• Users Online: 145
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 170-178

“Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” to Decrease Psychological Distress During COVID-19: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial


1 Department of Psychology, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Trauma and Disaster Mental Health, Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
3 WHO Country Office Turkey, Ankara, Turkey

Date of Submission09-Oct-2021
Date of Decision30-May-2022
Date of Acceptance27-Jul-2022
Date of Web Publication31-Oct-2022

Correspondence Address:
PhD Ceren Acarturk
Department of Psychology, Koc University, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/intv.intv_29_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Despite the increasing psychological distress during COVID-19, utilisation of face-to-face psychological interventions decreased profoundly. The aim of this study involving two parallel, two-armed pilot randomised controlled trials was to examine the effectiveness of a guided self-help intervention “Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” (DWM) in decreasing psychological distress in Turkish and Syrian participants. Seventy-four Turkish nationals and 50 Syrian refugee adults with psychological distress were randomly allocated to a DWM group or wait-list control group. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 postintervention. Secondary outcome measures were the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5, Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale and Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II postintervention. Although this study was not powered to detect a significant effect for DWM postassessment between DWM and the control group, results showed a significant improvement in depression symptoms among Turkish participants in the DWM group (d = 0.46) and in PTSD symptoms among Syrian participants in the DWM group (d = 0.67) from pre- to postintervention assessment. These results indicate the potential of DWM to decrease mental health problems during the pandemic and importance of a fully powered, definitive controlled trial to examine its effectiveness both for the host community and refugees to reduce psychological distress during COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID-19, feasibility, guided self-help interventions, mental health, refugees


How to cite this article:
Acarturk C, Kurt G, Ilkkursun Z, Uygun E, Karaoglan-Kahilogullari A. “Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” to Decrease Psychological Distress During COVID-19: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial. Intervention 2022;20:170-8

How to cite this URL:
Acarturk C, Kurt G, Ilkkursun Z, Uygun E, Karaoglan-Kahilogullari A. “Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” to Decrease Psychological Distress During COVID-19: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial. Intervention [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 29];20:170-8. Available from: https://www.interventionjournal.org/text.asp?2022/20/2/170/359990




  Key implications for practice Top


  • COVID-19 increased the need for alternatives to face-to-face psychological interventions.
  • Tele-health or online psychosocial interventions may be a feasible option to alleviate psychological distress during pandemics.
  • DWM was found to be feasible to test in larger, definitive trials and implement during the COVID-19 pandemic to alleviate pandemic-related psychological distress.



  Introduction Top


Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic in December 2019, nearly 250 million people have been infected and 5 million died (World Health Organization, 2021). Imposed by COVID-19, the so-called new normal including several stressors such as physical distancing, quarantine, economic recession, change in daily routines, loneliness, fear of contagion and uncertainty about the future is likely to cause mental health problems such as depression and anxiety (Brooks et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020).

As in previous outbreaks such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (Reynolds et al., 2008) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) (Kim et al., 2018), the COVID-19 pandemic has had adverse psychological effects. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight the potent risk for common mental health problems during the current pandemic (Wu et al., 2021; Xiong et al., 2020). Despite evidence showing that certain groups such as healthcare workers, patients with chronic diseases and previous mental health problems and those infected with COVID-19 are vulnerable to psychological distress (Hao et al., 2020; Sawalha, 2021), the general population is also at high risk of having mental health problems. A meta-analysis of 68 studies indicated the estimated prevalence of depression and anxiety as 30% and 33% respectively among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic (Wang et al., 2020). Furthermore, a nationwide study conducted in the UK found an overall increase in psychological distress during the current pandemic compared to the prepandemic period (Pierce et al., 2020).

