
Citation: Joana Barbosa, Ana Campos, Paula Teixeira. Methods currently applied to study the prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in foods[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 102-128. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.102
[1] | Yosef Mohamed-Azzam Zakout, Fayez Saud Alreshidi, Ruba Mustafa Elsaid, Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed . The magnitude of COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and depression associated with intense mass media coverage in Saudi Arabia. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 664-678. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020052 |
[2] | Stephanie A. Godleski, Casey T. Harris, Kevin M. Fitzpatrick, Ammina Kothari . Social and behavioral vulnerability, pregnancy, and negative mental health outcomes in the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 331-341. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022023 |
[3] | Vasiliki Georgousopoulou, Panagiota Pervanidou, Pantelis Perdikaris, Efrosyni Vlachioti, Vaia Zagana, Georgios Kourtis, Ioanna Pavlopoulou, Vasiliki Matziou . Covid-19 pandemic? Mental health implications among nurses and Proposed interventions. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(1): 273-293. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024014 |
[4] | Carlee Bellapigna, Zornitsa Kalibatseva . Psychosocial risk factors associated with social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms during COVID-19. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 18-34. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023003 |
[5] | Mohammad Mofatteh . Risk factors associated with stress, anxiety, and depression among university undergraduate students. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(1): 36-65. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021004 |
[6] | Ilenia Piras, Vanessa Usai, Paolo Contu, Maura Galletta . Vicarious trauma, coping strategies and nurses' health outcomes: An exploratory study. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(4): 1071-1081. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024055 |
[7] | José Miguel Uribe-Restrepo, Alan Waich-Cohen, Laura Ospina-Pinillos, Arturo Marroquín Rivera, Sergio Castro-Díaz, Juan Agustín Patiño-Trejos, Martín Alonso Rondón Sepúlveda, Karen Ariza-Salazar, Luisa Fernanda Cardona-Porras, Carlos Gómez-Restrepo, Francisco Diez-Canseco . Mental health and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures among young adults in Bogotá, Colombia. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 630-643. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022044 |
[8] | Thiresia Sikioti, Afroditi Zartaloudi, Despoina Pappa, Polyxeni Mangoulia, Evangelos C. Fradelos, Freideriki Eleni Kourti, Ioannis Koutelekos, Evangelos Dousis, Nikoletta Margari, Areti Stavropoulou, Eleni Evangelou, Chrysoula Dafogianni . Stress and burnout among Greek critical care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(4): 755-774. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023051 |
[9] | Nicola Magnavita, Igor Meraglia, Matteo Riccò . Anxiety and depression in healthcare workers are associated with work stress and poor work ability. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(4): 1223-1246. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024063 |
[10] | Doaa M Magdy, Ahmed Metwally, Omar Magdy . Assessment of community psycho-behavioral responses during the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a cross-sectional study. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(1): 26-40. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022003 |
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 disease a pandemic, which appeared in China in December 2019, owing to its fast diffusion to Europe and America [1]. In most countries, the government and health institutions have decided to apply some restrictions to reduce the spread rate of the pandemic, to decrease the morbidity and mortality rates, and prevent the pandemic from creating a burden on the health system. Among the protective measures are curfew restrictions, the obligation to use masks, social distancing, travel bans, transition to online education and home office working, temporary closure of workplaces, and quarantine, etc [2]–[4].
As with previous pandemics, the rapid spread of the virus, rapid increases in the morbidity and mortality rates, changes in daily life habits due to the protective measures, loss of income, and fear of losing loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the mental health of society [5]–[7]. Various studies show that the fear of getting sick, not getting enough health care, dying, staying away from loved ones, stigmatization, discrimination, desperation, and loneliness were risk factors that adversely affected mental health during the pandemic [8],[9]. Recent studies have shown that the frequency of applying to psychiatry emergency service and the risk of suicide increased, especially in people living alone during the quarantine period [10]; additionally, there were great changes in the lifestyle habits of young people who had a more active life before the curfew [11]. It has also been reported that the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms increased, the amount of sleep decreased, the quality of sleep and life worsened, and the use of at least one psychotropic drug increased after quarantine [11].
It is a well-established fact that the impact of a pandemic on mental health varies depending on the conditions. Gender, marital status, employment, smoking status, presence of chronic illness, age, education level, size of the household, and personal health perception were reported to be associated with mental health during the pandemic [12]–[19]. For example, women, singles, and those who perceived their health status as poor were reported to be in the higher risk group for mental health problems [20]–[27]. In another study, it was found that women and current and former smokers had worse mental health status compared to men and non-smokers, respectively [11].
It is critical to recognize the COVID-19 pandemic as a serious public health issue since it poses a risk factor for the mental health of the worldwide population. Early diagnosis of mental health problems and determination of high-risk people are necessary for planning evidence-based mental health interventions. Providing mental health protection and necessary health services will reduce the cost of health and increase the quality of service. Therefore, our primary aim in this study was to determine the psychological impact of COVID-19 in society and the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, alongside determining the factors affecting mental health.
The research is a descriptive design. The population included approximately 64 million people over the age of 18 living in Turkey. There was no sample selection, and the goal was to reach as many people over the age of 18 who volunteered to participate as possible. The data were collected between July and September 2020 using the snowball sampling method. The snowball sampling method is a non-probability sampling method whose results represent only the participants. The main population of the study consisted of all students and staff of a related university. The main population was then asked to share the survey link with additional people they would recommend. Other participants included those who could be contacted by the main population and other chained individuals who could be reached by them. First, to collect the data, permission was obtained from the related university and a link to the questionnaire created with google forms was sent to the e-mails of students and staff through the Department of Information Technologies. Afterward, the participating students and staff were asked to share the link with other participants using social media tools such as e-mail, WhatsApp, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. The inclusion criteria were living in Turkey, being over 18 years of age, and volunteering. Accordingly, the study was completed with 1733 people who agreed to participate in the study and filled out the forms.
H1: There is a significant difference between the psychological impact and socio-demographic variables.
H2: There is a significant difference between the depression level and socio-demographic variables.
H3: There is a significant difference between the anxiety level and socio-demographic variables.
H4: There is a significant difference between the level of stress and socio-variables.
H5: There is a significant positive correlation between the depression level and the psychological impact.
H6: There is a significant positive correlation between the anxiety level and the psychological impact.
H7: There is a significant positive correlation between the stress level and the psychological impact.
The data were collected using a descriptive information form developed by the researchers, the impact of events scale-revised (IES-R), and the depression anxiety stress scale (DASS). The descriptive information form consists of socio-demographic questions investigating gender, age, education level, marital status, number of family members, employment status, monthly income, smoking status, chronic disease history, self-rated health status, and BMI.
The IES-R aims to determine the stress of cases experiencing trauma. On the scale, 22 questions score the severity of symptoms in the last 7 days between 0 and 4. A score of 0 indicates the absence of symptoms and a score of 4 indicates maximum symptoms. The IES-R scale consists of three subscales: intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal [28]. The total IES-R scale score was determined as 0–23 (normal psychological effect), 24–32 (mild psychological effect), 33–36 (moderate-psychological effect), and >37 (severe psychological effect). The Turkish validity and reliability of the scale was performed by Çorapçioğlu et al. in 2006 [29]. In this study, the total Cronbach's alpha value of the IES-R was found to be 0.91.
Consisting of 21 items, the DASS-21 is a set of three self-report scales designed to measure the emotional stages of depression, anxiety, and stress [30]. The scale includes 21 questions scoring the severity of depression, stress, and anxiety symptoms between 0 and 3. Depression anxiety stress levels were evaluated according to the score ranges in the figure below (Figure 1). The Turkish validity and reliability of the scale was performed by Saricam in 2018 [31]. In this study, Cronbach's alpha values of the depression, anxiety, and stress sub-scales of the DASS-21 were found to be 0.91, 0.85, and 0.90, respectively.
