Suchergebnisse

Background: The World Wide Web has become an essential source of health information. Nevertheless, the amount and quality of information provided may lead to information overload. Therefore, people need certain skills to search for, identify, and evaluate information from the internet. In the context of health information, these competencies are summarized as the construct of eHealth literacy. Previous research has highlighted the relevance of eHealth literacy in terms of health-related outcomes. However, the existing instrument assessing eHealth literacy in the German language reveals methodological limitations regarding test development and validation. The development and validation of a revised scale for this important construct is highly relevant. Objective: The objective of this study was the development and validation of a revised German eHealth literacy scale. In particular, this study aimed to focus on high methodological and psychometric standards to provide a valid and reliable instrument for measuring eHealth literacy in the German language. Methods: Two internationally validated instruments were merged to cover a wide scope of the construct of eHealth literacy and create a revised eHealth literacy scale. Translation into the German language followed scientific guidelines and recommendations to ensure content validity. Data from German-speaking people (n=470) were collected in a convenience sample from October to November 2020. Validation was performed by factor analyses. Further, correlations were performed to examine convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Additionally, analyses of measurement invariance of gender, age, and educational level were conducted. Results: Analyses revealed a 2-factorial model of eHealth literacy. By item-reduction, the 2 factors information seeking and information appraisal were measured with 8 items reaching acceptable-to-good model fits (comparative fit index [CFI]: 0.942, Tucker Lewis index [TLI]: 0.915, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]: 0.127, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]: 0.055). Convergent validity was comprehensively confirmed by significant correlations of information seeking and information appraisal with health literacy, internet confidence, and internet anxiety. Discriminant and criterion validity were examined by correlation analyses with various scales and could partly be confirmed. Scalar level of measurement invariance for gender (CFI: 0.932, TLI: 0.923, RMSEA: 0.122, and SRMR: 0.068) and educational level (CFI: 0.937, TLI: 0.934, RMSEA: 0.112, and SRMR: 0.063) were confirmed. Measurement invariance of age was rejected. Conclusions: Following scientific guidelines for translation and test validation, we developed a revised German eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS). Our factor analyses confirmed an acceptable-to-good model fit. Construct validation in terms of convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity could mainly be confirmed. Our findings provide evidence for measurement invariance of the instrument regarding gender and educational level. The newly revised GR-eHEALS questionnaire represents a valid instrument to measure the important health-related construct eHealth literacy.

In medical science and practice, dietary behavior is mostly assessed by item-extensive questionnaires (e.g., food-frequency-questionnaires) or by questionnaires focusing on psychological aspects of dietary behavior neglecting dietary quality or quantity. In consequence, these questionnaires do not capture the full bandwidth of dietary behavior or are less effective in the assessment of dietary behavior because of the large item pools. Therefore, the aim of this validation study was to translate the existing General Dietary Behavior Inventory (GDBI), which was constructed as a behavior-related, as well as effective, instrument, and verifying its construct and criterion validity. This inventory is based on the general nutrition recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). Our English-speaking convenience sample consisted of 263 participants. The study results confirmed convergent, as well as criterion validity of the English version of the GDBI (GDBI-E). Discriminant validity of the GDBI-E could mainly be verified. Different dietary behavior clusters were identified in a cluster analysis. The found clusters represented a rather healthy and a rather unhealthy dietary behavior in the sample according to the recommendations of the WHO. The results underpinned the validity of the GDBI-E. The GDBI-E is applicable in research and clinical practice to assess dietary behavior in the English-speaking population.

Since introducing the first non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to decelerate the spread of the virus, European governments have highlighted the role of "solidarity". However, the role and levels of solidarity, especially during the past lockdowns, is uncertain. The present study thus explores the levels, the role, and the distribution of received and demonstrated interpersonal solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pooled cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2020 to March 2021 in Germany, including 19,977 participants. Levels of solidarity between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany were compared, possible predictors were examined, and three clusters were defined to unveil distributional patterns of solidarity reception and/or demonstration. To compare solidarity levels between the first and the second lockdowns in Germany, a dummy-coded lockdown variable was introduced and regressed on the two solidarity items. To identify predictors of received and demonstrated solidarity, two multiple linear regression models were computed, testing several demographic and psychological factors. For further exploratory analyses, clusters of "helpers", "non-helpers", and "help-receivers and helpers" were computed based on a k-means cluster analysis. Results revealed a lower level of solidarity during the second lockdown compared with the first one. Demonstrated solidarity was positively predicted by adherent safety behavior to avoid COVID-19 infection and by middle age, and negatively by depression symptoms, male gender, and high age. Received solidarity was positively predicted by higher age, by both adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior in avoidance of COVID-19 infection, and by lower educational level. "Helpers" reported little received solidarity but demonstrated high solidarity, "non-helpers" showed both little demonstrated and received solidarity, and "help-receivers and helpers" showed middle–high received and demonstrated solidarity. The three clusters differed the most regarding the ...