Pandemics may have diverse psychosocial effects on different groups. Along with other vulnerable groups, refugees experienced several difficulties during COVID-19 (Alemi et al., 2020). Refugees in general experience economic and social hardship (Miller & Rasmussen, 2017) which may worsen during pandemics. This may be related to adverse social determinants of health such as financial problems, residing in crowded places/living conditions, limited access to care and language barriers which may undermine following and adherence to safety guidelines. Lockdowns and related economic recession may affect specific sectors where refugees mostly work (Brickhill-Atkinson & Hauck, 2021). Taking economic and social problems together, refugees could be at higher risk for mental health problems during pandemics. Turkey is the world’s top refugee-hosting country with 3.6 million Syrian refugees currently residing in Turkey (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2020). Owing to both traumatic experiences during war and flight and postdisplacement stressors, refugees are already at high risk of developing common mental health disorders. A recent meta-analysis of common mental disorders among refugees reported prevalence estimates as 31.5%, 31.46% and 11% for depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety respectively (Blackmore et al., 2020). A prospective study with Yezidi refugees in Iraq indicated an increase in the prevalence of depression, anxiety and PTSD diagnosis during COVID-19 compared to before the pandemic (Kizilhan & Noll-Hussong, 2020). In general, however, there is a scarcity of research among refugees during COVID-19.

Mental disorders may cause a profound burden on people and depression is one of the leading causes of disability and the global burden of disease among adults (World Health Organization, 2020a). Despite the existence of evidence-based interventions, owing to constraints such as physical distancing and quarantine, utilisation of traditional face-to-face intervention has become very challenging during the pandemic (Wind et al., 2020). Telehealth or online psychosocial interventions as a way to increase the capacity and accessibility of mental health services might be a feasible option to alleviate psychological distress during the pandemic. Such interventions may be provided as self-help with minimal or no guidance. Previous studies show that both guided and unguided self-help interventions are effective in reducing psychological distress such as depression and anxiety (Fledderus et al., 2012; Lintvedt et al., 2013). Self-help and face-to-face interventions are found to be almost equally effective in some studies (Cuijpers et al., 2010). Following this line of work, to support managing stress and coping with adversity from many causes, including COVID-19, the World Health Organisation (WHO) released an illustrated guide of the Self-Help Plus (SH+) intervention package (Epping-Jordan et al., 2016) called “Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” (DWM; World Health Organization, 2020b), which includes brief audio exercises to support practice in stress management techniques and a simple to read illustrated guide. It can be provided as an unguided intervention (e.g. giving out the self-help book) or provided with guidance, for example using regular phone calls by briefly trained facilitators to motivate and support use. The present pilot study aimed to examine feasibility, acceptability and likely effectiveness of this remote intervention including a guided self-help intervention in decreasing depressive symptoms in Turkish and Syrian adults living in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic.


  Methods Top


Participants and Procedure

Two parallel, two-armed pilot randomised controlled trials were conducted between November 2020 and January 2021. The study was approved by the university’s ethics committee (020.200.IRB3.080) and registered online (NCT04631887). Both Turkish and Syrian participants were recruited via social media (see [Figure 2] for CONSORT diagram). The inclusion criteria were a) being above 18 years of age, b) being literate (in Turkish or Arabic) and c) having self-reported psychological distress (a Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Kessler-10 score of above 15). For Syrians, being under temporary protection status was an additional inclusion criterion. Exclusion criteria were having an imminent risk of suicide or severe cognitive impairment.
Figure 1 Consort flow diagram for Turkish participants (trial 1).

Click here to view
Figure 2 Consort flow diagram for Syrian participants (trial 2).

Click here to view


A total of 130 Turkish and 121 Syrian participants completed screening measurement. Among them, 74 Turkish and 50 Syrian participants were found eligible to participate in the study. With a 1:1 randomisation ratio using a computer-generated random number list (https://www.randomizer.org/), they were randomly assigned to the intervention group in which participants received the self-help intervention called DWM (38 Turkish and 26 Syrian participants) or the wait-list control (WLC) group (36 Turkish and 24 Syrian participants) in which participants received self-assessments. Demographic characteristics are given in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. There were no significant differences between the DWM and control group on any demographic characteristics in Turkish and Syrian samples. Both intervention groups received self-assessment tools at preintervention and postintervention (7 weeks after the preintervention).
Table 1 Demographic and COVID-19 Related Characteristics of Turkish Participants (Trial 1)

Click here to view
Table 2 Demographic and COVID-19 Related Characteristics of Syrian Participants (Trial 2)

