Next Article in Journal
Pathways between Risk/Protective Factors and Maternal Postnatal Depressive Symptoms: The ELFE Cohort
Previous Article in Journal
The Association between Autoimmune Thyroid Disease and Ocular Surface Damage: A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns in Germany on Mood, Attention Control, Immune Fitness, and Quality of Life of Young Adults with Self-Reported Impaired Wound Healing

1
Division of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
Cognitive Neurophysiology Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine of the TU Dresden, University of Dresden, D-01307 Dresden, Germany
3
Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, School of Science, TU Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany
4
Global Centre of Excellence Immunology, Nutricia Danone Research, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands
5
Division of Plastic Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
6
Centre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(9), 3205; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093205
Submission received: 21 February 2023 / Revised: 28 April 2023 / Accepted: 28 April 2023 / Published: 29 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Mental Health)

Abstract

:
Background: Previous studies in Dutch young adults revealed that individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing reported poorer mood, increased inattention and impulsivity, poorer quality of life, and poorer immune fitness compared to healthy controls. Another study revealed that the negative impact of lockdowns during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was significantly more profound among the impaired wound healing group than the control group. The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend these findings among young adults living in Germany. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted among N = 317 young adults living in Germany, 18–35 years old. They were allocated to the IWH group (N = 66) or the control group (N-251). Participants completed the Attention Control Scale, and mood, quality of life, and immune fitness were assessed with single-item ratings. All assessments were made for (1) the period before the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) the first lockdown period, March–May 2020, (3) the first no-lockdown period, summer 2020, (4) the second lockdown, November 2020 to May 2021, and (5) the second no-lockdown period, summer 2021. Results: The impaired wound healing group reported significantly poorer mood, quality of life, and immune fitness. The effects were evident before the pandemic. The impaired wound healing group scored significantly poorer on attention focusing, but no significant differences between the groups were found for attention shifting. During the pandemic, negative lockdown effects (i.e., further aggravation of mood and immune fitness and lower quality of life) were evident in both groups but significantly more profound in the impaired wound healing group. No differences between the groups were found for the no-lockdown periods. Conclusion: Individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing have significantly poorer mood, attention focusing, and immune fitness and report a poorer quality of life than healthy controls. The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns was significantly more profound in the impaired wound-healing group.

1. Introduction

The lockdown periods during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic had substantial negative socioeconomic consequences [1,2].
Although data showed that the impact of lockdowns is highly heterogeneous, depending on the sample under investigation, for individuals who struggled to cope with lockdown restrictions, these periods have been associated with poorer mood (e.g., anxiety, depression, loneliness, and stress) [3,4,5,6]. As a consequence of the lockdown restrictions, delayed healthcare was also common [7,8]. Hospital referrals were canceled or postponed, which led to delayed diagnosis and treatment for acute or chronically ill patients, sometimes with demonstrated negative health consequences such as an increased burden of disease [7] and reduced functional outcomes [8].
In Germany, several actions were taken to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, described in detail elsewhere [9]. In March 2020, a quick rise in SARS-CoV-2 resulted in contact restrictions and social distancing measures, and a first lockdown was implemented. Only essential public places (e.g., supermarkets and pharmacies) remained open, in compliance with strict hygiene measures (e.g., wearing face masks). In May 2020, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections decreased, and a ‘no lockdown’ period followed until the late summer of 2020. During this period, contact restrictions and social distancing measures still applied, but cafes, restaurants, and retail stores were open. In November 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 infections increased again. Most public health measures from the first lockdown were reinstalled during this second lockdown period, which lasted until May 2021. Toward the summer of 2021, the number of infections decreased. During this second ‘no lockdown’ period, contact restrictions and social distancing measures were gradually removed.
The COVID-19 restrictions also limited the care of wound patients [10,11]. Outpatient wound clinics across Germany were closed for several weeks at the beginning of the pandemic. A cross-section survey of chronic wound patients in Germany [12] showed that the COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on wound care in terms of diagnosis, hospitalization, and access to medical services. Other German studies also identified a significant impact of the pandemic on wound care [13,14,15,16].
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and associated lockdowns on the mood, quality of life, and immune fitness of German young adults with self-reported impaired wound healing. Research conducted before the pandemic among the same age group in The Netherlands revealed that, compared to healthy controls, young adults with self-reported impaired wound healing reported poorer mood [17], poorer sleep [18], lower quality of life [17], impaired attention and increased impulsivity [19], and a poorer immune fitness [20]. One study revealed that during the pandemic, significant lockdown effects were evident for both healthy controls and the group with self-reported impaired wound healing [11]. However, the negative effects on mood and immune fitness were significantly more pronounced among the impaired wound-healing group. For the current study, it was hypothesized that the findings would confirm and extend previous findings from The Netherlands.