Introduction: Safety behaviors are key elements in reducing the spread of the COVID-19 virus, but have also assumed excessive proportions in form of panic buying groceries. This raises the question whether these behaviors are independent or related to each other. Adherent safety behavior including increased hygiene and physical distancing appears inherently adherent and prosocial, while dysfunctional safety behavior such as panic buying most probably emerges from other motives and contextual variables. Methods: Data from 15,308 participants collected from March 10 to May 4, 2020, during the COVID-19 acute period in Germany, was analyzed to assess whether adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior are predicted by the same or divergent variables. Two multiple regression models are presented including various sociodemographic, trait, attitudinal, and COVID-19-specific variables as predictors. Results: Some variables similarly predict both, adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior. Yet, adherent safety behavior is stronger predicted by COVID-19-related fear than generalized anxiety, while a trend toward a reverse pattern emerged for dysfunctional safety behavior. Adherent safety behavior was also related to higher trust in governmental actions to face COVID-19, subjective level of information, as well as use of public media and TV to remain informed on COVID-19. Higher age was related to dysfunctional, but not adherent safety behavior. Respondents living in rural communities report more adherent safety behavior than urban dwellers. Discussion: Divergent psychological variables underlie adherent and dysfunctional safety behavior. This hints toward a theoretical separation with practical relevance in behavioral engineering and public health campaigning.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected individuals, governments, and health care centers all around the globe. Social isolation obligation, restricted working shifts, and curfews posed unprecedented challenges for the population. Social isolation, boredom, and financial problems have been shown to stress peoples' mental health in previous comparable pandemics and even in regular situations. Individuals with a mental illness may particularly be at risk due to an already instable mental health status. While research mainly focused on the pandemic's impact on somatic health care and risk group patients, psychological obstacles caused by legal restrictions and their impact on already mentally affected individuals have been discussed, but so far only scarcely been investigated in a large sample. For this study, 12,028 people completed an online-survey during that time in Germany, when the COVID-19 outbreak gained momentum with a surge in cases and death rates as well as a lockdown of the public life. Generalized anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-2), distress (distress thermometer) and COVID-19-specific items, especially COVID-19-related fear, were assessed in healthy individuals, patients suffering from mental illnesses, and in patients with chronic somatic diseases, known to be at risk for an unfavorable course of COVID-19. Results show that the COVID-19-pandemic significantly worsens psychometric scores throughout the population – individuals with already heightened levels, like people with mental illnesses now reach concerning levels. Surprisingly, even though generalized anxiety, depressive symptoms, and perceived distress are elevated in individuals with mental illness, these individuals seem to be less affected by explicit COVID-19-related fear, than the general population or individuals with chronic somatic diseases. This study thus objectively quantifies the psychological impact of COVID-19 in a large sample and provides evidence for not only the public, but also critically affected individuals with a mental illness.

Background: The internet is most people's primary source of (health) information. However, no validated instrument exists to assess eHealth literacy in the group of patient with cardiac diseases. Objective: The objective of this study was the evaluation of the psychometric properties of the German revised version of the eHealth literacy scale (GR-eHEALS) in individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD) and congestive heart failure (CHF). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. N = 455 were included in the statistical analyses. The assessment compromised the GR-eHEALS, medical history, sociodemographic data, and technology-related data. Confirmatory factor analyses, correlational analyses, and tests of measurement invariance were performed. Results: The two-factorial model reached a good model fit. The sub-scales information seeking and information appraisal, as well as the eHealth literacy total score, reached high reliability coefficients. Construct and criterion validity was fully confirmed For the two-factorial model, measurement invariance up to the scalar level could be confirmed regarding the sociodemographic characteristics sex, age, and educational level. Conclusions: This study confirmed the two-factor structure, construct, and criterion validity as well as measurement invariance at the scalar level for sex, age, and educational level of the GR-eHEALS scale in a sample of individuals with CAD and CHF.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic poses immense challenges for national and international healthcare systems. Especially in times of social isolation and governmental restrictions, mental health should not be neglected. Innovative approaches are required to support psychologically burdened people. The e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' has been developed to offer manualised and evidence-based psychotherapeutic support adapted to COVID-19-related issues in order to overcome psychological distress. In our study, we aim to assess the efficacy of the e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' in terms of reducing distress (primary outcome), depression and anxiety symptoms as well as improving self-efficacy, quality of life and mindfulness (secondary outcomes). Furthermore, we want to evaluate the programme's usability, feasibility and participants' satisfaction with 'CoPE It' (tertiary outcome). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The e-mental health intervention 'CoPE It' consists of four 30 min modules, conducted every other day, involving psychotherapeutic techniques of mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive–behavioural therapy. The widely applied and previously established content has been adapted to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic by experts in psychosomatic medicine and stress prevention. In our longitudinal study, adult participants—with adequate German language and computer skills, and who have provided informed consent—will be recruited via emergency support hotlines in Germany. Flyers will be distributed, and online channels will be used. Participants will complete a baseline assessment (T0), a postintervention assessment (T1) and assessments 1 and 3 months later (T2 and T3, respectively). We will perform repeated measures analysis of covariance, mixed linear models, standard analyses of variance and regression, and correlation coefficients. In case of binary outcome variables, either mixed logistic regression or χ² tests will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethics Committees of the ...

The aim of this study was to analyze individual changes in cancer patients' mental health before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, and to explore predictors of mental health impairment. Over a two-week period (16–30 March 2020), 150 cancer patients in Germany participated in this study. Validated instruments assessed demographic and medical data, depression and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-2, GAD-2), distress (DT), and health status (EQ-5D-3L). All instruments were adapted to measure the individual mental health before the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19-related fear, trust in governmental actions to face COVID-19, and the subjective level of information regarding COVID-19 were measured. Cancer patients showed a significant increase in depression and anxiety symptoms and distress, while health status deteriorated since the COVID-19 outbreak. Increased depression and generalized anxiety symptoms were predicted by COVID-19-related fear. Trust in governmental actions to face COVID-19 and COVID-19-related fear predicted increases in distress. Higher subjective levels of information predicted less increasing anxiety symptoms and distress. Present data suggests that cancer patients experienced a significant increase in mental health burden since the COVID-19 outbreak. Observed predictors of mental health impairment and protective factors should be addressed, and appropriate interventions established, to maintain mental health of cancer patients during the pandemic.