Click here to view


Doing What Matters in Times of Stress

DWM is an illustrated self-help guide from the SH+ intervention (Epping-Jordan et al., 2016). It was released by WHO in 2020 to support coping with an adversity, including adversity caused by COVID-19. The guide contains the same information as found in the full SH+ course and is based on acceptance and commitment therapy (Hayes et al., 2013), which introduces new ways to accommodate difficult emotions and thoughts instead of suppressing them. SH+ was found to be effective in reducing psychological distress and improving psychological flexibility and functionality (Tol et al., 2020). DWM consists of five sections (grounding, unhooking, acting on your values, being kind and making room) with prerecorded audio files for the exercises. Participants in the DWM condition were called three times (at the beginning with the delivery of the booklet, 2 weeks after the first contact and 5 weeks after the first contact) by psychology graduate students who had been trained (for over 3 hours) on providing guided self-help on the DWM guide to monitor the progress of the participants and motivate use of DWM guide. Psychologists provided little guidance to the participants as to how to use the manual and overcome barriers such as lack of time and motivation while using the manual. Participants were encouraged to work on one section each week and practise the related exercises.

Measures

Psychological Distress Level

The Kessler-10 (Kessler et al., 2002) was used as a screening measurement for psychological distress. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = none of the time, 5 = all of the time), participants were asked to rate how often they experienced psychological distress (e.g. feeling tired out of no reason, feeling nervous and feeling anxious) in the previous 30 days. Higher total scores indicate higher psychological distress. The validated Turkish and Arabic version of the scale showed good psychometric properties (Altun et al., 2019; Easton et al., 2017). The Cronbach alpha was 0.93 for the Turkish and 0.91 for the Arabic sample in the present study.

Depressive Symptoms

The primary outcome measure was the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002). Used to assess depressive symptoms in the previous 2 weeks, it has nine items rated on a four-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 3 = nearly every day). Example items are “little interest or pleasure doing things”, “feeling down”, “depressed” and “hopeless”. Higher total scores indicate a higher level of depressive symptoms. The Turkish and Arabic version of the scale has good psychometric properties (Sari et al., 2016; Sawaya et al., 2016). The internal consistency was 0.78 for the Turkish and 0.93 for the Arabic sample in this study.

Anxiety Symptoms

Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006), which includes seven items (e.g. feeling nervous, anxious or on edge and worrying too much about different things) rated on a four-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 3 = nearly every day). Total scores were calculated with higher scores indicating a higher level of anxiety symptoms. The Turkish and Arabic versions of the GAD-7 were used in the present study (Konkan et al., 2013; Sawaya et al., 2016). We found the Cronbach alpha 0.86 for the Turkish sample and 0.91 for the Arabic sample in the present study.

PTSD Symptoms

The short form of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 was used to assess PTSD symptoms (Zuromski et al., 2019). This short form with four items was found to be closely aligned with the long version. The items are “suddenly feeling or acting as if the stressful experience were actually happening again (as if you were actually back there relieving it)”, “avoiding external reminders of the stressful experience (for example people, places, conversations, activities, objects or situations)”, “feeling distant or cut off from other people”, and “irritable behaviour, angry outbursts or acting aggressively”. Higher total scores indicate a higher level of PTSD symptoms. The Cronbach alpha was 0.84 for the Turkish sample and 0.81 for the Arabic sample in this study.

Self-Efficacy

The General Self-Efficacy Scale with 10 items was used to assess perceived general self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Items (e.g. “I can usually handle whatever comes my way”) are rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 4 = exactly true. Total scores were computed with higher scores indicating higher perceived general self-efficacy. The Turkish and Arabic versions of the scale were used (Aypay, 2010; Crandall et al., 2015). The internal consistency was 0.89 for the Turkish sample and 0.92 for the Arabic sample in this study.

Psychological Flexibility

Psychological flexibility was assessed using Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II which includes seven items rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never true, 7 = always true; Bond et al., 2011). This scale has been validated in Turkish and Arabic (Hemaid et al., 2016; Yavuz et al., 2016). Lower total scores indicate higher psychological flexibility. In this study, Cronbach alpha was 0.87 for the Turkish sample and 0.88 for the Arabic sample.

Data Analysis

To determine the required sample size, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2009). The effect size was determined in line with the previous study which tested the effectiveness of SH+ in conflict-affected setting (Tol et al., 2020). To detect a small-to-medium effect size with a power of 80% at an alpha level of 0.05, a sample size of 64 including 32 in the DWM and 32 in the control group was required.

