OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress as well as identify predictors among recovered COVID-19 patients after more than six months of being discharged in Dong Thap Province, Vietnam.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted among 549 eligible participants recruited by stratified sampling. Data was collected using the depression, anxiety and stress scale - 21 items had Content Validity Index = 0.9, and Cronbach's alpha for depression, anxiety and stress sub-scales were 0.95, 0.81, and 0.86, respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to measure the prevalence levels and distribution of characteristics of the participant, while factors influencing depression, anxiety, and stress were predicted using binary logistic regression.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress were 24.8% (95% CI: 21.2-28.6), 41.5% (95% CI: 37.4-45.8), and 25.3% (95% CI: 21.7-29.2), respectively. The predictors of depression were living in urban area (OR = 1.97; 95% CI: 1.27-3.08), holding a bachelor's degree (OR:3.51; 95% CI: 1.13-10.8), having a high monthly income (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.03-6.38), diabetes (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.04-4.68), heart disease (OR: 3.83; 95% CI: 1.79-8.17), respiratory disease (OR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.24-9.84), and diarrhea (OR: 4.07; 95% CI: 1.06-15.6). Living in the urban area (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.07-2.29), having sleep disturbance (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.56-3.46), and fatigue (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.03-2.39) were predictors for anxiety. Having respiratory disease (OR: 3.75; 95% CI: 1.47-9.60) or diarrhea (OR: 4.34; 95% CI: 1.18-15.9) were predictors of stress.
CONCLUSION: People who have recovered from COVID-19 should be assessed for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Primary healthcare providers should develop interventions to support their recovery.
METHODS: Integrated community participatory action research (CPAR) was employed using preparation, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Data was collected using quantitative and qualitative methods from high school students. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage, chi-square and fisher's exact test were used to summarize and compare quantitative data before and after intervention. Similarly, qualitative data was collected through interviews and focus group discussion (FGD) and then analyzed through thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-nine (96.3%, n = 239/248) and 232 (93.5, n = 232/248) participants were included in the interventions before and after, respectively. School-based dengue prevention was developed with input from a variety of stakeholders, including students, community leaders, health educators, district officials, and community health volunteers. As demonstrated by pre- to post-test results, students understanding of dengue and the larval indices surveillance system has increased. Students who received the training were not only inspired but created a sense of community responsibility with a high commitment to teaching and sharing information in their circle to enhance overall community wellbeing. Being female and higher educational attainment was associated with students understanding of dengue and larval indices surveillance.
CONCLUSION: This participatory action research not only improved students' understanding of dengue but also empowered them to be proactive in various community health initiatives. The positive correlation between educational attainment and students understanding of dengue solution and larval indices surveillance underscores the need for tailored educational interventions that address diverse learning needs within the community. Collaborative efforts to establish dengue health information center based at primary schools and above can better improve reduction of dengue incidence.