BACKGROUND: People who were disabled from working reported substantially worse depression in recent research [1] despite adjustment for demographic covariates, cognitive-appraisal processes, and COVID-specific stressors, thus motivating the present work.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to \"drill down\" to understand employment-group differences (employed, retired, unemployed, disabled) in cognitive factors, and how these factors played into paths to depression during COVID early in the pandemic and depression trajectories over 15.5 months of follow-up.
METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study (n = 771) included chronically ill and general-population samples in the United States, characterized into the same depression-trajectory groups as the earlier study [1]. The Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profilev2 Short-Form assessed cognitive-appraisal processes. COVID-specific scales assessed hardship, worry, and social support. Chi-square, Analysis of Variance, classification and regression tree, and random effects modeling investigated factors associated with reported depression over time specifically by employment group, rather than in the whole sample which was the focus of the earlier study.
RESULTS: Disabled participants were disproportionately represented in the stably depressed trajectory group, reporting more hardship and worry, and lower social support than employed and retired participants (p < 0.0001). They were more likely to focus on health goals, problem goals, and emphasizing the negative (p < 0.001). They had different paths and cut-points to depression than employed/unemployed/retired participants. Even mild endorsement of emphasizing the negative and recent changes predicted higher depression. COVID-specific stressors and cognitive-appraisal processes were less implicated in depression among disabled participants compared to others.
CONCLUSIONS: Disabled participants were at greater risk of stable depression during the COVID pandemic. Small increases in emphasizing the negative were a path to worse depression, and disabled participants\' depression may be less reactive to external circumstances or ways of thinking.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive cancer-related financial toxicity (FT) measures as a multidimensional construct are lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) identify full measures designed explicitly for assessing FT and evaluate their psychometric properties (content validity, structural validity, reliability, and other measurement properties) using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN), and (2) provide an analysis of the domains of FT covered in these measures.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for quantitative studies published from January 2000 to July 2023 that reported psychometric properties of FT measures in cancer survivors. The psychometric properties of FT measures and study risk of bias were analysed using COSMIN. Each FT measure was compared against the six domains of FT recommended by Witte and colleagues. Results were synthesized narratively. The detailed search strategies are available in Table S1.
RESULTS: Six FT tools including the COST-FACIT, PROFFIT, FIT, SFDQ, HARDS, and ENRICh-Spanish were identified. The COST-FACIT measure had good measurement properties. No measure reached an excellent level for overall quality but was mostly rated as sufficient. The SFDQ, HARDS, and ENRICh-Spanish were the most comprehensive in the inclusion of the six domains of FT.
CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasizes the need for validated multidimensional FT measures that can be applied across various cancer types, healthcare settings, and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, a need to develop practical screening tools with high predictive ability for FT is highly important, considering the significant consequences of FT. Addressing these gaps in future research will further enhance the understanding of FT.