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 26.0 for Windows. Descriptive analyses to show the demographic characteristics of groups were conducted. Groups were compared on baseline characteristics by using an independent sample t test for continuous variables and a chi-square significance test for categorical variables. The differences between DWM and WLC group were examined with an intent-to-treat analysis. Linear mixed-effects models with the fixed effects of group (DWM versus WLC group), time (pre- versus postintervention assessment) and time by group and random effect of the subject were used. This was chosen over any other method because it reduces bias, handles missing data and thereby prevents loss of power (Salim et al., 2008). The mean differences between the intervention and control at posttest and change in the score from pre- to postintervention were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (no Bonferroni adjustment was made). Within- and between-group effect sizes were estimated by calculating Cohen d based on the pooled standard deviation (Cohen, 1988).


  Results Top


Fifty-one participants (27 DWM and 24 WLC) in the Turkish sample (trial 1) and 33 participants (16 DWM and 17 WLC) in the Syrian sample (trial 2) completed the study. The drop-out rate was 31% and 34% for the Turkish and Syrian samples, respectively. No adverse events were reported.

[Table 3] and [Table 4] report the results for primary and secondary outcome measures for the Turkish and Syrian samples.
Table 3 Summary Statistics and Results from Mixed-model Analysis of Primary and Secondary Outcomes for Turkish Participants (Trial 1)

Click here to view
Table 4 Summary Statistics and Results from Mixed-Model Analysis of Primary and Secondary Outcomes for Syrian Participants (Trial 2)

Click here to view


Primary Outcomes

Linear mixed model analysis for depressive symptoms among Turkish participants showed a significant interaction effect between time and group, F(1, 65.11) = 4.49, P = 0.038. The group comparison at the postintervention narrowly failed to reach significance at the P < 0.05 (F(1, 120.01) = 3.88, P = 0.051). However, within-group comparison was significant, indicating an improvement over time in depressive symptom scores for DWM group, but not for WCL group (F(1, 64.314) = 4.11, P = 0.047). This result indicates the potential utility of DWM in reducing depressive symptoms. Neither the effect of group (F(1, 76.44) = 1.18, P = 0.281) nor time (F(1, 65.11) = 0.46, P = 0.502) was significant.

For the Syrian sample, the interaction effect between time and group was not significant, F(1, 33.20) = 1.41, P = 0.244. Furthermore, no significant effect time of time or group was found (F(1, 33.20) = 1.01, P = 0.322, F[1] = 47.03 = 0.05, P = 0.827, respectively). These results indicate no significant impact of the intervention on depressive symptoms for this sample.

Secondary Outcomes

In the Turkish sample, except for PTSD symptoms, none of the impacts on secondary outcomes were significant (see [Table 3]). There was a main effect of group allocation on PTSD symptoms: participants in the DWM group (M = 7.26, SE = 0.57) had significantly lower level of PTSD symptoms than those in the WLC group ((M = 5.62, SE = 0.55), F(1, 69.25) = 4.26, P = 0.043) at posttest.

For Syrian participants, the interaction effect between time and group on PTSD symptoms was significant, F(1, 33.22) = 6.87, P = 0.013. Between-group comparison was not significant (F(1, 72.66) = 2.31, P = 0.133). The within-group comparison was significant, F(1, 33.22) = 6.87, P = 0.013. There was a significant improvement in PTSD symptoms of the DWM group over time, but not of the WLC group (F(1, 33.68) = 9.26, P = 0.005). None of the other differences in secondary outcomes for Syrian participants (between- or within-group) were significant (see [Table 4]). These results indicate that the intervention did not yield a significant difference between the intervention and control group at the postassessment. Yet, it has potential to reduce mental health symptoms based on the within-group results.