For statistical analysis of the data, the SPSS 22 package program was used. Descriptive data were presented as percentages, mean, and standard deviations. In the analysis of qualitative data, the Chi-square test was used; in the analysis of quantitative data, the Mann Whitney U test, the Kruskal Wallis, and Tamhane's T2 post hoc were used. Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between variables. In the correlation analysis, 0–0.19 indicates no correlation, 0.20–0.39 indicates a weak correlation, 0.40–0.69 indicates a moderate correlation, 0.70–0.89 indicates a strong correlation, and 0.90–1.00 indicates a very strong correlation. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
To conduct the research, permission was obtained from the Ethics Committee (40465587–050.01.04–210), and all respondents gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
The study showed that 70.9% of the respondents were female, and their average age was 26.3 ± 9.76. Approximately 82.1% were university graduates, 77.8% were single, and 86.6% had a household of 3–4. Approximately 53.5% lived in the city center and 68% were students. Approximately 21.3% smoked, 6.6% used alcohol, 10% had a chronic disease, and 50.7% rated their health as good. The average BMI was 23.93 ± 6.3, and 9.1% were obese.
The total score obtained from the IES-R was 31.23 ± 15.58, which indicated a mild psychological effect, and the DASS-21 mean score was 17.38 ± 13.54. The depression mean score was 6.32 ± 5.33, indicating mild depression, the anxiety mean score was 4.20 ± 4.04, indicating mild anxiety, and the stress mean score was 6.86 ± 5.17, indicating normal levels. The total and subscale scores from both scales are shown in Table 1.
The Impact of Events Scale (IES-R) | X | SS | Min–max | (DASS-21) Scale | X | SD | Min–max |
Intrusion | 10.24 | 7.04 | 0–32 | Depression | 6.32 | 5.33 | 0–21 |
Avoidance | 13.02 | 5.58 | 0–29 | Anxiety | 4.20 | 4.04 | 0–21 |
Hyperarousal | 7.97 | 5.49 | 0–24 | Stress | 6.86 | 5.17 | 0–21 |
Total IES-R | 31.23 | 15.58 | 0–81 | Total IES-R | 17.38 | 13.53 | 0–63 |
In the IES-R, 33.8% of the respondents evaluated the psychological effects of the pandemic as normal, 21.2% as mild, 8.3% as moderate, and 36.8% as severe. When evaluated in terms of depression, 44.1% had normal levels, 11.7% had extremely severe depression, 9.5% had severe depression, 21.5% had moderate depression, and 13.2% had mild depression. In terms of anxiety, 52% had normal anxiety, 10.4% had extremely severe anxiety, 8.8% had severe anxiety, 12.5% had moderate anxiety, and 16.3% had mild anxiety. In terms of stress, 59.7% had normal stress levels, 5.5% had extremely severe stress levels, 9.5% had severe stress levels, 13.5% had moderate stress levels, and 11.8% had mild stress levels.
According to some variables, the analysis of the scores obtained from the IES-R and the DASS-21 scale are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The total median score of the impact of events were found to be significantly higher in those who were female, single, unemployed, smokers, and those experiencing physical symptoms. The examination of the median depression anxiety stress scores showed that gender, marital status, employment status, cigarette consumption, and physical symptoms were significantly different in the three sub-scales, and the presence of chronic disease was found to be significantly different in the anxiety and stress sub-scales.
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
||
Total IES-R | Depression | Anxiety | Stress | ||
Woman | 1229 (70.9) | 916.34 | 902.73 | 907.35 | 922.84 |
Male | 504 (29.1) | 746.68 | 779.87 | 768.61 | 730.83 |
U = 247209.500 Z = −6.607 P < 0.001 |
U = 265796.500 Z = −4.656 P < 0.001 |
U = 260117.000 Z = −5.280 P < 0.001 |
U = 241077.000 Z = −7.271 P < 0.001 |
||
Married | 385 (22.2) | 769.40 | 655.24 | 756.15 | 709.48 |
Single | 1348 (77.8) | 894.87 | 927.48 | 898.66 | 911.99 |
U = 221915.000 Z = −4.340 P < 0.001 |
U = 177961.500 Z = −9.445 P < 0.001 |
U = 216812.000 Z = −4.964 P < 0.001 |
U = 198846.500 Z = 7.019 P < 0.001 |
||
Employed | 415 (23.9) | 747.83 | 713.58 | 774.19 | 750.04 |
Unemployed | 1318 (76.1) | 904.52 | 915.31 | 896.22 | 903.83 |
U = 224029.500 Z = −5.564 P < 0.001 |
U = 209815.000 Z = −7.185 P < 0.001 |
U = 234968.000 Z = −4.364 P < 0.001 |
U = 224945.500 Z = −5.473 P < 0.001 |
||
Smoking | 369 (21.3) | 943.81 | 952.33 | 933.72 | 955.21 |
No smoking | 1364 (78.7) | 846.22 | 843.92 | 848.95 | 843.14 |
U = 223313.500 Z = −3.324 P = 0.001 |
U = 220173.000 Z = −3.704 P < 0.001 |
U = 227038.500 Z = −2.908 P = 0.004 |
U = 219109.000 Z = −3.826 P < 0.001 |
||
Chronic disease | 173 (10.0) | 934.21 | 902.84 | 1007.80 | 964.25 |
No chronic disease | 1560 (90.0) | 859.55 | 863.03 | 851.39 | 856.21 |
U = 123312.000 Z = −1.862 P = 0.063 |
U = 128740.500 Z = −0.996 P = 0.319 |
U = 110582.000 Z = −3.929 P < 0.001 |
U = 118115.000 Z = −2.701 P = 0.007 |
||
No physical symptoms | 1030 (59.4) | 773.29 | 766.20 | 745.38 | 760.01 |
Physical symptoms | 703 (40.6) | 1004.30 | 1014.69 | 1045.18 | 1023.76 |
U = 265523.500 Z = −9.438 P < 0.001 |
U = 258217.000 Z = −10.183 P < 0.001 |
U = 236781.500 Z = −12.335 P < 0.001 |
U = 251841.500 Z = −10.799 P < 0.001 |
In the Kruskal Wallis analysis performed with variables with three or more groups, a significant difference was found between age, educational status, household size, occupation, monthly income, self-rated health status, BMI, and IES-R scales. In the post hoc analysis, a significant difference was found between the ages of 18–34 and 35–64 (p < 0.001), university graduates and the other two groups (p = 0.001, p < 0.001), those with a household of 5 or more and the other groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.002), students and public/private sector employees and the other groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.019), those below the minimum wage and those from the minimum wage to 10,000 (p < 0.001), all groups in their self-rated health status (p < 0.001), and those who were underweight and those who were normal and overweight (p = 0.027, p = 0.001) (Table 3).
