of mental health status and relevant factors of patients in SARS area Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan The 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak -A global threat The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on the physical profile and quality of life Sample size calculations in clinical research Progression of mental health services during the COVID-19 outbreak in China The influence of left-behind experience on college students' mental health: A cross-sectional comparative study Psychological health status in 500 patients with SARS From SARS to COVID-19: What lessons have we learned? Online mental health services in China during the COVID-19 outbreak Depression after exposure to stressful events: Lessons learned from the SARS epidemic Effect of SARS on the psychological state of medical staff, people and patients in different periods The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital Rationale for a posttraumatic stress spectrum disorder 0 1/808bb f75e5 ce 415 aa19f 74c78 ddc65 3f.shtml National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. (2020d). Notice on the general office of the National Health and Health Commission on strengthening the management of medical protective articles during the epidemic Behavioural and emotional responses to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria: A narrative review How to face the novel coronavirus infection during the 2019-2020 epidemic: The experience of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital Association between mental health status and social support in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome A path towards effectively investigating the impact of sex and gender on mental health Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on socioeconomic and mental health aspects in Nepal Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic Risk factors for post-injury mental health problems Impact of isolation precautions on quality of life: A meta-analysis Public responses to the novel 2019 coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Japan: Mental health consequences and target populations The knowledge level and precautionary measures taken by older adults during the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong Using a social construction of gender lens to understand gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder Analysis and follow-up study of PTSD related factors in SARS patients COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence Mental health care for medical staff and affiliated healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China Symptom checklist 90 (SCL-90). Shanghai Psychiatry Clinical psychological intervention mode and evaluation of effect of SARS patient Can we contain the COVID-19 outbreak with the same measures as for SARS? Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: Pivotal role for oldstyle public Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed Evaluation of psychological intervention effect of SARS patients WHO expert praises China's COVID-19 containment measures Survey on mental status of subjects recovered from SARS Research on psychological stress response and psychological nursing intervention in patients with SARS Chinese undergraduate students Posttraumatic stress disorder. Foreign Medicine: Psychiatric Branch A Novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China A perspective from China The psychological symptoms of patients with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease JAN) is an international, peer-reviewed, scientific journal. JAN contributes to the advancement of evidence-based nursing, midwifery and health care by disseminating high quality research and scholarship of contemporary relevance and with potential to advance knowledge for practice, education, management or policy Online Library website: www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan Reasons to publish your work in JAN: • High-impact forum: the world's most cited nursing journal, with an Impact Factor of 1.998 -ranked 12/114 in the • Most read nursing journal in the world: over 3 million articles downloaded online per year and accessible in over 10,000 libraries worldwide Positive publishing experience: rapid double-blind peer review with constructive feedback • Rapid online publication in five weeks: average time from final manuscript arriving in production to online publication Online Open: the option to pay to make your article freely and openly accessible to non-subscribers upon publication on Wiley Online Library, as well as the option to deposit the article in your own or your funding agency's preferred archive