Content uploaded by Andrzej Piotrowski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrzej Piotrowski on Sep 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Military Psychology Response to Post Pandemic Reconstruction. Volume 1
Objectives
Biological weapons are one of the oldest weapons of mass destruction used by man. Their use has not only determined the outcome of battles, but also influenced the fate of entire civilizations. Although the use of biological weapons agents in a terrorist attack is currently unlikely, all services responsible for the surveillance and removal of epidemiological threats must have clear guidelines and emergency response plans.
Methods
In the face of the numerous threats appearing in the world, it has become necessary to put the main emphasis on modernizing, securing, and maintaining structures in the field of medicine which are prepared for unforeseen crises and situations related to the use of biological agents.
Results
This article presents Poland’s current preparation to take action in the event of a bioterrorist threat. The study presents both the military aspect and procedures for dealing with contamination.
Conclusions
In Poland, as in other European Union countries fighting terrorism, preparations should be made to defend against biological attacks, improve the flow of information on the European security system, strengthen research centers, train staff, create observation units and vaccination centers, as well as prepare hospitals for the hospitalization of patients—potential victims of bioterrorist attacks.
Research and clinical observations suggest that during times of pandemic many people exhibit stress- or anxiety-related psychopathology that include fear of becoming infected, fear of coming into contact with possibly contaminated objects or surfaces, fear of foreigners who might be carrying infection (i.e., disease-related xenophobia), fear of the socio-economic consequences of the pandemic, compulsive checking and reassurance-seeking regarding possible pandemic-related threats, and traumatic stress symptoms about the pandemic (e.g., nightmares, intrusive thoughts). We developed the 36-item COVID Stress Scales (CSS) to measure these features, as they pertain to COVID-19. The CSS were developed to better understand and assess COVID-19-related psychopathology. The scales were intentionally designed so they could be readily adapted for future pandemics. The CSS were developed and initially validated in population-representative samples from Canada (N = 3,479) and the United States (N = 3,375). A stable 5-factor solution was identified, corresponding to scales assessing COVID-related stress and anxiety symptoms: (1) Danger and contamination fears, (2) fears about economic consequences, (3) xenophobia, (4) compulsive checking, and (5) traumatic stress symptoms about COVID-19. The scales performed well on various indices of reliability and validity. The scales were intercorrelated, providing evidence of a COVID Stress Syndrome. The scales offer promise as tools for better understanding the psychopathology associated with COVID-19 and for identifying people in need of mental health services.
The ravages caused by the disease known as COVID-19 has led to a worldwide healthcare and social emergency requiring an effective combined effort from everyone to reduce contagion. Under these circumstances, the perception of the disease is going to have a relevant role in the individual's psychological adjustment. However, at the present time there is no validated instrument for evaluating adult perception of threat from COVID-19. Considering the importance of perception or representation of the disease in a state of social alert, our study intended to validate an instrument measuring the psychological process of the disease caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19). In view of the above, this study evaluated the factor structure and reliability of the version of the Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ) for COVID-19 in a sample of adults. The sample consisted of 1014 Spanish adults (67.2% women and 32.8% men). The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a unidimensional model of the scale, which was the one that showed the best fit and explained 43.87% of the variance. This brief version has adequate psychometric properties and may be used to evaluate the perception of threat from COVID-19 in an adult Spanish population. The validation of this instrument contributes to progress in representation of COVID-19 in our culture.
Bio-terrorism has emerged in recent years as one of the key challenges for European security. The possibility that terrorists may resort to non-conventional weapons such as the usage of biological agents is particularly worrying for the disruptive capacity that such means may have on public health and the environment. To respond to such a threat, the European Union has stepped up its efforts to reduce risks and enhance preparedness in Member States through a comprehensive approach taking into consideration all possible sources of threat deriving from naturally occurring incidents as well as deliberate terrorist attacks. Beyond a series of communications on the topic, the European Commission launched in 2007 a consultation process releasing a Green Paper on Bio-preparedness aimed at stimulating the debate with all stakeholders involved.
With a new preface assessing leadership responses to the coronavirus pandemic, this text explores leadership problems that can develop during such public health crises as the 2001 anthrax attacks, 2003 SARS epidemic, and Mad Cow Disease epidemic of the 1980s–1990s.
A threat to public health, such as a rampaging virus, is no time for a muddled chain of command and contradictory decision-making. Who's In Charge? Leadership during Epidemics, Bioterror Attacks, and Other Public Health Crises, re-issued with a new preface assessing leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak, explores the crucial relationships among political leaders, public health officials, and journalists to see why leadership confusion develops. As the problematic response to COVID-19 has once again shown, the reluctance of politicians to risk alarm can run counter to the public health need to prepare for worse cases.
Many leaders will seek high visibility during a public health crisis, but politicians are not medical experts, and the more they speak, the more they risk disseminating harmful information. How to achieve the right balance is the essence of this book. Beginning by looking at the overarching issues of leadership and public health administration, it then examines in depth five emergencies: the 2001 anthrax attacks, the 1993 cryptosporidium outbreaks, the 2003 SARS outbreak, the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and the battle against Mad Cow Disease.
Background
COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to significantly affect the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs), who stand in the frontline of this crisis. It is, therefore, an immediate priority to monitor rates of mood, sleep and other mental health issues in order to understand mediating factors and inform tailored interventions. The aim of this review is to synthesize and analyze existing evidence on the prevalence of depression, anxiety and insomnia among HCWs during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Methods
A systematic search of literature databases was conducted up to April 17th, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Risk of bias for each individual study was assessed and data pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO and is available online.
Findings
Thirteen studies were included in the analysis with a combined total of 33,062 participants. Anxiety was assessed in 12 studies, with a pooled prevalence of 23·2% and depression in 10 studies, with a prevalence rate of 22·8%. A subgroup analysis revealed gender and occupational differences with female HCPs and nurses exhibiting higher rates of affective symptoms compared to male and medical staff respectively. Finally, insomnia prevalence was estimated at 38·9% across 5 studies.
Interpretation
Early evidence suggests that a considerable proportion of HCWs experience mood and sleep disturbances during this outbreak, stressing the need to establish ways to mitigate mental health risks and adjust interventions under pandemic conditions.
The results of this investigation answered the question of how much COVID-19 related thinking is too much. From a psychometric perspective, too much COVID-19 thinking means scores greater than or equal to 7 on the Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS; Lee, 2020). From a practical perspective, too much COVID-19 thinking roughly corresponds to spending at least three to seven days, dreaming about the coronavirus, repetitively thinking about the coronavirus, having disturbing thoughts that one has caught the coronavirus, and having disturbing thoughts that one saw particular people who may have the coronavirus. OCS scores were also strongly associated with coronavirus anxiety (rs = .72 to .81), spiritual crisis (rs = .53 to .64), alcohol/drug coping (rs = .42 to .50), extreme hopelessness (rs = .66 to .70), and suicidal ideation (rs = .45 to .56).