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
|||
Total IES-R |
Depression |
Anxiety |
Stress |
|||
Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | |||
Age | 18–34 | 1428 | 895.09 | 913.51 | 897.51 | 905.40 |
35–64 | 297 | 724.21 | 643.22 | 719.05 | 679.29 | |
65+ | 8 | 1154.56 | 873.56 | 979.63 | 981.00 | |
KW X2 = 31.335 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 72.189 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 32.005 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 50.848 P < 0.001 |
|||
Education level | Primary school- High school | 153 (8.9) | 764.65 | 746.91 | 825.65 | 781.23 |
University | 1422 (82.1) | 893.59 | 898.75 | 878.08 | 889.65 | |
Master/ Ph.D. | 157 (9.1) | 737.93 | 690.98 | 801.45 | 739.93 | |
KW X2 = 23.344 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 34.214 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 4.503 P = 0.105 |
KW X2 = 17.632 P < 0.001 |
|||
House hold size | Alone | 60 (3.5) | 752.13 | 813.84 | 761.90 | 769.79 |
2 people | 152 (8.8) | 862.52 | 835.41 | 889.67 | 823.60 | |
3–4 people | 1500 (86.6) | 866.26 | 866.48 | 864.21 | 869.60 | |
5 people and more | 21 (1.2) | 1280.40 | 1284.71 | 1202.52 | 1273.05 | |
KW X2 = 1.491 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 16.019 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 12.627 P = 0.006 |
KW X2 = 17.355 P = 0.001 |
|||
Monthly income | Minimum wage (2.324)- and below | 1056 (60.9) | 923.11 | 940.20 | 915.55 | 929.88 |
Over minimum wage | 642 (37.0) | 779.79 | 755.91 | 788.87 | 769.69 | |
10 thousand and over | 35 (2.0) | 773.66 | 696.19 | 835.44 | 754.66 | |
KW X2 = 34.009 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 58.683 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 26.101 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 42.916 P < 0.001 |
|||
Self-rated health status | Poor | 40 (2.3) | 1494.26 | 1523.36 | 1557.36 | 1535.51 |
Moderate | 459 (26.5) | 1052.12 | 1060.50 | 1076.56 | 1038.97 | |
Good | 983 (56.7) | 813.24 | 815.76 | 810.88 | 828.33 | |
Very good | 251 (14.5) | 639.05 | 609.21 | 593.56 | 597.41 | |
KW X2 = 189.162 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 215.732 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 247.473 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 205.264 P < 0.001 |
|||
BMI | Underweight | 125 (7.2) | 1005.51 | 989.36 | 982.39 | 998.98 |
Normal | 1033 (59.6) | 872.87 | 883.59 | 872.39 | 878.82 | |
Overweight | 418 (24.1) | 810.68 | 816.02 | 817.63 | 814.19 | |
Obese | 157 (9.1) | 868.02 | 796.17 | 871.13 | 824.71 | |
KW X2 = 15.019 P = 0.002 |
KW X2 = 16.196 P = 0.001 |
KW X2=11.003 P = 0.012 |
KW X2 = 15.118 P = 0.002 |
In the Kruskal Wallis analysis performed with variables with three and more groups, age, education level, household size, place of residence, monthly income, self-rated health status, and BMI were significantly different in terms of depression. Age, household size, monthly income, self-rated health status, and BMI caused a significant difference in terms of anxiety, and age, educational status, household size, monthly income, self-rated health, and BMI made a significant difference in terms of stress (Table 3). In the post hoc analysis, a significant difference was found in the depression sub-scale in the following items: between the ages of 18–34 and 35–64 (p < 0.001), between university graduates and the other two groups (p = 0.001, p < 0.001), those with a household of 5 or more and other groups (p = 0.003, p = 0.003, p = 0.006), between those living in villages and those living in provinces and districts (p = 0.027, p = 0.039), between students and public/private sector employees, housewives, and retired people (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003), between those whose monthly income was at or below the minimum wage and the other two groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.010), among all groups in terms of their self-rated health status (p < 0.001), between those who were overweight and obese (p = 0.004, p = 0.011), and between normal and overweight (p = 0.027). In the anxiety subscale, a significant difference was found between those between the ages of 18–34 and 35–64 (p < 0.001), between those with a household of 5 or more and those living alone or with 3–4 people (p = 0.021, p = 0.039), between students and public/private sector employees (p < 0.001, p = 0.003), between those whose monthly income below the minimum wage and those at from the minimum wage to 10,000 or greater (p < 0.001), among all groups in terms of their self-rated health status (p < 0.001), and between those underweight and overweight (p = 0.009). In the stress subscale, a significant difference was seen between those aged 18–34 and 35–64 (p < 0.001), between the university graduates and the other two groups (p = 0.018, p < 0.001), between those with a household of 5 or more and the other groups (p = 0.002, p = 0.003, p = 0.007), between students and public/private sector employees and other groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.016), between those whose monthly income is at or below the minimum wage and from the minimum wage to 10,000 (p < 0.001), among all groups in terms of their self-rated health status (p < 0.001), and between those who were underweight and overweight and obese (p = 0.001, p = 0.014) (Table 3).
Correlation coefficients between the IES-R and the depression score were calculated as rs = 0.690, indicating a moderately significant positive relationship; the correlation value between the anxiety and stress scores was calculated as rs = 0.718, rs = 0.755, and a strong positive correlation was seen (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
DASS-21 | IES-R Total |
Depression | 0.690** |
Anxiety | 0.718** |
Stress | 0.755** |
Note: **p < 0.01.
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of psychological effects, anxiety, depression, and stress in individuals during the COVID-19 epidemic. In this study, the IES-R score, which revealed the psychological effects of the respondents, was found to be moderate and severe (45.1%). Various studies have reported moderate or severe psychological effects between 53.8% and 23.6% [19]–[22],[25]–[27]. In this study, the moderate or severe depression, anxiety, and stress rates experienced by the respondents were 42.7%, 31.7%, and 28.5%, respectively. Evidence showed that the rate of moderate 0or severe depression ranged from 37.25% to 16.5%, anxiety from 39.08% to 28.8%, and stress from 34.12% to 8.1% [19]–[21],[25],[27]. The variations in findings might be attributed to variances in the number of patients and the pandemic period in countries where the psychological effects, depression, anxiety, and stress during the Covid-19 pandemic were measured. The findings demonstrated that the pandemic mostly caused major mental problems like depression, anxiety, and stress globally.
In this study, female respondents had significantly higher scores on the IES-R, DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale, which was consistent with previous studies suggesting that psychological effects [20]–[27], depression, anxiety, and stress were more common in women after traumatic events [21],[25],[26]. Other studies evaluating the impact of Covid-19 on mental health also show that the female gender is a risk factor for poor mental health [12]–[15]. Women's biological structure, physiological reactions, social and cultural position, method of coping with stress, the role of motherhood, the meaning they attribute to the pandemic, and economic factors can have an impact on their mental health [32],[33].
Single respondents in the study scored significantly higher on the IES-R and the DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale. Being single is emphasized to increase the psychological impact [21],[24], and negatively affect depression, anxiety, and stress levels [15],[21]. Marriage is shown to be a crucial element in protecting and improving psychological health, as well as giving social and psychological support [33],[34].
However, although some research links being single to poor mental health [11],[20], others demonstrate that marital status is either unrelated to mental health [25] or that being married is a risk factor for poor mental health [17]. Since there are inconsistent results in the literature on the effects of marital status on mental health during the pandemic process, it is recommended to evaluate the effects of marital status with larger participants in future studies.
It was determined that unemployed respondents in this study had significantly higher scores on the IES-R, DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale. Likewise, relevant studies show that unemployed people report higher levels of psychological impact [18],[19], stress, anxiety, and depression [16],[20]. Employment is one of the main determinants of health. Unemployment is a risk factor for mental health, and mental problems are more common in unemployed groups compared to employed groups [35],[36]. The impact of unemployment on impaired mental health can be explained by financial difficulties, loss of social status (loss of social resources/social isolation), uncertainty, and insecurity in finding a job [35],[37],[38].
In the study, smokers scored significantly higher on the IES-R scale. In their investigation of the association between smoking, exposure to traumatic events, and post-traumatic stress, Feldner et al. (2008) found that psychological consequences were more prevalent in smokers following traumatic events [39].
Smokers got significantly higher scores on the DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale. A study evaluating the effect of Covid-19 on mental health also emphasized that smoking was a risk factor for poor mental health [15]. A relationship between smoking and depression [40], anxiety [41], and stress [42] is highlighted in the literature. Many national and international newspapers, magazines, and media channels around the world reported that smokers were prone to Covid-19 infection due to weakened lung function, cross-infection, and sensitive hygiene habits; additionally, smokers had more adverse disease prognoses, intensive care unit hospitalizations, and mortality [43],[44]. Considering this information, it was expected that the mental health of smokers would be adversely affected during the pandemic.