  Discussion Top


The present randomised controlled pilot study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a fully powered RCT, a scalable, guided self-help intervention called DWM. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study testing the effects of DWM on reducing COVID-19 related distress. We could not reach the predetermined sample size in either sample. Therefore, this study was underpowered to detect significant differences on primary and secondary outcome measures. We did not find a significant effect of DWM on either primary or secondary outcome measures compared to the WLC group. However, we observed significant within-group effects on a number of outcome variables. Among Turkish participants in the DWM group, depression scores significantly reduced from pre- to postintervention assessment. Furthermore, PTSD symptoms significantly decreased from pre- to postintervention assessment among Syrian participants in the DWM group. These within-group changes over time point to the possibility of finding significant effects of DWM if a larger sample size is achieved. Thus, future randomised controlled trials with a larger sample size will likely be more informative in showing the effects of DWM on alleviating COVID-19 related distress. Testing the effectiveness of DWM in large trials is especially important when the ease of its use is taken into account. Besides, DWM has been translated into several languages and can be easily adapted to the different cultures and/or groups.Cumulative evidence shows that COVID-19 takes a very heavy toll on mental health as well as physical health (see Wang et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2020 for meta-analyses). Indeed, disadvantaged groups such as refugees have been hit the hardest by COVID-19 (Lancet, 2020). Furthermore, utilisation of mental health services becomes difficult due to the restrictions and following regulations during the pandemic (Moreno et al., 2020). Telehealth or online mental health service provision appears to be one of the promising solutions (Goldman et al., 2020). A considerable number of studies have been launched to test the effectiveness of both guided and unguided internet-delivered psychosocial interventions among different groups such as the general population (Al-Alawi et al., 2021; O’Donnell et al., 2020), COVID-19 patients (Shaygan et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2020), health care workers (Weiner et al., 2020) and patients with chronic diseases (Mikocka-Walus et al., 2020). Some completed trials showed very promising results on reducing psychological distress (e.g., Al-Alawi et al., 2021; Shaygan et al., 2021; & Wei et al., 2020). Considering the potential of DWM to reduce psychological distress and ease in its application, DWM could be a good alternative to face-to-face interventions during the current pandemic.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was funded by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the project number of 120K440. The funding agency was not involved in research design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing an article and decision to submit it for publication.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.