2. Methods

An online survey was conducted among German young adults from 18 to 35 years old. Participants were recruited via email and printed flyers. The survey was administered via the online platform LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) and could be completed in German or English language. Participants could enter a prize draw to win one of four 25 Euro Amazon gift cards. The study was conducted between mid-November 2021 and the end of March 2022, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of TU Dresden (Approval code: SR-EK-8012020, date of approval: 27 September 2021). A detailed description of the study methodology and the dataset are published elsewhere [9].
Participants indicated whether or not they had experienced slow-healing wounds and/or wound infections during the past year. Based on their answer, they were allocated to (1) a control group that answered ‘no’ to both questions and (2) an IWH group that reported experiencing wound infection and/or slow-healing wounds.
Demographic data were collected, including age and sex. Attention control was assessed with the 20-item Attention Control Scale (ATTS) [21]. Items had 4 possible answers, including (1) almost never, (2) sometimes, (3) often, and (4) always. In addition to the ATTS total score, 2 subscales were computed, assessing ‘attention focusing’ and ‘attention shifting’. Mood was assessed with single-item ratings, including the items “stress”, “anxiety”, “depression”, “fatigue”, “loneliness”, “optimism”, and “happiness”. These were rated on scales ranging from 0 (absent) to 10 (extreme). The single-item scales have been validated previously [22] and have high test-retest reliability [23]. Quality of life was rated on a scale ranging from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent). The single-item quality of life scale is a global assessment that was validated previously against the multi-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20 (MOS SF-20) and Rotterdam Symptom Check-List (RSCL) [24]. Immune fitness was assessed on a scale ranging from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent) [25,26]. All assessments were made for (1) ‘BP’ (the period before the COVID-19 pandemic), (2) ‘L1’ (the first lockdown period, March–May 2020), (3) ‘NL1’ (the first no-lockdown period, summer 2020), (4) ‘L2’ (the second lockdown, November 2020 to May 2021), and (5) ‘NL2’ (the second no-lockdown period, summer 2021).
Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.). Within-subject comparisons of the mood assessments of the four time points were conducted with the Related-Samples Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks test. Bonferroni’s correction was applied, and differences were considered significant if p < 0.0125. Comparisons between the IWH and control group were conducted with the Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test. Percentual data were compared with the N-1 Chi-squared test. Differences between the groups were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.

3. Results

A total of n = 317 individuals participated in the study. Of them, n = 66 were allocated to the IWH group, and n = 251 to the control group. Their demographic data are summarized in Table 1.
The control group comprised significantly more women than the IWH group. The IWH group reported a significantly lower perceived immune fitness and significantly more individuals of this group had reduced immune fitness. In addition, the IWH group reported a significantly lower quality of life than the control group. The difference in sleep quality between the groups was not statistically significant.

3.1. Attention Control

Results on attention control are summarized in Table 2. The attention focusing score of the IHW group was significantly lower compared to the control group.

3.2. Mood

The mood and quality of life outcomes are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 3. The analysis revealed that, compared to before the pandemic, mood and quality of life were significantly poorer during the lockdown periods.
The mood effects were more pronounced in the second lockdown than in the first lockdown. During the two no-lockdown periods, mood and quality of life did not differ from before the COVID-19 pandemic, except for stress (which was significantly lower during the first no-lockdown period) and optimism (which was significantly lower during the second no-lockdown period).