The presence of chronic disease was not found to be a significant factor in the IES-R scale score. However, relevant studies showed that those with a history of chronic disease experience the psychological effect of the pandemic [20],[22],[25],[26]. The reason for the difference between this finding and other findings may have been because of the low number of respondents with chronic diseases in this study. In further studies the number of respondents with chronic diseases should be explored.
The presence of chronic disease led to a significantly higher score on the DASS-21 anxiety and stress scale, which were consistent with studies suggesting that those with chronic illnesses suffer from higher levels of psychological symptoms [15],[25],[26],[37],[45]. This situation may be explained by identifying chronic illnesses as the leading cause of mortality from Covid-19 and raising the likelihood of getting the condition [44]–[46].
Young respondents (<35) got a significantly higher score on the IES-R scale. Similarly, several studies have found that younger people are more mentally affected [20],[22]–[24]; nevertheless, others have claimed that either older people are more affected [18] or that age has no influence [46].
Young respondents (<35) also received significantly higher scores on the DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale. There are similar findings in the literature [15],[25]. Although some research examining the pandemic's influence on mental health reveals that young age is a risk factor for poor mental health [12],[14],[17],[26], others do not [20].
It is highlighted in the literature that the rate of use of social media by young people is high and that the rate of internet access decreases as age increases [47]. The young age group may be in the high-risk category because they are overwhelmed with misinformation and rumors whose accuracy and reliability are not confirmed by the social environment and media. The public's perception of the pandemic threat appears to be based on rumors and untrustworthy sources rather than official health authorities [48],[49]. As a result, unconfirmed information and rumors can be risk factors for depression, anxiety, and stress [50],[51]. Due to the inconsistencies in the literature regarding the effect of the pandemic on different age groups, it would be beneficial to consider the use of social media in age groups in further studies.
University graduates got significantly higher scores on the IES-R scale. This result is similar to a study by El-Zoghby et al. (2020) evaluating the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mental and social health [22].
University graduates also got significantly higher scores on the DASS-21 depression and stress scale, which was not consistent with other studies of Covid-19 in the literature [21],[25]. This outcome can be explained by the economic downturn triggered by COVID-19, which caused concern regarding employment and elements of the future, as well as financial uncertainty among university graduates.
It was determined in the study that those with a household of 5 or more had a significantly higher score on the IES-R scale. Other relevant studies emphasized that as the number of people in the household increases, the psychological effect increases [20],[24].
This study revealed a significantly higher score on the DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale for those with a household size of 5 and above. Our study confirmed literature findings, demonstrating that the smaller the population in the house, the better the family's mental health [21]. This result may be due to discussing COVID-19 too much among family members. Besides, every member of the household could worry about other family members in the risk group. As the number of people in the household increased, the level of anxiety increased, and mental health could be adversely affected.
The respondents with a low income had significantly higher scores on the IES-R and DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scale scores. The low-income level is a risk factor for poor mental health [12],[15],[21]. Those without sufficient financial resources may have been forced to cut their spending due to the income shock caused by the Covid-19 health crisis [51]. Therefore, restrictions on basic needs such as housing, clothing, food, education, health, cleaning, and personal care may pose a risk for poor mental health.
Those who rated their health as poor got significantly higher scores on the IES-R and DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scales, which was consistent with the literature, revealing that their self-rated poor health leads to higher levels of psychological effect [32],[48], stress, anxiety, depression [25],[27], and mental health [26],[37]. This may have been because people who perceived their health as poor felt vulnerable and powerless to get sick and recover, and that the effects of Covid-19 on people in poor health were more severe [47].
Our study demonstrated that those with low BMI scored significantly higher on the IES-R, DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scales. Low body mass index is reported to be a risk factor for anxiety and stress levels [48]–[50]. The reason for this may be that underweight people have lower body resistance and, accordingly, their susceptibility to diseases increases. No studies, to our knowledge, evaluated the effect of low body mass index on mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct studies evaluating the effect of low body mass index on mental health and underlying factors during the pandemic.
A strong or moderate positive relation was identified in the correlation study between the scale of the impact of events and the depression, anxiety, and stress scale, indicating that the mental health of people impacted by the pandemic was also negatively affected.
It is concluded that about half of the participants were psychologically affected by the pandemic at a moderate or severe level. One-fifth of the participants are above moderate, and about half experienced moderate or severe depression, anxiety, and stress. For mental health, female gender, being single, unemployment, smoking, presence of chronic disease, young age, being a university graduate, the size of household, low income, poor health, and poor body mass index (BMI) were found to be risk factors.
For this reason, in extraordinary situations such as pandemics that may be experienced in the next periods, it is necessary to start studies on mental health as soon as possible. It is recommended to intervene primarily in groups (women, smokers, etc.) that are known to be more affected.
Considering the integrity of the health service, public health nurses have significant functions in determining, protecting, developing, and improving the mental health of society. In the planning of the nursing services to be provided, the first step is to define the priority problems and the risk groups in which these problems develop. It is recommended to ensure support and consultancy services for all individuals in society by prioritizing high-risk groups.
The limitations of this study are as follows.
The snowball sampling strategy was not based on a random selection of the sample, the study population did not reflect the real model of the general population. The number of young population in the sample is high and leading to selection bias. As a result, the conclusion was less generalizable to people with less education (e.g., primary school, high school). Finally, our findings cannot be generalized to these groups due to the low number of participants with high income, over 65 years of age, and chronic diseases. Despite the above limitations, this study provides the basis for future research by providing important insights into psychological responses to the normalization process of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it will guide the determination of the priority groups (e.g., Single, Smoking and BMI) to be intervened.
In the planning of the nursing services, the first step is to define the priority problems and the risk groups in which these problems develop. Various studies show that the Covid-19 pandemic increases the psychological impact, depression, anxiety, and stress levels of society. Considering the integrity of the health service, nurses have significant functions in determining, protecting, developing, and improving the mental health of society. Education and counseling approaches to be made for the benefit of society, with a priority for high-risk groups, will focus on this goal. In this context, the determination of the content of the training to protect, improve and develop the mental health of society will guide the nurses in the process of developing new strategies and consultancy services.
