Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Short-Term Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Psychiatric Patients: Evidence for Differential Emotion and Symptom Trajectories in Belgium Cover

The Short-Term Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Psychiatric Patients: Evidence for Differential Emotion and Symptom Trajectories in Belgium

Open Access
|Jun 2021

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Summary of all participant characteristics.

INFORMATIONPATIENT 1PATIENT 2PATIENT 3PATIENT 4
Baseline information
    GenderFemaleFemaleFemaleFemale
    Age58203048
    Intake diagnosesBipolar disorder (Type II)Major depressive disorderMajor depressive disorderBurn-out
Panic disorder with agoraphobiaPanic disorder with agoraphobiaPanic disorder with agoraphobiaSomatization-related complaints
Substance abuse (remitted)
Borderline personality disorder
ESM information
    Days of ESM since intake464406393393
    Number of items14161612
    Waking hours9AM–8PM8AM–9PM8.30AM–9PM8AM–8PM
    Compliance60.09%40.00%82.68%46.71%
pb-61-1-1028-g1.png
Figure 1

Different mood and symptom trajectories in response to the Belgian COVID-19 lockdown measures. Panel A depicts six case-representative symptoms or emotions for each subject. All momentary states are rated on continuous slider scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). In all graphs, the colored line represents the original time series data (averaged per day to get an indication of daily emotion and symptom fluctuations); the grey line shows the model-based predicted time-series, allowing to assess model fit. The black vertical line denotes the beginning of the lockdown period (issued on March 13th). For Patient 4, the green line depicts a self-reported family conflict (February 14th).

Table 2

Summary of all piecewise regression models.

PATIENT 1PATIENT 2PATIENT 3PATIENT 4
Itemsβeβdβe*dβlItemsβeβdβe*dβlItemsβeβdβe*dβlItemsβeβdβe*dβl
Depressive features
Depressed13.970.001.33*0.31*Down4.49–0.01–0.440.03Down–3.620.20*0.070.36***
Sad12.47–0.090.190.29*Guilt3.96–0.110.07–0.04Frustrated9.230.030.080.31**Anger–0.490.12–0.050.09
Cheerful–5.32–0.02–0.240.32*Cheerful2.87–0.080.08–0.11Cheerful–2.18–0.070.060.51***Cheerful–20.71**–0.080.080.13
Anhedonia12.98–0.110.790.37*Anhedonia2.860.10–0.100.38***
Self-esteem–4.93–0.02–0.380.33*Self-esteem–1.370.03–0.14–0.10Self-esteem–3.80–0.050.010.31**
Rumination19.21*0.030.920.33*Rumination5.760.04–0.320.00Rumination0.900.17*–0.240.49***
Suppression13.950.110.500.41**Suppression2.00–0.100.14–0.02Suppression–8.330.23*0.040.55***
Energy–5.260.05–0.93*0.22Tired0.19–0.04–0.190.08Energy–1.33–0.060.050.52***Energy–0.51–0.130.130.15
Conc. problems–4.58–0.020.87**0.56***Conc. problems–8.20–0.04–0.06–0.14Conc. problems0.750.15*–0.240.45***Conc. problems1.250.03–0.030.17
Social pressure14.14*0.00–0.95*0.88***Unease–0.93–0.060.060.12
Anxiety features
Anxious17.91*–0.041.79**0.28*Anxious2.62–0.210.140.16Anxious–7.790.30**–0.210.45***
Stressed12.19–0.032.70***–0.01Stressed2.09–0.04–0.430.11Stressed–0.660.19*–0.220.52***
Relaxed–8.16–0.02–0.610.18Relaxed–1.110.050.010.05Relaxed–2.19–0.13*0.050.31**Relaxed–14.61*–0.02–0.120.11
Going outside0.690.01–0.18–0.16Crowded–3.22–0.070.090.04Crowded2.170.13–0.050.06
Hyperventilation0.60–0.080.20–0.05
Restless–3.34–0.050.150.06
Borderline features
Paranoia0.68–0.070.130.15Fear abandonment7.680.17**–0.32*0.16Diff. being alone38.61***–0.080.190.37**
Impulsivity4.80–0.09–0.130.23*Lonely48.56***–0.140.240.28**
Good relations–4.41–0.150.010.44***
Substance abuse
Craving10.96*0.001.05***0.49***
Somatization and burn-out features
Pain2.29–0.010.00–0.03
Washed-out0.430.030.020.09
Empty1.470.000.05–0.03
Diff. saying noDiff. indic. bound.–1.060.64**–0.54*–0.01

[i] Note. βe, βd, βe*d, βl denote the event effect (lockdown for Patient 1 to 3 or family conflict for Patient 4), day trend before the event (with day centered around the event), the interaction between event and day predictors, and a lagged version of the modeled feature that refers to the previous day (to take into account serial dependencies), respectively. For each participant, we controlled for multiple testing using the false discovery procedure by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1028 | Journal eISSN: 0033-2879
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 14, 2020
Accepted on: May 31, 2021
Published on: Jun 21, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Egon Dejonckheere, Marlies Houben, Evelien Schat, Eva Ceulemans, Peter Kuppens, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.