3.3. Immune Fitness

Data on immune fitness is summarized in Figure 2. Compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic, immune fitness was significantly poorer during both lockdown periods for the control group, and for the IHW group, the reduction was statistically significant only for the second lockdown period. For all assessed periods, the immune fitness of the IWH group was significantly lower than that reported by the control group.

4. Discussion

This study in young adults in Germany confirmed that mood, quality of life, and immune fitness are poorer among individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing compared to healthy controls. It extended previous knowledge on the possible impact of attentional deficits [19] by showing that individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing have poorer attention focusing, whereas attention shifting did not differ from healthy controls. During the COVID-19 pandemic, significant negative effects were seen on mood, quality of life, and immune fitness, which were most pronounced and often statistically significant for the two lockdown periods. These findings were usually more pronounced during the second lockdown period than the first lockdown and are in line with those found in The Netherlands among young adults with self-reported impaired wound healing [11].
The current study did not investigate the causes of the observed differences in lockdown effects on mood, quality of life, and immune fitness between the group with and without self-reported impaired wound healing. It could be speculated that intermittent or poor wound treatment due to postponed care during the pandemic may be responsible for the differences. Alternatively, it may be in circumstances of psychological distress (such as a lockdown) that this may have a greater impact on individuals with impaired wound healing compared to healthy controls. Previous research in support of this hypothesis found that individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing reported significantly lower levels of mental resilience than healthy controls [17]. In addition, because individuals with impaired wound healing have a greater susceptibility to experiencing immune-related complaints [20], it could be speculated that increased fear of contracting COVID-19 could have played a role in mood changes during the pandemic. In addition, poorer immune fitness has been identified as the most important predictor of the presence and severity of COVID-19 symptoms [27]. Future studies should evaluate these possibilities to properly analyze the impact of different factors associated with poorer mood among individuals with impaired wound healing. This future research is also important beyond the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, literature on patients recovering from injury or surgery revealed that positive mood and mental resilience contribute to better treatment and recovery [28,29]. In line with this, supporting positive mood and mental resilience could also significantly contribute to more successful treatment of chronic wound patients.
Limitations of this study include the fact that the data were self-reported and assessed retrospectively. Therefore, recall bias may have had an impact on the participants’ responses. Second, the classification of the participants into the impaired wound healing group versus the control group was based on self-reported data, but given the nature of the study design (an anonymous survey), this could not be verified by a formal diagnosis. Future studies should preferably be conducted in formally diagnosed patients (e.g., patients with diabetic or vascular foot ulcers). Third, the study comprised a relatively small convenience sample of young adults (18 to 35 years old) living in Germany. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent our findings can be generalized to other age groups (e.g., the elderly) or other countries where COVID-19 measures may have been different, but also the lifestyle and aspirations of young adults may be different from Germany [30,31]. The small sample size did not allow for the investigation of possible sex differences, and the age range was small. In addition, factors such as race, ethnicity, and health comorbidities were not considered. The fact that impaired wound healing was self-reported, and the fact that a convenience sample was recruited, may have resulted in an impaired wound healing group with relatively mild wound complaints and false positives. However, the fact that the current sample already shows significant differences from the control group suggests that the actual effects on mood, quality of life, and immune fitness will be even more profound in formally diagnosed chronic would patients. Future research should confirm this. Mood and quality of life were assessed with single-item ratings. While these global assessments can assess various constructs in a relatively short time, there are multiple-item scales available for both mood and quality of life. Often these scales are disease-specific and provide additional information compared to a global single-item assessment. Finally, it would be interesting for future research to contrast the current findings with other patients with other diseases for which comparable lockdown effects were investigated [32] and to evaluate the impact of comorbid diseases (e.g., diabetes).
Notwithstanding these limitations, during the COVID-19 lockdowns in Germany, significant reductions in mood, quality of life, and perceived immune functioning were reported. However, these effects were significantly more pronounced among individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing compared to healthy controls.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B., A.H.K., P.A.H., P.K., A.-K.S., M.M.H., J.G. and J.C.V.; methodology, J.C.V.; formal analysis, J.C.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B. and J.C.V.; writing—review and editing, J.B., A.H.K., P.A.H., P.K., A.-K.S., M.M.H., J.G. and J.C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the TU Dresden (approval code: SR-EK-8012020, date of approval: 27 September 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Electronic informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data is published open access in the journal MDPI Data and available online as a supplement to reference [9].

