Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268618›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2022

Differential psychological response to the COVID-19 pandemic in psychiatric inpatients compared to a non-clinical population from Germany.

Stephanie V Rek, Daniel Freeman, Matthias A Reinhard, Markus Bühner, Sofie Grosen, Peter Falkai, Kristina Adorjan, Frank Padberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Validation of the Eight-Item Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) in Tunisian Arab Adults.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephanie V RekDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany. s.rek@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7375-9489
Daniel FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Matthias A ReinhardDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany.
Markus BühnerDepartment of Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sofie GrosenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany.
Peter FalkaiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany.
Kristina AdorjanDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany.
Frank PadbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LMU University Hospital Munich, Nussbaumstraße 7, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01KX2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is an inherently stressful situation, which may lead to adverse psychosocial outcomes in various populations. Yet, individuals may not be affected equally by stressors posed by the pandemic and those with pre-existing mental disorders could be particularly vulnerable. To test this hypothesis, we assessed the psychological response to the pandemic in a case-control design. We used an age-, sex- and employment status-matched case-control sample (n = 216) of psychiatric inpatients, recruited from the LMU Psychiatry Biobank Munich study and non-clinical individuals from the general population. Participants completed validated self-report measures on stress, anxiety, depression, paranoia, rumination, loneliness, well-being, resilience, and a newly developed index of stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the effects of group, COVID-19-specific stressors, and their interaction on the different psychosocial outcomes. While psychiatric inpatients reported larger mental health difficulties overall, the impact of COVID-19-specific stressors was lower in patients and not associated with worse psychological functioning compared to non-clinical individuals. In contrast, depressive symptoms, rumination, loneliness, and well-being were more strongly associated with COVID-19-specific stressors in non-clinical individuals and similar to the severity of inpatients for those who experienced the greatest COVID-19-specific stressor impact Contrary to expectations, the psychological response to the pandemic may not be worse in psychiatric inpatients compared to non-clinical individuals. Yet, individuals from the general population, who were hit hardest by the pandemic, should be monitored and may be in need of mental health prevention and treatment efforts.

Indexed as

COVID-19InpatientsMental DisordersPandemicsCase-Control StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleCOVID-19 pandemicCOVID-19-specific stressorsMental healthPsychiatric inpatientsPsychological response

Identifiers

PMID34268618
PMCPMC8282176
OpenAlexW3181395905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.