BACKGROUND: There are no robust population-based Australian data on prevalence and attributed burden of migraine and medication-overuse headache (MOH) data. In this pilot cross-sectional study, we aimed to capture the participation rate, preferred response method, and acceptability of self-report questionnaires to inform the conduct of a future nationwide migraine/MOH epidemiological study.
METHODS: We developed a self-report questionnaire, available in hard-copy and online, including modules from the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, the Eq. 5D (quality of life), and enquiry into treatment gaps. Study invitations were mailed to 20,000 randomly selected households across Australia\'s two most populous states. The household member who most recently had a birthday and was aged ≥ 18 years was invited to participate, and could do so by returning a hard-copy questionnaire via reply-paid mail, or by entering responses directly into an online platform.
RESULTS: The participation rate was 5.0% (N = 1,000). Participants\' median age was 60 years (IQR 44-71 years), and 64.7% (n = 647) were female. Significantly more responses were received from areas with relatively older populations and middle-level socioeconomic status. Hard copy was the more commonly chosen response method (n = 736). Females and younger respondents were significantly more likely to respond online than via hard-copy.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that alternative methodology is needed to achieve satisfactory engagement in a future nationwide migraine/MOH epidemiological study, for example through inclusion of migraine screening questions in well-resourced, interview-based national health surveys that are conducted regularly by government agencies. Meanwhile, additional future research directions include defining and addressing treatment gaps to improve migraine awareness, and minimise under-diagnosis and under-treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We used data from the National Survey of Children\'s Health to (1) examine differences in economic hardship and safety net program use after the implementation of federal relief efforts, and (2) assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated autism-based disparities in hardship and program use.
METHODS: We examined five dimensions of economic hardship (poverty, food insecurity, medical hardship, medical costs, and foregone work) and four safety net programs (cash assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and free or reduced-cost meals). First, we calculated adjusted prevalence and odds ratios to compare pre-COVID (2018-2019) and during COVID (2021) outcomes by autism status. Next, we calculated the adjusted odds of each outcome among autistic children compared to those of children with and without other special healthcare needs at both time points.
RESULTS: COVID-19 exacerbated autism-based disparities in food insecurity, SNAP, and public health insurance, but alleviated inequities in medical hardship, foregone work, and cash assistance. Autistic children did not experience declines in food insecurity or increases in SNAP like other children; medical hardship and foregone work decreased more for autistic children; and the magnitude of autism-based differences in public coverage significantly increased during the pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS: Federal relief efforts likely improved economic outcomes of children; however, these effects varied according to type of hardship and by disability group. Efforts to promote economic well-being among autistic populations should be tailored to the financial challenges most salient to low-income autistic children, like food insecurity.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with widespread social disruptions, as governments implemented lockdowns to quell disease spread. To advance knowledge of consequences for households in resource-limited countries, we examine food insecurity during the pandemic period.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study and used logistic regression to examine factors associated with food insecurity. Data were collected between August and September of 2021 through a Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) using a survey instrument focused on knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; food availability; COVID-19 related shocks/coping; under-five child healthcare services; and healthcare services for pregnant women. The study is set in two communities in Eastern Ethiopia, one rural (Kersa) and one urban (Harar), and included a random sample of 880 households.
RESULTS: Roughly 16% of households reported not having enough food to eat during the pandemic, an increase of 6% since before the pandemic. After adjusting for other variables, households were more likely to report food insecurity if they were living in an urban area, were a larger household, had a family member lose employment, reported an increase in food prices, or were food insecure before the pandemic. Households were less likely to report food insecurity if they were wealthier or had higher household income.
CONCLUSIONS: After taking individual and household level sociodemographic characteristics into consideration, households in urban areas were at higher risk for food insecurity. These findings suggest a need for expanding food assistance programs to more urban areas to help mitigate the impact of lockdowns on more vulnerable households.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding people\'s response to the pandemic needs to consider individual differences in priorities and concerns. The present study sought to understand how individual differences in cognitive-appraisal processes might moderate the impact of three COVID-specific factors-hardship, worry, and social support-on reported depression.
METHODS: This longitudinal study of the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic included 771 people with data at three timepoints over 15.5 months. Participants were recruited from panels of chronically ill or general population samples. Depression was measured by an item response theory validated depression index created using items from existing measures that reflected similar content to the Patient Health Questionnaire-8. COVID-specific factors of hardship, worry, and social support were assessed with items compiled by the National Institutes of Health. The Quality of Life Appraisal Profilev2 Short-Form assessed cognitive appraisal processes. A series of random effects models examined whether appraisal moderated the effects of hardship, worry, and social support on depression over time.
RESULTS: Over time the association between low social support and depression was greater (p = 0.0181). Emphasizing the negative was associated with exacerbated depression, in particular for those with low social support (p = 0.0007). Focusing on demands and habituation was associated with exacerbated depression unless one experienced greater hardship (p = 0.0074). There was a stronger positive connection between recent changes and depression for those people with higher worry scores early in the pandemic as compared to later, but a stronger positive correlation for those with lower worry scores later in the pandemic (p = 0.0015). Increased endorsement of standards of comparison, emphasizing the negative, problem goals, and health goals was associated with worse depression scores (all p < 0.0001). People who were younger, disabled, or had greater difficulty paying bills also reported worse depression (p < 0.0001, 0.0001, and 0.002, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: At the aggregate level, COVID-specific stressors changed over the course of the pandemic, whereas depression and social-support resources seemed stable. However, deeper analysis revealed substantial individual differences. Cognitive-appraisal processes showed considerable variability across individuals and moderated the impact of COVID-specific stressors and resources over time. Future work is needed to investigate whether coaching individuals away from maladaptive cognitive-appraisal processes can reduce depression and lead to better overall well-being.