[1] |
Lawson PA, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, et al. (2016) Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O'Toole 1935) Prevot 1938. Anaerobe 40: 95-99. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.06.008
![]() |
[2] | Smits WK, Lyras D, Lacy DB, et al. (2016) Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2: 1-20. |
[3] |
Kilic A, Alam MJ, Tisdel NL, et al. (2015) Multiplex real-time PCR method for simultaneous identification and toxigenic type characterization of Clostridium difficile from stool samples. Ann Lab Med 35: 306-313. doi: 10.3343/alm.2015.35.3.306
![]() |
[4] |
McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, et al. (2005) An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 353: 2433-2441. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051590
![]() |
[5] |
DePestel DD, Aronoff DM (2013) Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection. J Pharm Pract 26: 464-475. doi: 10.1177/0897190013499521
![]() |
[6] |
Weese JS, Avery BP, Rousseau J, et al. (2009) Detection and enumeration of Clostridium difficile spores in retail beef and pork. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 5009-5011. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00480-09
![]() |
[7] |
Wu YC, Chen CM, Kuo CJ, et al. (2017) Prevalence and molecular characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates from a pig slaughterhouse, pork, and humans in Taiwan. Int J Food Microbiol 242: 37-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.010
![]() |
[8] |
Songer JG, Trinh HT, Killgore GE, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile in retail meat products, USA, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 819-821. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081071
![]() |
[9] |
Weese JS, Reid-Smith RJ, Avery BP, et al. (2010) Detection and characterization of Clostridium difficile in retail chicken. Lett Appl Microbiol 50: 362-365. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02802.x
![]() |
[10] |
Harvey RB, Norman KN, Andrews K, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in poultry and poultry meat. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8: 1321-1323. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0936
![]() |
[11] |
Romano V, Pasquale V, Lemee L, et al. (2018) Clostridioides difficile in the environment, food, animals and humans in southern Italy: Occurrence and genetic relatedness. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 59: 41-46. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2018.08.006
![]() |
[12] |
Bakri MM, Brown DJ, Butcher JP, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile in ready-to-eat salads, scotland. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 817-818. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081186
![]() |
[13] |
Yamoudy M, Mirlohi M, Isfahani BN, et al. (2015) Isolation of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from ready-to-eat salads by multiplex polymerase chain reaction in Isfahan, Iran. Adv Biomed Res 4: 87. doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.156650
![]() |
[14] |
Metcalf DS, Costa MC, Dew WMV, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in vegetables, Canada. Lett Appl Microbiol 51: 600-602. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02933.x
![]() |
[15] |
Eckert C, Burghoffer B, Barbut F (2013) Contamination of ready-to-eat raw vegetables with Clostridium difficile in France. J Med Microbiol 62: 1435-1438. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.056358-0
![]() |
[16] | Han Y (2016) Detection of antibiotic resistance Clostridium difficile in lettuce. Master thesis, Louisiana State University. |
[17] | Rodriguez-Palacios A, Ilic S, LeJeune JT (2014) Clostridium difficile with moxifloxacin/clindamycin resistance in vegetables in Ohio, USA, and prevalence meta-analysis. J Pathog: 158601. |
[18] |
Troiano T, Harmanus C, Sanders IMJG, et al. (2015) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in edible marine bivalve molluscs in Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 208: 30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.05.002
![]() |
[19] |
Norman KN, Harvey RB, Andrews K, et al. (2014) Survey of Clostridium difficile in retail seafood in College Station, Texas. Food Addit Contam A 31: 1127-1129. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2014.888785
![]() |
[20] |
Metcalf D, Avery BP, Janecko N, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in seafood and fish. Anaerobe 17: 85-86. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.02.008
![]() |
[21] |
Rupnik M (2007) Is Clostridium difficile-associated infection a potentially zoonotic and foodborne disease? Clin Microbiol Infect 13: 457-459. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01687.x
![]() |
[22] | Warriner K, Xu C, Habash M, et al. (2017) Dissemination of Clostridium difficile in food and the environment: Significant sources of C. difficile community-acquired infection? J Appl Microbiol 122: 542-553. |
[23] |
Pasquale V, Romano VJ, Rupnik M, et al. (2011) Isolation and characterization of Clostridium difficile from shellfish and marine environments. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 56: 431-437. doi: 10.1007/s12223-011-0068-3
![]() |
[24] | Xu C, Salsali H, Weese S, et al. (2015) Inactivation of Clostridium difficile in sewage sludge by anaerobic thermophilic digestion. Can J Microbiol 62: 13-26. |
[25] |
Romano V, Pasquale V, Krovacek K, et al. (2012) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotypes from wastewater treatment plants in southern Switzerland. App Environ Microbiol 78: 6643-6646. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01379-12
![]() |
[26] |
Bakri M (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw cow, sheep, and goat meat in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci 25: 783-785. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.07.002
![]() |
[27] |
Rodriguez C, Taminiau B, Avesani V, et al. (2014) Multilocus sequence typing analysis and antibiotic resistance of Clostridium difficile strains isolated from retail meat and humans in Belgium. Food Microbiol 42: 166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.03.021
![]() |
[28] |
Varshney JB, Very KJ, Williams JL, et al. (2014) Characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates from human fecal samples and retail meat from Pennsylvania. Foodborne Pathog Dis 11: 822-829. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2014.1790
![]() |
[29] |
Lim SC, Foster NF, Riley TV (2016) Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile to the food preservatives sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate and sodium metabisulphite. Anaerobe 37: 67-71. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.12.004
![]() |
[30] |
Curry SR, Marsh JW, Schlackman JL, et al. (2012) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in uncooked ground meat products from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 4183-4186. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00842-12
![]() |
[31] | Esfandiari Z, Jalali M, Ezzatpanah H, et al. (2014) Prevalence and characterization of Clostridium difficile in beef and mutton meats of Isfahan Region, Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol 7: 1-5. |
[32] |
Limbago B, Thompson AD, Greene SA, et al. (2012) Development of a consensus method for culture of Clostridium difficile from meat and its use in a survey of U.S. retail meats. Food Microbiol 32: 448-451. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.08.005
![]() |
[33] |
Abdel-Glil MY, Thomas P, Schmoock G, et al. (2018) Presence of Clostridium difficile in poultry and poultry meat in Egypt. Anaerobe 51: 21-25. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.03.009
![]() |
[34] |
Guran HS, Ilhak OI (2015) Clostridium difficile in retail chicken meat parts and liver in the Eastern Region of Turkey. J Verbrauch Lebensm 10: 359-364. doi: 10.1007/s00003-015-0950-z
![]() |
[35] | Razmyar J, Jamshidi A, Khanzadi S, et al. (2017) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in retail packed chicken meat and broiler flocks in northeastern Iran. Iran. J Vet Res 18: 271-274. |
[36] |
Lee JY, Lee DY, Cho YS (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile isolated from various raw meats in Korea. Food Sci Biotechnol 27: 883-889. doi: 10.1007/s10068-018-0318-0
![]() |
[37] | Ersöz ŞŞ, Coşansu S (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile isolated from beef and chicken meat products in Turkey. Korean J Food Sci An 38: 759-767. |
[38] |
Mooyottu S, Flock G, Kollanoor-Johny A, et al. (2015) Characterization of a multidrug resistant C. difficile meat isolate. Int J Food Microbiol 192: 111-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.10.002
![]() |
[39] |
Quesada-Gomez C, Mulvey MR, Vargas P, et al. (2013) Isolation of a toxigenic and clinical genotype of Clostridium difficile in retail meats in Costa Rica. J Food Protect 76: 348-351. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-169
![]() |
[40] |
