Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34965402›Full record

ArticleJournal of affective disorders2022

Evaluation of peritraumatic distress at the point of care: A cross-sectional study.

Giancarlo Pontoni, Stefano Caiolo, Alessandro Miola, Chiara Moriglia, Tommaso Lunardi, Sergio Garofalo, Fabio Sambataro

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Anxiety and Depression during the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Coping Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Giancarlo PontoniPsychiatry Section, Psychophysiological Selection Office, Italian Army National Recruitment and Selection Center, Foligno, PG, Italy.
Stefano CaioloUniversity of Padova, Padua, Italy; Military Department of Forensic Medicine, Padua, Italy.
Alessandro MiolaDepartment of Neuroscience (DNS), Padua Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, Via Belzoni 160, Padua I-35121, Italy; University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Chiara MorigliaInterview Section, Psycho-aptitude Selection Office, Italian Army National Recruitment and Selection Center, Foligno, PG, Italy.
Tommaso LunardiUniversity of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Sergio GarofaloMilitary Department of Forensic Medicine, Padua, Italy.
Fabio SambataroDepartment of Neuroscience (DNS), Padua Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, Via Belzoni 160, Padua I-35121, Italy; University of Padova, Padua, Italy. Electronic address: Fabio.sambataro@unipd.it.
University of Padua · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 related peritraumatic distress has been investigated in the general population with contrasting results probably due to the perceived risk of developing COVID-19. Our study aims to investigate this condition in individuals with ascertained or probable SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

methodsThe Coronavirus Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI) was administered to people attending a COVID-19 point of care. The sample was stratified for perceived risk in SARS-CoV-2 positive cases, close contacts, case relatives, undergoing screening subjects, and symptomatic subjects.

results1463 subjects participated, and with a mean CPDI Score of 28.2 (SD 16.9). CPDI Scores in SARS-CoV-2 positive cases were significantly higher than case relatives (p = 0.02). Multiple logistic regression revealed that having had work changes (p = 0.001), night sleep changes (p < 0.001), physical activity reduction (p = 0.002), alcohol consumption changes (p = 0.003), and at least one relative lost to COVID-19 (p < 0.001) independently predicted higher CPDI Scores. Male sex (p < 0.001), age ≥ 35 years (p < 0.001), higher educational level (p = 0.002), night sleep >7 hours (p = 0.002), and being physically active (p = 0.018) were identified as protective factors. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional design and the regional recruitment area limit the generalizability of results.

conclusionsMean CPDI values were above the threshold for medium grade peritraumatic distress, with greater CPDI Scores in subjects who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to family members or caregivers without a clear indication to undergo the swab. Specific demographics, physical and mental health events could help in identifying individuals at greater risk of COVID-19 related peritraumatic distress that may benefit from early treatment.

Indexed as

COVID-19Point-of-Care SystemsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleSARS-CoV-2COVID-19CPDIMental healthPandemicPeritraumatic distress

Identifiers

PMID34965402
PMCPMC8710240
OpenAlexW4200171117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.