Conflicts of Interest

Over the past 3 years, J.C.V. has acted as a consultant/advisor for Eisai, KNMP, Red Bull, Sen-Jam Pharmaceutical, and Toast! J.G. is a part-time employee of Nutricia Research and received research grants from Nutricia research foundation, Top Institute Pharma, Top Institute Food and Nutrition, GSK, STW, NWO, Friesland Campina, CCC, Raak-Pro, and EU. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Emanuel, E.J.; Persad, G.; Upshur, R.; Thome, B.; Parker, M.; Glickman, A.; Zhang, C.; Boyle, C.; Smith, M.; Phillips, J.P. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2049–2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Laux, C.J.; Bauer, D.E.; Kohler, A.; Uçkay, I.; Farshad, M. Disproportionate case reduction after banning of elective surgeries during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Clin. Spine Surg. 2020, 33, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prati, G.; Mancini, A.D. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: A review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol. Med. 2021, 51, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gilan, D.; Röthke, N.; Blessin, M.; Kunzler, A.; Stoffers-Winterling, J.; Müssig, M.; Yuen, K.; Thrul, J.; Kreuter, F.; Lieb, K.; et al. Psychomorbidity, resilience, and exacerbating and protective factors during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2020, 117, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hendriksen, P.A.; Kiani, P.; Garssen, J.; Bruce, G.; Verster, J.C. Living alone or together during a lockdown: Association with mood, immune fitness and experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 1947–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hendriksen, P.A.; Garssen, J.; Bijlsma, E.Y.; Engels, F.; Bruce, G.; Verster, J.C. COVID-19 lockdown-related changes in mood, health and academic functioning. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1440–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sud, A.; Jones, M.E.; Broggio, J.; Loveday, C.; Torr, B.; Garrett, A.; Nicol, D.L.; Jhanji, S.; Boyce, S.A.; Turnbull, C.; et al. Collateral damage: The impact on outcomes from cancer surgery of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1065–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Physical, E.; Alliance, R.M.B. White book on physical and rehabilitation medicine in Europe. Chapter 2. Why rehabilitation is needed by individuals and society. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2018, 54, 166–176. [Google Scholar]
  9. Koyun, A.H.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Kiani, P.; Merlo, A.; Balikji, J.; Stock, A.-K.; Verster, J.C. COVID-19 lockdown effects on mood, alcohol consumption, academic functioning, and perceived immune fitness: Data from young adults in Germany. Data 2022, 7, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tinelli, G.; Sica, S.; Guarnera, G.; Pitocco, D.; Tshomba, Y. Wound care during COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 68, 93–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Balikji, J.; Kiani, P.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Garssen, J.; Verster, J.C. Impaired wound healing is associated with poorer mood and reduced perceived immune fitness during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective survey. Health Sci. Rep. 2022, 5, e764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schlager, J.G.; Kendziora, B.; Patzak, L.; Kupf, S.; Rothenberger, C.; Fiocco, Z.; French, L.E.; Reinholz, M.; Hartmann, D. Impact of COVID-19 on wound care in Germany. Int. Wound J. 2021, 18, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bollmann, A.; Hohenstein, S.; Meier-Hellmann, A.; Kuhlen, R.; Hindricks, G. Emergency hospital admissions and interventional treatments for heart failure and cardiac arrhythmias in Germany during the COVID-19 outbreak: Insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network. Eur. Heart J. Qual. Care Clin. Outcomes 2020, 6, 221–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bollmann, A.; Pellissier, V.; Hohenstein, S.; König, S.; Ueberham, L.; Meier-Hellmann, A.; Kuhlen, R.; Thiele, H.; Hindricks, G. Helios