Indra A, Lassnig H, Baliko N, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile: a new zoonotic agent? Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 121: 91-95. doi: 10.1007/s00508-008-1127-x
![]() |
[41] |
De Boer E, Zwartkruis-Nahuis A, Heuvelink AE, et al. (2011) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retailed meat in The Netherlands. Int J Food Microbiol 144: 561-564. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.11.007
![]() |
[42] |
Carvalho P, Barbosa J, Teixeira P (2019) Are indeed meats sold in Portugal without Clostridioides difficile? Acta Aliment 48: 391-395. doi: 10.1556/066.2019.48.3.15
![]() |
[43] | Pires RN, Caurioa CFB, Saldanha GZ, et al. (2018) Clostridium difficile contamination in retail meat products in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2018. |
[44] | Harvey RB, Norman KN, Andrews K, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in retail meat and processing plants in Texas. J Vet Diagn Invest 23: 8 807-811. |
[45] |
Shaughnessy MK, Snider T, Sepulbeda R, et al. (2018) Prevalence and molecular characteristics of Clostridium difficile in retail meats, food-producing and companion animals, and humans in Minnesota. J Food Protect 81: 1635-1642. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-104
![]() |
[46] |
Von Abercron SM, Karlsson F, Wigh GT, et al. (2009) Low occurrence of Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat in Sweden. J Food Protect 72: 1732-1734. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-72.8.1732
![]() |
[47] | Metcalf D, Reid-Smith RJ, Avery BP, et al. (2010) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retail pork. Can Vet J 51: 873-876. |
[48] |
Kalchayanand N, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, et al. (2013) Isolation and characterization of Clostridium difficile associated with beef cattle and commercially produced ground beef. J Food Prot 76: 256-264. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-261
![]() |
[49] |
Rodriguez-Palacios A, Staempfli HR, Duffield T, et al. (2007) Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 13: 485-487. doi: 10.3201/eid1303.060988
![]() |
[50] |
Esfandiari Z, Weese S, Ezzatpanah H (2014) Occurrence of Clostridium difficile in seasoned hamburgers and seven processing plants in Iran. BMC Microbiol 14: 283. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0283-6
![]() |
[51] |
Hofer E, Haechler H, Frei R, et al. (2010) Low occurrence of Clostridium difficile in fecal samples of healthy calves and pigs at slaughter and in minced meat in Switzerland. J Food Protect 73: 973-975. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.5.973
![]() |
[52] |
Jöbstl M, Heuberger S, Indra A, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in raw products of animal origin. Int J Food Microbiol 138: 172-175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.022
![]() |
[53] |
Visser M, Sepehrim S, Olson N, et al. (2012) Detection of Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat products in Manitoba. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 23: 28-30. doi: 10.1155/2012/646981
![]() |
[54] |
Bouttier S, Barc M-C, Felix B, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in ground meat, France. Emerg Infect Dis 16: 733-735. doi: 10.3201/eid1604.091138
![]() |
[55] |
Rodriguez-Palacios A, Reid-Smith RJ, Staempfli HR, et al. (2009) Possible seasonality of Clostridium difficile in retail meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 802-805. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081084
![]() |
[56] |
Rahimi E, Jalali M, Weese JS (2014) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in Iran. BMC Public Health 14: 119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-119
![]() |
[57] |
Houser BA, Soehnlen MK, Wolfgang DR, et al. (2012) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile toxin genes in the feces of veal calves and incidence of ground veal contamination. Foodborne Pathog Dis 9: 32-36. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0955
![]() |
[58] |
Kouassi KA, Dadie AT, N'Guessan KF, et al. (2014) Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium difficile in cooked beef sold in Côte d'Ivoire and their antimicrobial susceptibility. Anaerobe 28: 90-94. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.05.012
![]() |
[59] |
Pasquale V, Romano V, Rupnik M, et al. (2012) Occurrence of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in edible bivalve molluscs. Food Microbiol 31: 309-312. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.03.001
![]() |
[60] |
Al Saif N, Brazier JS (1996) The distribution of Clostridium difficile in the environment of South Wales. J Med Microbiol 45: 133-137. doi: 10.1099/00222615-45-2-133
![]() |
[61] |
Lim SC, Foster NF, Elliott B, et al. (2018) High prevalence of Clostridium difficile on retail root vegetables, Western Australia. J Appl Microbiol 124: 585-590. doi: 10.1111/jam.13653
![]() |
[62] |
Tkalec V, Janezic S, Skik B, et al. (2019) High Clostridium difficile contamination rates of domestic and imported potatoes compared to some other vegetables in Slovenia. Food Microbiol 78: 194-200. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2018.10.017
![]() |
[63] |
Rahimi E, Afzali ZS, Baghbadorani ZT (2015) Clostridium difficile in ready-to-eat foods in Isfahan and Shahrekord, Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 5: 128-131. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(15)30156-8
![]() |
[64] |
Rodriguez C, Korsak N, Taminiau B, et al. (2015) Clostridium difficile from food and surface samples in a Belgian nursing home: An unlikely source of contamination. Anaerobe 32: 87-89. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.01.001
![]() |
[65] |
Aspinall ST, Hutchinson DN (1992) New selective medium for isolating Clostridium difficile from faeces. J Clin Pathol 45: 812-814. doi: 10.1136/jcp.45.9.812
![]() |
[66] |
Delmée M, Vandercam B, Avesani V, et al. (1987) Epidemiology and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections in a leukemia unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol 6: 623-627. doi: 10.1007/BF02013056
![]() |
[67] | GeorgeWL, Sutter VL, Citron D (1979) Selective and differential medium for isolation of selective and differential medium for isolation of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 9: 214-219. |
[68] |
Marler LM, Siders JA, Wolters LC, et al. (1992) Comparison of five cultural procedures for isolation of Clostridium difficile from stools. J Clin Microbiol 30: 514-516. doi: 10.1128/JCM.30.2.514-516.1992
![]() |
[69] |
Tyrrell KL, Citron DM, Leoncio ES, et al. (2013) Evaluation of cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA), CCFA with horse blood and taurocholate, and cycloserine-cefoxitin mannitol broth with taurocholate and lysozyme for recovery of Clostridium difficile isolates from fecal samples. J Clin Microbiol 51: 3094-3096. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00879-13
![]() |
[70] |
Lister M, Stevenson E, Heeg D, et al. (2014) Comparison of culture based methods for the isolation of Clostridium difficile from stool samples in a research setting. Anaerobe 28: 226-229. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.07.003
![]() |
[71] | Edwards AN, Suárez JM, McBride SM (2013) Culturing and maintaining Clostridium difficile in an anaerobic environment. J Vis Exp 79: 1-8. |
[72] |
Chai C, Lee KS, Lee D, et al. (2015) Non-selective and selective enrichment media for the recovery of Clostridium difficile from chopped beef. J Microbiol Methods 109: 20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.12.001
![]() |
[73] |
Wilkins TD, Lyerly DM (2003) Clostridium difficile testing after 20 years, still challenging. J Clin Microbiol 41: 531-534. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.531-534.2003
![]() |
[74] | Steensels D, Verhaegen J, Lagrou K (2011) Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for the identification of bacteria and yeasts in a clinical microbiological laboratory: A review. Acta Clin Belg 66: 267-273. |
[75] |
Reil M, Erhard M, Kuijper EJ, et al. (2011) Recognition of Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotypes 001, 027 and 126/078 using an extended MALDI-TOF MS system. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30: 1431-1436. doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1238-6
![]() |
[76] |
Burnham CAD, Carroll KC (2013) Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: An ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 26: 604-630. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00016-13
![]() |
[77] |
Lyerly DM, Krivan HC, Wilkins TD (1988) Clostridium difficile: its disease and toxins. Clin Microbiol Rev 1: 1-18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.1.1.1
![]() |
[78] |
Chapin KC, Dickenson RA, Wu F, et al. (2011) Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. J Mol Diagn 13: 395-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.03.004
![]() |
[79] |
Antikainen J, Pasanen T, Mero S, et al. (2009) Detection of virulence genes of Clostridium difficile by multiplex PCR. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 117: 607-613. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2009.02509.x
![]() |
[80] |