 
  References Top

1.
Al-Alawi M., McCall R. K., Sultan A., Al Balushi N., Al-Mahrouqi T., Al Ghailani A., Al Sabti H., Al-Maniri A., Panchatcharam S. M., Al Sinawi H. (2021). Efficacy of a six-week-long therapist-guided online therapy versus self-help internet-based therapy for COVID-19-induced anxiety and depression: Open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 8 (2), e26683. https://doi.org/10.2196/26683  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Alemi Q., Stempel C., Siddiq H., Kim E. (2020). Refugees and COVID-19: Achieving a comprehensive public health response. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 98 (8), 510-510A. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.271080  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Altun Y., Özen M., Kuloğlu M. M. (2019). Turkish adaptation of Kessler psychological distress scale: Validity and reliability study. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 21, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.12801  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Aypay A. (2010). The adaptation Study of General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale to Turkish. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11 (2), 113-131. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/genel-oz-yeterlik-olcegi-toad.pdf  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Blackmore R., Boyle J. A., Fazel M., Ranasinha S., Gray K. M., Fitzgerald G., Misso M., Gibson-Helm M. (2020). The prevalence of mental illness in refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 17 (9), e1003337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003337  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bond F. W., Hayes S. C., Baer R. A., Carpenter K. M., Guenole N., Orcutt H. K., Waltz T., Zettle R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42 (4), 676-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Brickhill-Atkinson M., Hauck F. R. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on resettled refugees. Primary Care, 48 (1), 57-66. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pop.2020.10.001  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Brooks S. K., Webster R. K., Smith L. E., Woodland L., Wessely S., Greenberg N., Rubin G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395 (10227), 912-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20) 30460-8  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Crandall A., Rahim H. A., Yount K. M. (2015). Validation of the general self-efficacy scale among Qatari young women. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 21 (12), 891-896.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cuijpers P., Donker T., Van Straten A., Li J., Andersson G. (2010). Is guided self-help as effective as face-to-face psychotherapy for depression and anxiety disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Psychological Medicine, 40 (12), 1943-1957. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710000772  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Easton S. D., Safadi N. S., Wang Y., Hasson R. G. (2017). The Kessler psychological distress scale: Translation and validation of an Arabic version. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15 (1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017- 0783-9  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Epping-Jordan J. E., Harris R., Brown F. L., Carswell K., Foley C., García‐Moreno C., Kogan C., van Ommeren M. (2016). Self Help Plus (SH+): A new WHO stress management package. World Psychiatry, 15 (3), 295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fwps.20355  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Fledderus M., Bohlmeijer E. T., Pieterse M. E., Schreurs K. M. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy as guided self-help for psychological distress and positive mental health: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, 42 (3), 485-495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711001206  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Goldman M. L., Druss B. G., Horvitz-Lennon M., Norquist G. S., Ptakowski K. K., Brinkley A., Greiner M., Hayes H., Hepburn B., Jorgensen S., Swartz M. S., Dixon L. B. (2020). Mental health policy in the era of COVID-19. Psychiatric Services, 71 (11), 1158-1162. https://doi.org/10.1176/APPI.PS 202000219  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
González-Sanguino C., Ausín B., Castellanos M. Á., Saiz J., López-Gómez A., Ugidos C., Muñoz M. (2020). Mental health consequences during the initial stage of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 172-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.040  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hao F., Tan W., Jiang L., Zhang L., Zhao X., Zou Y., Hu Y., Luo X., Jiang X., McIntyre R. S., Tran B., Sun J., Zhang Z., Ho R., Ho C., Tam W. (2020). Do psychiatric patients experience more psychiatric symptoms during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown? A case-control study with service and research implications for immunopsychiatry. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 100-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.069  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Hayes S., Levin M., Plumb-Vilardaga J., Villatte J.L., Pistorello J. (2013). Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: Examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44 (2), 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002.Acceptance  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hemaid F., El-Astal S., Cangas A.J., Navarro N., Aguilar-Parra J.M., Alsaqqa A., Saqer A. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Palestinian version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) applied in the Gaza strip. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, 5 (5), 52-59.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Kessler R. C., Andrews G., Colpe L. J., Hiripi E., Mroczek D. K., Normand S. L. T., Walters E. E., Zaslavsky A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32 (6), 959-976. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kim H. C., Yoo S. Y., Lee B. H., Lee S. H., Shin H. S. (2018). Psychiatric findings in suspected and confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome patients quarantined in hospital: A retrospective chart analysis. Psychiatry Investigation, 15 (4), 355-360. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.10.25.1  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kizilhan J. I., Noll-Hussong M. (2020). Psychological impact of COVID-19 in a refugee camp in Iraq. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 4 (17), 659-660. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13142  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Konkan R., Şenormanci Ö., Güçlü O., Aydin E., Sungur M. Z. (2013). Validity and reliability study for the Turkish adaptation of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale. Noropsikiyatri Arsivi, 50 (1), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.y6308  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kroenke K., Spitzer R. L. (2002). The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals, 32 (9), 509-515. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713- 20020901-06  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