Many women experience sleep problems during midlife. Associations of adverse lifetime experiences-more common among women-with sleep outcomes are understudied.
We studied 476 women enrolled in Project Viva 1999-2002. At enrollment, participants reported any lifetime history of abuse and/or financial hardship. At midlife follow-up ∼20 years later, they reported a history of up to 10 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); 7-day sleep quality (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairment T-scores); and past month average sleep duration. We examined associations of adverse experiences with sleep outcomes, adjusted for childhood sociodemographic variables. We also explored mediation by current depression and anxiety symptoms, hot flash severity, general health, and body mass index.
ACEs were common: 301 women (63%) reported one or more. Each additional ACE was associated with higher midlife sleep disturbance (adjusted β = 0.65 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27, 1.02) and sleep-related impairment (0.98, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.41) T-scores, and with sleep duration <6 hour/night (odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.42), but not with continuous sleep duration (-2 minutes, 95% CI: -5, 1). Adverse experiences in adulthood were less consistently associated with sleep quality but were associated with sleep duration, for example, financial hardship during the index pregnancy was associated with 75 minutes (95% CI: -120, -29) shorter sleep duration 2 decades later. Associations of ACEs with sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairment were mediated by midlife depression anxiety and physical health but not by hot flash severity or body mass index.
Adverse lifetime experiences have deleterious associations with sleep duration and quality in midlife women.

Child poverty is associated with poorer physical and mental health, negative educational outcomes and adverse long-term social and psychological consequences, all of which impact on service demand and expenditure. Until now, however, prevention and early intervention practice has tended to focus on enhancing inter-parental relationships and parenting skills (e.g., via relationship skills education, home visiting, parenting programs, family therapy) or child language, social-emotional and life skills (e.g., early childhood education, school-based programs, youth mentoring). Programs often target low-income neighborhoods or families but rarely address poverty directly. While there is substantial evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions in improving child outcomes, null results are not uncommon and even positive effects are often small, short-term, and difficult to replicate. One avenue to enhance intervention effectiveness is to improve families\' economic circumstances. There are several arguments for this refocusing. It is arguably unethical to focus on individual risk without acknowledging or seeking to address (where relevant) families\' social and economic contexts, while the stigma and material constraints associated with poverty can make it harder for families to engage with psychosocial support. There is also evidence that increasing household income improves child outcomes. Although national policies to alleviate poverty are important, it is increasingly recognized that practice-based initiatives have a role to play (e.g., income maximization, devolved budgets, money management support). However, knowledge about their implementation and effectiveness is relatively thin. For instance, there is some evidence that co-located welfare rights advice in healthcare settings can improve recipients\' financial circumstances and health, but it is mixed and of limited quality. Moreover, there is little rigorous research on whether and how such services affect mediators (parent-child interactions, parenting capacity) and/or child physical and psychosocial outcomes directly. We call for prevention and early intervention programs to attend more to families\' economic circumstances, and for experimental studies to test their implementation, reach and effectiveness.

Single-parent families have historically faced greater economic precarity relative to other family types in the United States. We investigate how and whether those disparities widened after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data on exposure to school and childcare center closures, unemployment, poverty, food hardship, and frequent worrying among single-parent families versus two-parent families throughout 2020 and 2021, we find that the challenges that single parents faced prior to the pandemic generally magnified after the arrival of COVID-19. In April 2020, one in four single parents was unemployed, and unemployment rates recovered more slowly for single parents throughout 2021, perhaps in part due to their unequal exposure to school and childcare closures. The expansion of income transfers largely buffered against potential increases in poverty and hardship, but levels of worrying among single parents continued to worsen throughout 2021.

The prevalence of food insufficiency among seniors in any given year is well-documented, but the prevalence of this hardship over a longer time period in later life is unknown. Using panel data from the Health and Retirement Study, I find that about 8% of seniors report food insufficiency over a two-year recall window, while 22% experience it at some point over the two decades of their sixties and seventies. Food insufficiency is not concentrated among a small group of persistently disadvantaged elderly, but is instead a surprisingly common feature of the later life course.