Kato H, Kato N, Katow S, et al. (1999) Deletions in the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 175: 197-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13620.x
![]() |
[81] |
Dupuy B, Govind R, Antunes A, et al. (2008) Clostridium difficile toxin synthesis is negatively regulated by TcdC. J Med Microbiol 57: 685-689. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.47775-0
![]() |
[82] |
Tan KS, Wee BY, Song KP (2001) Evidence for holin function of tcdE gene in the pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile. J Med Microbiol 50: 613-619. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-50-7-613
![]() |
[83] |
Mani N, Dupuy B (2001) Regulation of toxin synthesis in Clostridium difficile by an alternative RNA polymerase sigma factor. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 98: 5844-5849. doi: 10.1073/pnas.101126598
![]() |
[84] |
Matamouros S, England P, Dupuy B (2007) Clostridium difficile toxin expression is inhibited by the novel regulator TcdC. Mol Microbiol 64: 1274-1288. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05739.x
![]() |
[85] |
Govind R, Dupuy B (2012) Secretion of Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B Requires the Holin-like Protein TcdE. PLoS Pathogens 8: e1002727. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002727
![]() |
[86] | Eastwood K, Else P, Charlett A, et al. (2009) Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods. J Clin Microbiol 47: 3211-3217. |
[87] | Soh YS, Yang JJ, You E, et al. (2014) Comparison of two molecular methods for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Ann Clin Lab Sci 44: 27-31. |
[88] | Yoo J, Lee H, Park KG, et al. (2015) Evaluation of 3 automated real-time PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay, BD MAX Cdiff, and IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay) for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin gene compared to toxigenic culture in stool specimens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 83: 7-10. |
[89] |
Lemee L, Dhalluin A, Testelin S, et al. (2004) Multiplex PCR targeting tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA (toxin A), and tcdB (toxin B) genes for toxigenic culture of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 42: 5710-5714. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5710-5714.2004
![]() |
[90] |
Houser BA, Hattel AL, Jayarao BM (2010) Real-time multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin-encoding strains. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 719-726. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0483
![]() |
[91] |
Rupnik M, Janezic S (2016) An update on Clostridium difficile toxinotyping. J Clin Microbiol 54: 13-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02083-15
![]() |
[92] |
Bidet P, Barbut F, Lalande V, et al. (1999) Development of a new PCR-ribotyping method for Clostridium difficile based on ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. FEMS Microbiol Lett 175: 261-2666. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13629.x
![]() |
[93] |
Gebreyes WA, Adkins PR (2015) The use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for genotyping of Clostridium difficile. Methods Mol Biol 1301: 95-101. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2599-5_9
![]() |
[94] |
Killgore G, Thompson A, Johnson S, et al. (2008) Comparison of seven techniques for typing international epidemic strains of Clostridium difficile: restriction endonuclease analysis, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, PCR-ribotyping, multilocus sequence typing, multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis, amplified fragment length polymorphism, and surface layer protein A gene sequence typing. J Clin Microbiol 46: 431-437. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01484-07
![]() |
[95] | Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, et al. (2009) Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 48: 770-778. |
[96] |
van den Berg RJ, Schapp I, Templeton KE, et al. (2007) Typing and subtyping of Clostridium difficile isolates using multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1024-1028. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02023-06
![]() |
The Impact of Events Scale (IES-R) | X | SS | Min–max | (DASS-21) Scale | X | SD | Min–max |
Intrusion | 10.24 | 7.04 | 0–32 | Depression | 6.32 | 5.33 | 0–21 |
Avoidance | 13.02 | 5.58 | 0–29 | Anxiety | 4.20 | 4.04 | 0–21 |
Hyperarousal | 7.97 | 5.49 | 0–24 | Stress | 6.86 | 5.17 | 0–21 |
Total IES-R | 31.23 | 15.58 | 0–81 | Total IES-R | 17.38 | 13.53 | 0–63 |
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
||
Total IES-R | Depression | Anxiety | Stress | ||
Woman | 1229 (70.9) | 916.34 | 902.73 | 907.35 | 922.84 |
Male | 504 (29.1) | 746.68 | 779.87 | 768.61 | 730.83 |
U = 247209.500 Z = −6.607 P < 0.001 |
U = 265796.500 Z = −4.656 P < 0.001 |
U = 260117.000 Z = −5.280 P < 0.001 |
U = 241077.000 Z = −7.271 P < 0.001 |
||
Married | 385 (22.2) | 769.40 | 655.24 | 756.15 | 709.48 |
Single | 1348 (77.8) | 894.87 | 927.48 | 898.66 | 911.99 |
U = 221915.000 Z = −4.340 P < 0.001 |
U = 177961.500 Z = −9.445 P < 0.001 |
U = 216812.000 Z = −4.964 P < 0.001 |
U = 198846.500 Z = 7.019 P < 0.001 |
||
Employed | 415 (23.9) | 747.83 | 713.58 | 774.19 | 750.04 |
Unemployed | 1318 (76.1) | 904.52 | 915.31 | 896.22 | 903.83 |
U = 224029.500 Z = −5.564 P < 0.001 |
U = 209815.000 Z = −7.185 P < 0.001 |
U = 234968.000 Z = −4.364 P < 0.001 |
U = 224945.500 Z = −5.473 P < 0.001 |
||
Smoking | 369 (21.3) | 943.81 | 952.33 | 933.72 | 955.21 |
No smoking | 1364 (78.7) | 846.22 | 843.92 | 848.95 | 843.14 |
U = 223313.500 Z = −3.324 P = 0.001 |
U = 220173.000 Z = −3.704 P < 0.001 |
U = 227038.500 Z = −2.908 P = 0.004 |
U = 219109.000 Z = −3.826 P < 0.001 |
||
Chronic disease | 173 (10.0) | 934.21 | 902.84 | 1007.80 | 964.25 |
No chronic disease | 1560 (90.0) | 859.55 | 863.03 | 851.39 | 856.21 |
U = 123312.000 Z = −1.862 P = 0.063 |
U = 128740.500 Z = −0.996 P = 0.319 |
U = 110582.000 Z = −3.929 P < 0.001 |
U = 118115.000 Z = −2.701 P = 0.007 |
||
No physical symptoms | 1030 (59.4) | 773.29 | 766.20 | 745.38 | 760.01 |
Physical symptoms | 703 (40.6) | 1004.30 | 1014.69 | 1045.18 | 1023.76 |
U = 265523.500 Z = −9.438 P < 0.001 |
U = 258217.000 Z = −10.183 P < 0.001 |
U = 236781.500 Z = −12.335 P < 0.001 |
U = 251841.500 Z = −10.799 P < 0.001 |
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
|||
Total IES-R |
Depression |
Anxiety |
Stress |
|||
Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | |||
Age | 18–34 | 1428 | 895.09 | 913.51 | 897.51 | 905.40 |
35–64 | 297 | 724.21 | 643.22 | 719.05 | 679.29 | |
65+ | 8 | 1154.56 | 873.56 | 979.63 | 981.00 | |
KW X2 = 31.335 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 72.189 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 32.005 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 50.848 P < 0.001 |
|||
Education level | Primary school- High school | 153 (8.9) | 764.65 | 746.91 | 825.65 | 781.23 |
University | 1422 (82.1) | 893.59 | 898.75 | 878.08 | 889.65 | |
Master/ Ph.D. | 157 (9.1) | 737.93 | 690.98 | 801.45 | 739.93 | |
KW X2 = 23.344 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 34.214 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 4.503 P = 0.105 |
KW X2 = 17.632 P < 0.001 |
|||
House hold size | Alone | 60 (3.5) | 752.13 | 813.84 | 761.90 | 769.79 |
2 people | 152 (8.8) | 862.52 | 835.41 | 889.67 | 823.60 | |
3–4 people | 1500 (86.6) | 866.26 | 866.48 | 864.21 | 869.60 | |
5 people and more | 21 (1.2) | 1280.40 | 1284.71 | 1202.52 | 1273.05 | |
KW X2 = 1.491 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 16.019 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 12.627 P = 0.006 |
KW X2 = 17.355 P = 0.001 |
|||
Monthly income | Minimum wage (2.324)- and below | 1056 (60.9) | 923.11 | 940.20 | 915.55 | 929.88 |
Over minimum wage | 642 (37.0) | 779.79 | 755.91 | 788.87 | 769.69 | |
10 thousand and over | 35 (2.0) | 773.66 | 696.19 | 835.44 | 754.66 | |
KW X2 = 34.009 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 58.683 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 26.101 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 42.916 P < 0.001 |
|||
Self-rated health status | Poor | 40 (2.3) | 1494.26 | 1523.36 | 1557.36 | 1535.51 |
Moderate | 459 (26.5) | 1052.12 | 1060.50 | 1076.56 | 1038.97 | |
Good | 983 (56.7) | 813.24 | 815.76 | 810.88 | 828.33 | |
Very good | 251 (14.5) | 639.05 | 609.21 | 593.56 | 597.41 | |
KW X2 = 189.162 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 215.732 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 247.473 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 205.264 P < 0.001 |
|||
BMI | Underweight | 125 (7.2) | 1005.51 | 989.36 | 982.39 | 998.98 |
Normal | 1033 (59.6) | 872.87 | 883.59 | 872.39 | 878.82 | |
Overweight | 418 (24.1) | 810.68 | 816.02 | 817.63 | 814.19 | |
Obese | 157 (9.1) | 868.02 | 796.17 | 871.13 | 824.71 | |
KW X2 = 15.019 P = 0.002 |
KW X2 = 16.196 P = 0.001 |
KW X2=11.003 P = 0.012 |
KW X2 = 15.118 P = 0.002 |
DASS-21 | IES-R Total |
Depression | 0.690** |
Anxiety | 0.718** |
Stress | 0.755** |
Note: **p < 0.01.
