Cited by 39COVID-19 and Mental HealthPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchCancer survivorship and care

Psychological intervention with sufferers from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): Lessons learnt from empirical findings

Open access
Cheng, Sammy K. W., Wong, Chee Wing·2005·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

In 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) severely hit Hong Kong. We conducted a series of five studies examining the psychological impacts of SARS on the sufferers. Results showed that (1) various psychiatric complications emerged in the acute treatment phase; (2) certain types of behavioral and verbal responses of health-care workers (HCWs) were able to ameliorate the psychological distress of the sufferers in the acute phase; (3) the short-term adjustment outcomes of the sufferers were unsatisfactory; (4) ‘being an HCW’ and ‘having a family member killed by SARS’ were risk factors predisposing individuals to the development of high distress after discharge; and (5) after controlling for the effects of demographic and risk factors psychosocial factors such as social support, negative appraisal (or perceived impact), positive appraisal (or post-traumatic growth) and self-efficacy could account for substantial variances of differential outcomes including symptoms of anxiety and depression, quality of life and perceived health of the sufferers. This practitioner report aims to summarize the key findings, which have significant clinical implications in the provision of psychological intervention to the sufferers of SARS or other comparable infectious diseases. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.429

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The immediate aftermath of the SARS epidemic saw the emergence of various psychiatric comorbidities, with the most common presenting problems involving increased levels of anxiety, depression, and features of post-traumatic stress reactions.

    “For example, the immediate aftermath of the SARS epidemic saw the emergence of various psychiatric comorbidities, with the most common presenting problems involving increased levels of anxiety, depression, and features of post-traumatic stress reactions [3,4,5,6].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, S. K. W., & Wong, C. W.
Affiliations
Kwai Chung Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Sammy K. W.
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
80-86
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2126270403
Cited by
39
References
27
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
SARS, psychological distress, psychological intervention, healthcare workers, psychiatric complications, post-discharge adjustment, risk factors, social support, posttraumatic growth, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, quality of life, infectious disease patients, Hong Kong SARS outbreak

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review