Bakoulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery of the Russian Academy of Medical Science,
Although heart surgery is one of the most effective methods in treating cardiovascular diseases, more than 50% of patients have problems in personal, social, professional adaptation after surgery (Pogosova, 1996).
According to recent studies, psychological factors contribute significantly to negative outcomes of coronary surgery. The main factors are: depression, anxiety, personal factors and character traits, social isolation, and chronic life stress (Blumental, 2003; Connerney, 2010; Contrada, 2008; Cserep, 2010, Gallagher, 2007; Hoyer, 2008; Pigney-Demaria, 2003; Rozancki, 1999; Rymaszewska, 2003; Viars, 2009, Zaitsev, 1997).
The aim of the article is to describe the association between psychological factors and the outcomes of coronary surgery. We have studied how the patient’s attitude towards forthcoming open heart surgery is associated with the outcomes.
We have picked out four types of attitude towards forthcoming heart surgery: 1) pessimistic (no belief in recovery, surgery is threatening, damaging), 2) indifferent (no belief in recovery, surgery will not change anything), 3) optimistic but not realistic (exaggerated expectations, belief in full recovery), 4) optimistic and realistic (adequate expectations, belief in improvement).
The study has shown that patients with optimistic-realistic attitudes towards forthcoming heart surgery have better outcomes, better emotional status, and shorter stays in hospital.
Keywords: heart surgery, nocebo effect, depression, anxiety, postoperative period
Background. The COVID-19 outbreak and the measures taken to curb it have changed people’s lives and affected their psychological well-being. Many studies have shown that hardiness has reduced the adverse effects of stressors, but this has not been researched in the Russian COVID-19 situation yet.
Objective. To assess the role of hardiness and meaningfulness as resources to cope with stress and minimize its effects on psychological well-being.
Design. The study was conducted March 24–May 15, 2020 on a sample of 949 people (76.7% women), aged 18–66 years (M = 30.55, Me = 27, SD = 11.03). The data was divided into four time-periods, cut off by the dates of significant decisions by the Russian authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaires were: Beck Anxiety and Depression Inventories, Symptom Check-list-90-R, Noetic Orientations Test, and Personal Views Survey-III.
Results. Welch’s ANOVA showed significant differences between the time-periods in meaningfulness, hardiness, anxiety, depression, and the General Symptomatic Index (GSI) (W = 4.899, p< 0.01; W = 3.173,p < 0.05; W = 8.096,p < 0.01; W = 3.244,p < 0.022; and W = 4.899,p < 0.01, respectively). General linear models for anxiety, depression, and GSI showed that biological sex, chronic diseases, self-assessed fears, and hardiness contributed to all of them. In all three models, hardiness had the most significant impact. Anxiety was also influenced by the time factor, both in itself and in its interaction with hardiness levels. With less hardiness, more anxiety occurred over time.
Conclusion. Hardiness was shown to be a personal adaptive resource in stressful situations related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: hardiness, meaningfulness, anxiety, depression, pandemic, COVID-19
Background: A number of studies from different countries have been devoted to studying the psychological state of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the severity of the symptoms of the disease itself, the situation of uncertainty can negatively affect the patients’ psychological well-being. .
Objective: Our research aimed to explore ways for patients with COVID-19 to regulate their emotional state during hospitalization, and how they can reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Design: The research involved 127 people hospitalized due to confirmed COVID-19: 67 men (52.8%) and 60 women (47.2%), ages 19 to 77 years (M = 43.34, Me = 42, SD = 11.81). We used a set of questionnaires which included the Beck Depression Questionnaire; the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale; the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (22-item); theCognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire ; and the Dembo-Rubinstein self-assessment scales.
Results: Twenty-five and four-tenths percent (25.4%) of the participants had severe symptoms of anxiety, and 24.13% had symptoms of depression. Women showed higher symptoms of depression than men. ANOVA showed no significant differences in the use of emotion regulation strategies in patients being hospitalized at different intervals, or in patients of different age groups. Factor analysis made it possible to distinguish three patterns of emotion regulation: 1) adaptive cognitive change; 2) fixation on negative experiences; and 3) deflection of responsibility. Significant positive correlations were found between symptoms of depression and anxiety, and coping by fixation on negative experience only.
Conclusion: Although various means of cognitive emotion regulationr by patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are currently being presented, these strategies are not associated with significant reductions in their symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Keywords: anxiety; depression; pandemic; COVID-19; regulation of emotion; coping with the disease