The Impact of Events Scale (IES-R) | X | SS | Min–max | (DASS-21) Scale | X | SD | Min–max |
Intrusion | 10.24 | 7.04 | 0–32 | Depression | 6.32 | 5.33 | 0–21 |
Avoidance | 13.02 | 5.58 | 0–29 | Anxiety | 4.20 | 4.04 | 0–21 |
Hyperarousal | 7.97 | 5.49 | 0–24 | Stress | 6.86 | 5.17 | 0–21 |
Total IES-R | 31.23 | 15.58 | 0–81 | Total IES-R | 17.38 | 13.53 | 0–63 |
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
||
Total IES-R | Depression | Anxiety | Stress | ||
Woman | 1229 (70.9) | 916.34 | 902.73 | 907.35 | 922.84 |
Male | 504 (29.1) | 746.68 | 779.87 | 768.61 | 730.83 |
U = 247209.500 Z = −6.607 P < 0.001 |
U = 265796.500 Z = −4.656 P < 0.001 |
U = 260117.000 Z = −5.280 P < 0.001 |
U = 241077.000 Z = −7.271 P < 0.001 |
||
Married | 385 (22.2) | 769.40 | 655.24 | 756.15 | 709.48 |
Single | 1348 (77.8) | 894.87 | 927.48 | 898.66 | 911.99 |
U = 221915.000 Z = −4.340 P < 0.001 |
U = 177961.500 Z = −9.445 P < 0.001 |
U = 216812.000 Z = −4.964 P < 0.001 |
U = 198846.500 Z = 7.019 P < 0.001 |
||
Employed | 415 (23.9) | 747.83 | 713.58 | 774.19 | 750.04 |
Unemployed | 1318 (76.1) | 904.52 | 915.31 | 896.22 | 903.83 |
U = 224029.500 Z = −5.564 P < 0.001 |
U = 209815.000 Z = −7.185 P < 0.001 |
U = 234968.000 Z = −4.364 P < 0.001 |
U = 224945.500 Z = −5.473 P < 0.001 |
||
Smoking | 369 (21.3) | 943.81 | 952.33 | 933.72 | 955.21 |
No smoking | 1364 (78.7) | 846.22 | 843.92 | 848.95 | 843.14 |
U = 223313.500 Z = −3.324 P = 0.001 |
U = 220173.000 Z = −3.704 P < 0.001 |
U = 227038.500 Z = −2.908 P = 0.004 |
U = 219109.000 Z = −3.826 P < 0.001 |
||
Chronic disease | 173 (10.0) | 934.21 | 902.84 | 1007.80 | 964.25 |
No chronic disease | 1560 (90.0) | 859.55 | 863.03 | 851.39 | 856.21 |
U = 123312.000 Z = −1.862 P = 0.063 |
U = 128740.500 Z = −0.996 P = 0.319 |
U = 110582.000 Z = −3.929 P < 0.001 |
U = 118115.000 Z = −2.701 P = 0.007 |
||
No physical symptoms | 1030 (59.4) | 773.29 | 766.20 | 745.38 | 760.01 |
Physical symptoms | 703 (40.6) | 1004.30 | 1014.69 | 1045.18 | 1023.76 |
U = 265523.500 Z = −9.438 P < 0.001 |
U = 258217.000 Z = −10.183 P < 0.001 |
U = 236781.500 Z = −12.335 P < 0.001 |
U = 251841.500 Z = −10.799 P < 0.001 |
Independent variables | N (%) | The Impact of Events (IES-R) |
Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS-21) Subscales |
|||
Total IES-R |
Depression |
Anxiety |
Stress |
|||
Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | Mean rank | |||
Age | 18–34 | 1428 | 895.09 | 913.51 | 897.51 | 905.40 |
35–64 | 297 | 724.21 | 643.22 | 719.05 | 679.29 | |
65+ | 8 | 1154.56 | 873.56 | 979.63 | 981.00 | |
KW X2 = 31.335 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 72.189 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 32.005 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 50.848 P < 0.001 |
|||
Education level | Primary school- High school | 153 (8.9) | 764.65 | 746.91 | 825.65 | 781.23 |
University | 1422 (82.1) | 893.59 | 898.75 | 878.08 | 889.65 | |
Master/ Ph.D. | 157 (9.1) | 737.93 | 690.98 | 801.45 | 739.93 | |
KW X2 = 23.344 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 34.214 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 4.503 P = 0.105 |
KW X2 = 17.632 P < 0.001 |
|||
House hold size | Alone | 60 (3.5) | 752.13 | 813.84 | 761.90 | 769.79 |
2 people | 152 (8.8) | 862.52 | 835.41 | 889.67 | 823.60 | |
3–4 people | 1500 (86.6) | 866.26 | 866.48 | 864.21 | 869.60 | |
5 people and more | 21 (1.2) | 1280.40 | 1284.71 | 1202.52 | 1273.05 | |
KW X2 = 1.491 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 16.019 P = 0.001 |
KW X2 = 12.627 P = 0.006 |
KW X2 = 17.355 P = 0.001 |
|||
Monthly income | Minimum wage (2.324)- and below | 1056 (60.9) | 923.11 | 940.20 | 915.55 | 929.88 |
Over minimum wage | 642 (37.0) | 779.79 | 755.91 | 788.87 | 769.69 | |
10 thousand and over | 35 (2.0) | 773.66 | 696.19 | 835.44 | 754.66 | |
KW X2 = 34.009 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 58.683 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 26.101 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 42.916 P < 0.001 |
|||
Self-rated health status | Poor | 40 (2.3) | 1494.26 | 1523.36 | 1557.36 | 1535.51 |
Moderate | 459 (26.5) | 1052.12 | 1060.50 | 1076.56 | 1038.97 | |
Good | 983 (56.7) | 813.24 | 815.76 | 810.88 | 828.33 | |
Very good | 251 (14.5) | 639.05 | 609.21 | 593.56 | 597.41 | |
KW X2 = 189.162 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 215.732 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 247.473 P < 0.001 |
KW X2 = 205.264 P < 0.001 |
|||
BMI | Underweight | 125 (7.2) | 1005.51 | 989.36 | 982.39 | 998.98 |
Normal | 1033 (59.6) | 872.87 | 883.59 | 872.39 | 878.82 | |
Overweight | 418 (24.1) | 810.68 | 816.02 | 817.63 | 814.19 | |
Obese | 157 (9.1) | 868.02 | 796.17 | 871.13 | 824.71 | |
KW X2 = 15.019 P = 0.002 |
KW X2 = 16.196 P = 0.001 |
KW X2=11.003 P = 0.012 |
KW X2 = 15.118 P = 0.002 |
DASS-21 | IES-R Total |
Depression | 0.690** |
Anxiety | 0.718** |
Stress | 0.755** |