hospitals, Germany. Cumulative hospitalization deficit for cardiovascular disorders in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network. Eur. Heart J. Qual. Care Clin. Outcomes 2021, 7, e5–e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bollmann, A.; Hohenstein, S.; Pellissier, V.; Stengler, K.; Reichardt, P.; Ritz, J.P.; Thiele, H.; Borger, M.A.; Hindricks, G.; Meier-Hellmann, A.; et al. Utilization of in- and outpatient hospital care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. König, S.; Hohenstein, S.; Ueberham, L.; Hindricks, G.; Meier-Hellmann, A.; Kuhlen, R.; Bollmann, A. Regional and temporal disparities of excess all-cause mortality for Germany in 2020: Is there more than just COVID-19? J. Infect. 2021, 82, 186–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Balikji, J.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Garssen, J.; Verster, J.C. Mental resilience, mood, and quality of life in young adults with self-reported impaired wound healing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Balikji, J.; Garssen, J.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Roth, T.; Verster, J.C. Insomnia complaints and perceived immune fitness in students with and without self-reported impaired wound healing. Medicina 2022, 58, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Balikji, J.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Garssen, J.; Verster, J.C. Inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity pose individuals with impaired wound healing at increased risk for accidents and injury. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Balikji, J.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Garssen, J.; Verster, J.C. Self-reported impaired wound healing in young adults and their susceptibility to experiencing immune-related complaints. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Derryberry, D.; Reed, M.A. Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2002, 111, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verster, J.C.; Sandalova, E.; Garssen, J.; Bruce, G. The use of single-item ratings versus traditional multiple-item questionnaires to assess mood and health. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Verster, J.C.; Mulder, K.E.W.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Verheul, M.C.E.; van Oostrom, E.C.; Scholey, A.; Garssen, J. Test-retest reliability of single-item assessments of immune fitness, mood and quality of life. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. De Boer, A.G.; van Lanschot, J.J.; Stalmeier, P.F.; van Sandick, J.W.; Hulscher, J.B.; de Haes, J.C.; Sprangers, M.A. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual. Life Res. 2004, 13, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van Schrojenstein Lantman, M.; Mackus, M.; Otten, L.S.; de Kruijff, D.; van de Loo, A.J.; Kraneveld, A.D.; Garssen, J.; Verster, J.C. Mental resilience, perceived immune functioning, and health. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2017, 10, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Verster, J.C.; Kraneveld, A.D.; Garssen, J. The assessment of immune fitness. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kiani, P.; Balikji, J.; Kraneveld, A.D.; Garssen, J.; Bruce, G.; Verster, J.C. Pandemic preparedness: The importance of adequate immune fitness. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seebach, C.L.; Kirkhart, M.; Lating, J.M.; Wegener, S.T.; Song, Y.; Riley, L.H., 3rd; Archer, K.R. Examining the role of positive and negative affect in recovery from spine surgery. Pain 2012, 153, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Connolly, F.R.; Aitken, L.M.; Tower, M. An integrative review of self-efficacy and patient recovery post-acute injury. J. Adv. Nurs. 2014, 70, 714–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bhattacharya, S.; Sinha, S.; Bhattacharya, S.; Poddar, S. Studies on the awareness, apprehensions and aspirations of the university students of West Bengal, India in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Malay. J. Med. Res. 2021, 5, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Karadayian, A.; Merlo, A.; Czerniczyniec, A.; Lores-Arnaiz, S.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Kiani, P.; Bruce, G.; Verster, J.C. Alcohol consumption, hangovers, and smoking among Buenos Aires university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lolo, W.A.; Citraningtyas, G.; Mpila, D.A.; Wijaya, H.; Poddar, S. Quality of life of hypertensive patients undergoing chronic disease management program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kesmas J. Kesehat. Masy. Nas. (Natl. Public Health J.) 2022, 17, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Mood and quality of life. Mean and standard error are shown for (A) stress, (B) fatigue, (C) anxiety, (D) depression, (E) loneliness, (F) optimism, (G) happiness, and (H) quality of life. Significant differences from BP (p < 0.0125, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by *. Significant differences between the IWH group and control group (p < 0.010, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by †. Abbreviations: BP = before the COVID-19 pandemic, L1 = first lockdown period, NL1 = first no lockdown period, L2 = second lockdown period, NL2 = second no lockdown period, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Figure 1. Mood and quality of life. Mean and standard error are shown for (A) stress, (B) fatigue, (C) anxiety, (D) depression, (E) loneliness, (F) optimism, (G) happiness, and (H) quality of life. Significant differences from BP (p < 0.0125, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by *. Significant differences between the IWH group and control group (p < 0.010, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by †. Abbreviations: BP = before the COVID-19 pandemic, L1 = first lockdown period, NL1 = first no lockdown period, L2 = second lockdown period, NL2 = second no lockdown period, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Jcm 12 03205 g001
Figure 2. Immune fitness. Mean and standard error are shown. Significant differences from BP (p < 0.0125, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by *. Significant differences between the IWH group and control group (p < 0.010, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by †. Abbreviations: BP = before the COVID-19 pandemic, L1 = first lockdown period, NL1 = first no lockdown period, L2 = second lockdown period, NL2 = second no lockdown period, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Figure 2. Immune fitness. Mean and standard error are shown. Significant differences from BP (p < 0.0125, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by *. Significant differences between the IWH group and control group (p < 0.010, after Bonferroni’s correction) are indicated by †. Abbreviations: BP = before the COVID-19 pandemic, L1 = first lockdown period, NL1 = first no lockdown period, L2 = second lockdown period, NL2 = second no lockdown period, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Jcm 12 03205 g002
Table 1. Demographics, health correlates, and quality of life.
Table 1. Demographics, health correlates, and quality of life.
Control GroupIWH Groupp-Value
N25166
Sex (m/f) (%)35.5%/64.5%21.2%/78.8%0.028 *
Age25.7 (4.1)24.8 (3.9)0.134
Immune fitness6.9 (2.2)5.5 (2.6)<0.001 *
Reduced immune fitness (%)24.90%56.6%<0.001 *
Sleep quality6.7 (2.3)6.1 (2.3)0.105
Quality of life6.8 (2.0)5.8 (2.4)0.005 *
Significant differences between the IWH and control group (p < 0.05) are indicated by *. Reduced immune fitness was defined as having a perceived immune fitness score < 6. Abbreviation: IWH = impaired wound healing.
Table 2. Attention control.
Table 2. Attention control.
Control GroupIWH Groupp-Value
ATTC total score51.2 (7.6)49.4 (7.9)0.151
ATTC—Attention focusing22.6 (4.3)20.7 (4.2)0.007 *
ATTC—Attention shifting28.7 (4.7)28.6 (4.9)0.906
Significant differences between the IWH and control group (p < 0.05) are indicated by *. Abbreviations: ATTC = Attention Control Scale, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Table 3. Mood and quality of life.
Table 3. Mood and quality of life.