The Lancet. (2020). COVID-19 will not leave behind refugees and migrants. Lancet (London, England), 395 (10230), 1090. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0140-6736(20) 30758-3  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Lintvedt O. K., Griffiths K. M., Sørensen K., Østvik A. R., Wang C. E. A., Eisemann M., Waterloo K. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of unguided internet-based self-help intervention for the prevention of depression: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 20 (1), 10-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.770  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Mikocka-Walus A., Olive L., Skvarc D., Beswick L., Massuger W., Raven L., Emerson C., Evans S. (2020). Expressive writing to combat distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in people with inflammatory bowel disease (WriteForIBD): A trial protocol. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 139, 110286.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Miller K. E., Rasmussen A. (2017). The mental health of civilians displaced by armed conflict: An ecological model of refugee distress. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 26 (2), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796016000172  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Moreno C., Wykes T., Galderisi S., Nordentoft M., Crossley N., Jones N., Cannon M., Correll C.U., Byrne L., Carr S., Chen E.Y., Gorwood P., Johnson S., Kärkkäinen H., Krystal J. H., Lee J., Lieberman J., López-Jaramillo C., Männikkö M., Arango C. (2020). How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7 (9), 813-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20) 30307-2  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
O’Donnell K. T., Dunbar M., Speelman D. L. (2020). Effectiveness of using a meditation app in reducing anxiety and improving well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 21 (1), 1006. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020- 04935-6  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Pierce M., Hope H., Ford T., Hatch S., Hotopf M., John A., Kontopantelis E., Webb R., Wessely S., McManus S., Abel K. M. (2020). Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7 (10), 883-892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20) 30308-4  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Reynolds D. L., Garay J. R., Deamond S. L., Moran M. K., Gold W., Styra R. (2008). Understanding, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience. Epidemiology and Infection, 136 (7), 997-1007. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807009156  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Salim A., Mackinnon A., Christensen H., Griffiths K. (2008). Comparison of data analysis strategies for intent-to-treat analysis in pre-test-post-test designs with substantial dropout rates. Psychiatry Research, 160 (3), 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.08.005  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Sari Y. E., Kokoglu B., Balcioglu H., Bilge U., Colak E., Unluoglu I. (2016). Turkish reliability of the patient health questionnaire-9. Biomedical Research (India), 2016(Special Issue 1), S460-S462.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Sawalha A. H. (2021). Patients with lupus are not protected from COVID-19. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 80 (2), e21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25782  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Sawaya H., Atoui M., Hamadeh A., Zeinoun P., Nahas Z. (2016). Adaptation and initial validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Questionnaire (GAD-7) in an Arabic speaking Lebanese psychiatric outpatient sample. Psychiatry Research, 239, 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.03.030  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Schwarzer R., Jerusalem M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman J., Wright S., Johnston M. (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). NFER-Nelson.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Shaygan M., Yazdani Z., Valibeygi A. (2021). The effect of online multimedia psychoeducational interventions on the resilience and perceived stress of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A pilot cluster randomized parallel-controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 21 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021- 03085-6  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Spitzer R. L., Kroenke K., Williams J. B. W., Löwe B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166 (10), 1092-1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Tol W. A., Leku M. R., Lakin D. P., Carswell K., Augustinavicius J., Adaku A., Au T. M., Brown F. L., Bryant R. A., Garcia-Moreno C., Musci R. J., Ventevogel P., White R. G., van Ommeren M. (2020). Guided self-help to reduce psychological distress in South Sudanese female refugees in Uganda: a cluster randomised trial. The Lancet Global Health, 8 (2), e254-e263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19) 30504-2  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2020). UNHCR Türkiye İstatistikleri. https://www.unhcr.org/tr/unhcr-turkiye-istatistikleri  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Wang Y., Kala M. P., Jafar T. H. (2020). Factors associated with psychological distress during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the predominantly general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 15, e0244630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244630  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Wei N., Huang B., Lu S., Hu J., Zhou X., Hu C., Chen J., Huang J., Li S., Wang Z., Wang D., Xu Y., Hu S. (2020). Efficacy of internet-based integrated intervention on depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with COVID-19. Journal of Zhejiang University: Science B, 21 (5), 400-404. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7203540/pdf/JZUS B21-0400. pdf  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Weiner L., Berna F., Nourry N., Severac F., Vidailhet P., Mengin A. C. (2020). Efficacy of an online cognitive behavioral therapy program developed for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The REduction of STress (REST) study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 21 (1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020- 04772-7  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
World Health Organization. (2020a). Depression. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
World Health Organization. (2020b). Doing what matters in times of stress. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003927  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
World Health Organization. (2021). WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Wind T. R., Rijkeboer M., Andersson G., Riper H. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: The ‘black swan’ for mental health care and a turning point for e-health. Internet Interventions, 20, 100317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2020.100317  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Wu T., Jia X., Shi H., Niu J., Yin X., Xie J., Wang X. (2021). Prevalence of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281, 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.117  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Xiong J., Lipsitz O., Nasri F., Lui L. M., Gill H., Phan L., Chen-Li D, Iacobucci M, Ho R, Majeed A, McIntyre R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Yavuz F., Ulusoy S., Iskin M., Esen F. B., Burhan H. S., Karadere M. E., Yavuz N. (2016). Turkish version of Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II): A reliability and validity analysis in clinical and non-clinical samples. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni, 26 (4), 397-408. https://doi.org/10.5455/bcp.20160223124107  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Zuromski K. L., Ustun B., Hwang I., Keane T. M., Marx B. P., Stein M. B., Ursano R. J., Kessler R. C. (2019). Developing an optimal short-form of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Depression and Anxiety, 36 (9), 790-800. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22942  Back to cited text no. 53
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Key implications...
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed534    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded59    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal