↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of psychological distress and social support of survivors and contacts of Ebola virus disease infection and their relatives in Lagos, Nigeria: a cross sectional study − 2014

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An evaluation of psychological distress and social support of survivors and contacts of Ebola virus disease infection and their relatives in Lagos, Nigeria: a cross sectional study − 2014
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2167-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdulaziz Mohammed, Taiwo Lateef Sheikh, Saheed Gidado, Gabriele Poggensee, Patrick Nguku, Adebola Olayinka, Chima Ohuabunwo, Ndadilnasiya Waziri, Faisal Shuaib, Joseph Adeyemi, Ogbonna Uzoma, Abubakar Ahmed, Funmi Doherty, Sarah Beysolow Nyanti, Charles Kyalo Nzuki, Abdulsalami Nasidi, Akin Oyemakinde, Olukayode Oguntimehin, Ismail Adeshina Abdus-salam, Reginald O. Obiako

Abstract

By September 2014, an outbreak of Ebola Viral Disease (EVD) in West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Nigeria, had recorded over 4500 and 2200 probable or confirmed cases and deaths respectively. EVD, an emerging infectious disease, can create fear and panic among patients, contacts and relatives, which could be a risk factor for psychological distress. Psychological distress among this subgroup could have public health implication for control of EVD, because of potential effects on patient management and contact tracing. We determined the Prevalence, pattern and factors associated with psychological distress among survivors and contacts of EVD and their relatives. In a descriptive cross sectional study, we used General Health Questionnaire to assess psychological distress and Oslo Social Support Scale to assess social support among 117 participants who survived EVD, listed as EVD contacts or their relatives at Ebola Emergency Operation Center in Lagos, Nigeria. Factors associated with psychological distress were determined using chi square/odds ratio and adjusted odds ratio. The mean age and standard deviation of participants was 34 +/ - 9.6 years. Of 117 participants, 78 (66.7 %) were females, 77 (65.8 %) had a tertiary education and 45 (38.5 %) were health workers. Most frequently occurring psychological distress were inability to concentrate (37.6 %) and loss of sleep over worry (33.3 %). Losing a relation to EVD outbreak (OR = 6.0, 95 % CI, 1.2-32.9) was significantly associated with feeling unhappy or depressed while being a health worker was protective (OR = 0.4, 95 % CI, 0.2-0.9). Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) showed losing a relation (AOR = 5.7, 95 % CI, 1.2-28.0) was a predictor of "feeling unhappy or depressed", loss of a relation (AOR = 10.1, 95 % CI, 1.7-60.7) was a predictor of inability to concentrate. Survivors and contacts of EVD and their relations develop psychological distress. Development of psychological distress could be predicted by loss of family member. It is recommended that psychiatrists and other mental health specialists be part of case management teams. The clinical teams managing EVD patients should be trained on recognition of common psychological distress among patients. A mental health specialist should review contacts being monitored for EVD for psychological distress or disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 299 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 16%
Student > Master 45 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 19 6%
Other 65 21%
Unknown 82 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 28%
Psychology 31 10%
Social Sciences 24 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 102 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,322,325
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,627
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,430
of 269,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#48
of 332 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 332 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.