Mean (SD)OverallPairwise Comparisons (p-Values)
AssessmentGroupBPL1NL1L2NL2p-ValueBP vs. L1BP vs. NL1BP vs. L2BP vs. NL2
StressIWH5.3 (2.0)5.9 (2.6)4.1 (2.3)6.1 (2.3)4.8 (2.6)<0.001 *0.1200.004 *0.0420.256
Control4.5 (2.5)4.5 (2.6)3.7 (2.4)5.3 (2.6)4.3 (2.6)<0.001 *0.824<0.001 *<0.001 *0.382
p-value0.024<0.001 0.2950.0600.172
FatigueIWH4.5 (2.6)5.5 (2.3)4.3 (2.3)6.5 (2.4)5.1 (2.7)<0.001 *0.0310.244<0.001 *0.039
Control3.0 (2.4)3.4 (2.5)2.9 (2.3)4.4 (2.7)3.4 (2.5)<0.001 *0.0270.439<0.001 *0.012
p-value<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
AnxietyIWH3.9 (2.5)5.6 (2.6)4.0 (2.5)5.6 (2.9)4.5 (2.7)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.881<0.001 *0.310
Control3.0 (2.6)4.1 (2.9)3.1 (2.6)4.5 (3.0)3.3 (2.7)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.496<0.001 *0.173
p-value0.008 <0.001 0.008 0.0160.001
DepressionIWH3.1 (3.1)4.3 (3.2)3.2 (3.0)5.0 (3.1)4.1 (3.4)<0.001 *0.0120.788<0.001 *0.049
Control1.7 (2.3)2.3 (2.7)1.9 (2.4)3.3 (3.1)2.3 (2.7)<0.001 *0.005 *0.466<0.001 *0.013
p-value<0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001
LonelinessIWH2.8 (2.8)4.7 (3.1)3.2 (2.7)5.0 (3.4)3.7 (3.3)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.591<0.001 *0.073
Control1.7 (2.1)3.1 (3.0)2.1 (2.5)3.9 (3.2)2.3 (2.6)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.388<0.001 *0.059
p-value0.008 <0.001 0.003 0.0230.005
OptimismIWH6.3 (2.3)4.9 (2.3)5.8 (2.0)4.3 (2.2)5.0 (2.7)<0.001 *0.007 *0.370<0.001 *0.002 *
Control6.5 (2.5)5.4 (2.4)6.0 (2.3)4.4 (2.6)5.4 (2.7)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.030<0.001 *<0.001 *
p-value0.4220.1660.2910.7360.441
HappinessIWH6.0 (2.4)4.6 (2.1)6.0 (1.9)4.1 (2.2)5.1 (2.5)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.952<0.001 *0.013
Control6.9 (2.2)5.6 (2.5)6.5 (2.2)5.0 (2.5)6.3 (2.4)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.039<0.001 *0.037
p-value0.0170.004 0.0540.0170.001
Quality of lifeIWH6.3 (2.3)4.6 (1.9)6.2 (1.8)4.5 (2.2)5.8 (2.4)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.806<0.001 *0.311
Control7.3 (1.9)5.6 (2.4)6.8 (1.8)5.0 (2.4)6.8 (2.0)<0.001 *<0.001 *0.167<0.001 *0.145
p-value0.002 0.006 0.0260.3410.005
Pairwise comparisons of the differences between before the COVID-19 pandemic and the other time periods were computed if the main effect was significant (p < 0.05) and considered significant if p < 0.0125 after Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons, indicated by *. Differences between the IWH and control group were considered significant if p < 0.010 (after Bonferroni’s correction), indicated by . Abbreviations: BP = before the COVID-19 pandemic, L1 = first lockdown period, NL1 = first no lockdown period, L2 = second lockdown period, NL2 = second no lockdown period, IWH = impaired wound healing.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balikji, J.; Koyun, A.H.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Kiani, P.; Stock, A.-K.; Garssen, J.; Hoogbergen, M.M.; Verster, J.C. The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns in Germany on Mood, Attention Control, Immune Fitness, and Quality of Life of Young Adults with Self-Reported Impaired Wound Healing. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093205

AMA Style

Balikji J, Koyun AH, Hendriksen PA, Kiani P, Stock A-K, Garssen J, Hoogbergen MM, Verster JC. The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns in Germany on Mood, Attention Control, Immune Fitness, and Quality of Life of Young Adults with Self-Reported Impaired Wound Healing. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(9):3205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balikji, Jessica, Anna H. Koyun, Pauline A. Hendriksen, Pantea Kiani, Ann-Kathrin Stock, Johan Garssen, Maarten M. Hoogbergen, and Joris C. Verster. 2023. "The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns in Germany on Mood, Attention Control, Immune Fitness, and Quality of Life of Young Adults with Self-Reported Impaired Wound Healing" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 9: 3205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093205

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop