This study examined how the multidimensional negative coronavirus disease (COVID-19) impacts contextualized the age differences in psychological distress following exposures to tornadoes and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data were from a 2-wave panel study conducted at T1 (October 2020–August 2021) and T2 (May–August 2022). Latent class analysis was conducted to explore the patterns of negative COVID-19 impacts based on a sample of 1134 at T1. Negative binomial regressions were performed to examine the age differences in psychological distress at T2, based on the working sample (N = 554), as well as the moderating effect of identified class membership, with baseline psychological distress controlled.

Three latent classes were identified: class 1 “low overall impacts,” class 2 “moderate overall impacts with high emotional distress,” and class 3 “severe overall impacts.” Individuals ages 65 and over reported lower psychological distress at T2 relative to those ages 18–34 and 35–49. However, compared to people ages 18–34, 35–49, and 50–64, those ages 65 and over reported the greatest increases in T2 psychological distress if they had experienced moderate or severe overall COVID-19 impacts at T1.

There is a pressing need for mental health interventions that are tailored to multi-disaster scenarios and age-related differences in long-term disaster recovery.

To assess individual variation in anxiety, stress disorder, depression, insomnia, burnout, and resilience in health care workers (HCWs), 12 and 18 months after the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.

Prospective longitudinal study.

A total of 207 HCWs (74% female, 46% physicians, 44% nurses) answered; 50% scored over the cut-off for anxiety (GAD-7), 66% for PCL-C, 41% for depression (PHQ-9), 25% for ISI, and 15% started sleep inducers; 52% showed emotional exhaustion (EE), 68% detachment (DE), 39% professional efficacy (EF) at MBI; 27% completed the follow-up questionnaire 6 months later, showing a significant reduction in nearly all scores (GAD-7 median 11[5-15] vs 7[4-12] (P < 0.001); PCL-C 43[30-58] vs 37[24-50] (P < 0.05); PHQ-9 10[4-16] vs 6[3-12] (P < 0.001); ISI 10[4-15] vs 7[5-12](NS); MBI EE 25[16-35] vs 23 [15-31] (NS), DE 13[8-17] vs 12[8-17], EF 29[25-34] vs 30[25-34]. Living in a flat (OR 2.27 [1.10-4.81], high-intensity-of-care working (2.83 [1.15-7.16] increased risk of anxiety (GAD-7); age between 31-40 y (OR 2.8 [1.11-7.68], being a nurse (OR 3.56 [1.59-8.36] and high-intensity-of-care working (OR 8.43 [2.92-26.8] increased risk of pathological stress (PCL-C).

Nearly half of HCWs showed psychological distress, especially nurses, women, and the youngest. A mandatory job change, increasing intensity of care, working in a COVID-19 department, and being infected were negative factors; having a partner and living in a detached house were protective. Six months later, all the psychological domains showed individual improvement.

To summarize reports describing implementation and evaluation of Web-based psychosocial interventions for disaster-related distress with suggestions for future intervention and research, and to determine whether a systematic literature review on the topic is warranted.

Systematic searches of Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were conducted. Duplicate entries were removed. Two rounds of inclusion/exclusion were conducted (abstract and full-text review). Relevant data were systematically charted by 2 reviewers.

The initial search identified 112 reports. Six reports, describing and evaluating 5 interventions, were included in a data analysis. Four of the 5 interventions were asynchronous and self-guided modular programs, with interactive components. The fifth was a short-term, online supportive group intervention. Studies utilized a variety of evaluation methods, and only 1 of 14 outcome measures used across the studies was utilized in more than 1 project.

Several Web-based psychosocial interventions have been developed to target disaster-related distress, but few programs have been formally evaluated. A systematic review of the topic would not be recommended at this time due to heterogeneity in reported studies. Further research on factors impacting participation, generalizability, and methods of program delivery with consistent outcome measures is needed.

Public responses to a future novel disease might be influenced by a subset of individuals who are either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes through their lived experiences during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Such influences may be critical for shaping public health messaging during the next emerging threat.

This study explored the potential outcomes of the influence of lived experiences by using a dynamic multiplex network model to simulate a COVID-19 outbreak in a population of 2000 individuals, connected by means of disease and communication layers. Then a new disease was introduced, and a subset of individuals (50% or 100% of hospitalized during the COVID-19 outbreak) was assumed to be either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes relative to the general population, which alters their adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing).

Altered perceptions and behaviors from lived experiences with COVID-19 did not necessarily result in a strong mitigating effect for the novel outbreak. When public disease response is already strong or sensitization is assumed to be a robust effect, then a sensitized subset may enhance public mitigation of an outbreak through social distancing.

In preparing for future outbreaks, assuming an experienced and disease-aware public may compromise effective design of effective public health messaging and mitigative action.