{"id":58004,"date":"2024-06-25T10:26:30","date_gmt":"2024-06-25T10:26:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=58004"},"modified":"2024-07-03T17:52:19","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T17:52:19","slug":"supplementation-dadih-pudding-as-a-probiotic-on-the-psychosocial-problems-of-children-with-covid-19-undergoing-isolation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol17no2\/supplementation-dadih-pudding-as-a-probiotic-on-the-psychosocial-problems-of-children-with-covid-19-undergoing-isolation\/","title":{"rendered":"Supplementation Dadih Pudding as a Probiotic on the Psychosocial Problems of Children with Covid-19 Undergoing Isolation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In<\/strong>troduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) became a world health problem in early 2020. Clinical manifestations include symptoms of acute respiratory disorders such as fever, cough and shortness of breath. Covid-19 is transmitted through droplets and direct contact with infectious secretions 1.<\/sup> The COVID-19 pandemic has spread so fast and has also changed the lifestyle of children and adolescents 2<\/sup>. To overcome\/prevent the transmission of this disease, WHO recommends that apart from wearing masks and washing hands, social isolation, limiting human movement, and quarantine are quite effective ways to reduce the spread of this disease 3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several studies have seen the impact of isolation and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic affecting all aspects of life habits 4<\/sup>, not only the physical part 5,6 <\/sup>but also aspects of psychological health 7<\/sup>. Specific stress during quarantine occurs due to fear of infection, frustration and boredom, confusion of information, loss of livelihood, and stigma 8<\/sup>. Previous research has found that quarantine in children causes the impact of physical and mental activities that contribute to the development of post-traumatic stress symptoms in children 9<\/sup>. Research in China affects psychological problems in panic disorder, anxiety, and depression 10<\/sup>. Clinging, inattention, and irritability are severe psychological problems 11<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most common symptom is difficulty in concentrating (76.6%), boredom (52%) ), restlessness (39%), nervousness (38%), feelings of loneliness (31.3%), uneasiness (30.4%), and worries (30.1%) 12<\/sup>. Systematic review studies in various countries get the prevalence of anxiety among adolescents ranged between 19% and 64%, depression between 22.3% and 43.7% 13<\/sup> . Among children 5-12 years old, the prevalence of anxiety varied between 19% and 78%, while depression was between 6.3% and 22.6% 13<\/sup>. Children aged 7-10 years found many emotional problems such as fewer conduct problems and hyperactivity than children aged (3\u20136 years) 14<\/sup> . In addition, social isolation can also cause a strong stressor. Research on experimental animals in social isolation found an increase in activation of the HPA axis and increased glucocorticoid and corticosterone levels 15<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two-thirds of the children and adolescents in Germany reported being highly burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic. They experienced significantly lower HRQoL (40.2% vs 15.3%), more mental health problems (17.8% vs 9.9%) and higher anxiety levels (24.1% vs 14.9%) than before the pandemic. Promotion and preventative interventions must be done to maintain children’s and adolescents’ mental health, improve HRQoL, and lessen the burden of COVID-19, particularly among the most vulnerable children 16<\/sup>. The potential effect of gut microbiota on psychiatric problems via the gut-brain axis has been extensively studied. However, the effectiveness of probiotic supplementation on psychiatric issues is still lacking. Studies give probiotics can reduce depressive symptoms significantly, but not all probiotics can cause psychobiotic effects on the central nervous system 17<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the traditional foods that are very good and readily available in West Sumatra and contain lots of probiotic Lactobacillus is Dadih 18<\/sup>. Dadiah has been studied to have good nutritional content for health, but the use of dadih as an additional food is still limited. The high digestibility of protein dadih (86.4 \u2013 97.8%) and contains amino acids makes dadih as a nutritious food that is easily absorbed by the body. Dadih has the following nutritional composition: protein content ranging from 7.58-8.92%, fat content ranging from 5.60-6.18%, water content ranging from 72.43-74.86%, and pH ranging from 5.1-5.4 19<\/sup>. Nutritional components of dadihper 100 grams are 160.62 Kal, protein  49.64 grams, fat 51.30 grams and carbohydrate 59.68 grams 20<\/sup>. The main advantage of the dadih pudding content is the presence of bacteria that have the potential as probiotic bacteria. The nutritional content of 100 grams of ingredients used in making dadih pudding is   347.98 mg of calcium, 4.87 mg of zinc, and 6.53 mg of iron. The content of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in dadih pudding is 6.4 \u00d7 10\u2079, 10\u2079 CFU\/ml 21<\/sup>. The study aimed to examine the effect of giving dadih pudding on psychosocial development in children with COVID-19  underwent isolation treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Material and methods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Design<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This research was quasi-experimental with a posttest only nonequivalent groups design.  In this design, participants in one group are exposed to a treatment, whereas individuals in a non-equivalent group are not, and the two groups are then compared.  This study was conducted on positive Covid-19 pediatric patients undergoing isolation treatment at the Padang City Covid-19 Quarantine Center from November 2020 to May 2021. Informed consent and primary data collection were carried out using a google form sent via WhatsApp to parents\/respondents, covering respondent characteristics, anthropometric measurements, eating patterns and psychosocial development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patients recruitment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study population consisted of all 5 to 18 year-old pediatric patients from COVID-19. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria, the number of samples was calculated. Total sampling techniques were used to collect the samples. The first group was the experimental group that received dadih pudding (n=23), whereas the control group was the group that only received pudding (n=20). The inclusion criteria include 1. agreeing to participate in the study, 2) Children aged 5-18 years positive for Covid-19 are undergoing isolation treatment, 3) not in a serious condition, 4). having normal nutritional status. The Exclution criteria include 1) overweight\/obese or malnourished) 2) and gastrointestinal disorders 3) Dadih consumption was insufficient for two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data collection<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subjects were divided into two  groups: children received only pudding dadih (intervention group), whereas another group received only pudding (control group). Dadih pudding will be provided with the intervention with  fruit flavours with a dose of 1 bottle (230 ml) per day with a nutritional value of 300 kcal of energy and 14 grams of protein, BAL as much as 2,4 x 109<\/sup> CFU\/gram. Dadih pudding will be given every day during the two weeks of intervention. After two weeks of providing the intervention, the final data collection will be carried out to assess the psychological impact of covid 19 with the instrument Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 (PSC-17). This instrument created by M. Jellinek & J. M. Murphy and has been translated into Indonesian in the form of a PSC-17 module 22<\/sup>. PSC-17 contains 17 questions grouped into three subscales: Internalization, externalization, and attention. The questionnaire records responses according to a modified Likert Scale (never=0 points, sometimes=1 points, and often=2 points; questions left unanswered or blank were scored zero. The final result of the entire questionnaire is to add up the scores of all items. There are disturbances behavioural, emotional and psychosocial if, he number of internalized subscale scores is 5, sum of externalized subscale scores 7, attention subscale score 7 or total score of 12 and above <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software package for windows. Sociodemographic variables (age gender and education of the participants) and psychosocial problems are shown in frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation. The effect of giving dadih pudding on psychosocial development was assessed using a independent t-test with a significant level if the p-value <0.05<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research ethics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Andalas University, number 147\/UN.16.2\/KEP-FK\/2020. Procedures and protocols have met the ethical standards following the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent signed by the subject’s parents. And also approval from the health office or local government. Participation is voluntary and may withdraw during the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results and Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1 shows more respondents in the 12-18 year age group ( 58.2%) than the under 12-year-old ( 41.8%). When viewed from gender, the most significant proportion is male ( 60.4%),  and in terms of education, respondents at the level of education at primary schools are more dominant (44.2%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Distribution of respondent characteristics according to individual variables<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

Characteristics <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Control group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Intervention group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

(%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Aged group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

< 12 year-old<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

44.4%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55.62%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41.8%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12- 18 year old<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

52%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

58.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Boys<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53.8%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60.4%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Girls<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39.6%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Education<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Playgroup\/primary school<\/p>\n

Yunior high school<\/p>\n

Senior high school<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47%<\/p>\n

57%<\/p>\n

30%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n

6<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53.5%<\/p>\n

43%<\/p>\n

70%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n

14<\/p>\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

44.2%<\/p>\n

32.6%<\/p>\n

23.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

The study was conducted for five months, and 43 research subjects met the predetermined criteria. They were then divided into the control group (20 people) and the intervention group (23 people). All study subjects were aged 5 to 18 years and consisted of males and females. The proportion of research subjects of the male sex is more than the female (Table 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In table 2, in the intervention group, all aspects of Internalization, attention and externalization (psychosocial problems) were higher in the percentage of never and rarely compared to the control group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: PSC-17 Questionnaire responses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 Item PSC-17<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Never (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sometimes (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Often (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Never (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sometimes   (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Often (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Internalization (I) score<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Feels sad, Unhappy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 (35.%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 (60.0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5.0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (31%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 (52.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (8.7%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Feel hopeless<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15 75%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (10%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 (15%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15 (65.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 (34.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Is down on self (Low self-confidence)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13 (65%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (30%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 (52.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (43.5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 ( 4.3%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Worries a lot<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (30%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13 (65%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (39.1%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (60.9%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 ( 0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

He seems to be having less fun.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 (35%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (10%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15 (65.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 (34.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 ( 0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Attention(A) score<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fidgety, unable to sit still<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 (20%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5 (25%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (60.7%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (39.3%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 ( 0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Daydreams too much<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 ( 85%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2(10%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 (73.9%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (26.1%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Has trouble concentrating<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (45%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 (35%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4 (20%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (47.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (47.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (4.3% )<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Acts as if driven by a motor<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (70%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5 (25%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22 (95.7%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 (4.3%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Distracted easily<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5 (25 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11(55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4(20%0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12 (52.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (47.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Externalizing Subscale ( E) score<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Refuses to share<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (70%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5 (25%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14 (60.9%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (39.1%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Does not understand other people’s feelings<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (30%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 (15%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13 (56.5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (43.5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Fights with other children<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 (8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15 (65.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8 (34.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Blames others for their troubles<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13 (65%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (30%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17 (73.9%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6 (26.1%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Does not listen to rules<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (50%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9 (45%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13 (56.8%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10 (43.2%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Teases others<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11 (55%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7 (35%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (10%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21 (91.3%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (8.7 %)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Takes things that do not belong to them<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16 (80%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3 (15%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 (5%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21 (91.3%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 (8.7%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 (0%)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Table 3: Aspects of psychosocial problems in control and intervention group<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Psychosocial problems<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Control group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>Intervention group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>P-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Internalization<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Externalizing<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 0 %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

41.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

59.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Attention<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0 %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total Score <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Yes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

87.5%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.01<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Table (3) shows that children given the dadih\npudding\/intervention group experienced lower psychosocial problems than those\nnot given the dadih pudding\/control group (12.5% vs 87.5%). The intervention\ngroup that did not share psychosocial issues was higher than the control group\n(62.9 % vs 37.1%). There is a significant relationship between the provision of\ndadih pudding supplementation with psychosocial problems, p <0.05. This\nrelationship is not seen in each aspect of Internalization, externalization,\nand attention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: Comparison of psychosocial problems between control and intervention group<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 psychosocial problems<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Control group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Intervention group<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

P-value<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SD<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Internalization<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.03<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Externalizing<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Attention<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total Score <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 5.72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.30 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n

Based on table 4, there is a significantly\ndifferent mean internalization between the control and intervention groups,\n2.80\u00b1 2.16\nvs 1.65 \u00b1 1.11\nwith p<0.05. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthis study, the total PSC-17 score of the intervention group was 6.30 \u00b1 3.45.\nChildren given dadih pudding (intervention group) had lower psychosocial\nproblems than those not given the dadih pudding \/control group (12.5% vs\n87.5%); otherwise, the control group had more significant psychosocial problems\n62.9% than the intervention group 37.1%. Based on the average psychosocial\nproblem, there was a significant difference in the aspect of Internalization\nbetween the control and intervention groups (2.80 \u00b1 2.16 vs 1.65 \u00b1 1.11 with\np<0.05). In the intervention group, almost all children never or rarely face\ninternalization disorders such as anxiety, feeling hopeless, low\nself-confidence, worry a lot and having less fun. In contrast, in the control\ngroup, there are still children  often\nexperience psychosocial problems such as feeling hopeless (15%) and having less\nfun 10%. Internalizing symptoms include emotional and peer problems, such as\nanxiety, depression and social withdrawal, while externalizing symptoms are\ncharacterized by behavioural problems, such as anger, aggression, and\nhyperactivity 23<\/sup>. Children respond to stress differently, depending\non the stage of development 24<\/sup>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngut microbiota can influence the CNS via the gut-brain axis. This theory founds\nthe relationship between stress, mood and gastrointestinal disease 25<\/sup>.\nUsing probiotics to modulate the microbiota-gut-brain axis (MGBA) has\nbeen investigated and positively impacted preclinical and clinical studies 26<\/sup>.\nResearch has found that Lactobacillus <\/em>species as probiotics are\nbeneficial in reducing stress levels and increasing immunity 27<\/sup>. The\nrole of probiotics in preventing depression and anxiety and mental health\nthrough gut microbiota balance pathways 25<\/sup>. A double-blind,\nplacebo-controlled, randomized study of probiotics (B. longum R0175<\/em> and L.\nhelveticus R0052<\/em>) may affect levels of anger and depression in healthy\nhumans 28<\/sup>. Other studies have found the effect of probiotics as\nanxiolytic and antidepressant 29<\/sup>. The probiotic dietary supplement\nstudied had a significant effect on stress management by enhancing sleep\nquality and mood 30.<\/sup> Probiotic lactobacilus consumption improved cognitive performance as\nwell as three mood subscales (Confusion-Bewilderment, Anger-Hostility, and\nDepression-Dejection 31<\/sup>. Probiotics appear to be promise for\ntreating depression and anxiety symptoms, especially given their\nanti-inflammatory properties 32<\/sup>. Milk fermentation using lactic acid\nbacteria from Dadih, particularly Lactiplantibacillus pentosus, demonstrated\nantioxidant activity ranging from 25.04 to 37.71% and total phenols 38.32-67.20\nmg GAE\/gr 33<\/sup>. But other studies also get different results. In a clinical trial\nstudy, it was found that there was no significant difference between the moods\nof the group given probiotics and the control group. But there was an\nimprovement in mood in the depressed group compared to the healthy group 34<\/sup>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the factors that most influence gut\nmicrobiota composition is diet 35<\/sup>. Variations in microbiota\ncomposition are associated with alterations in the normal functioning of the\nnervous system 36<\/sup>. The concept of the microbiota-brain axis\nconcludes that modulation of the gut microbiota in the form of probiotic\nsupplementation can be used as a therapeutic target and as a preventive measure\nfor mood and anxiety disorders 37<\/sup>. Through the microbiota-gut-brain\naxis mechanism, dadih pudding as probiotics can be used to overcome anxiety\nproblems. Although there are still many differences in clinical trials, it is\nhoped that the administration of probiotics can be used as an effort in the\ntreatment of anxiety problems and other psychiatric disorders 38<\/sup>.\nFurther research needs to be done with more samples and longer administration\ntime because the differences in these studies may be due to differences in\ndosage, strains of probiotic bacteria and research design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dadih pudding supplementation can significantly\nreduce the score of PSC-17 among children or adolescents during quarantine\nCOVID-19, significantly reducing worry and distraction. This dadih pudding as probiotic supplementation can alter the\nmicrobiota in children with psychosocial issues via the microbiota-gut-brain\naxis. It is envisaged that in the future, the usage of probiotic dadih, a local\nprobiotic from West Sumatra, can be developed to overcome psychosocial\ndifficulties. Although not all psychological aspects provide statistically\nsignificant results, this may be related to the short number and duration of\nthe studies, as well as the clinical diversity of the population. This\nprobiotic can be utilized as an alternate supplement to assist isolated\npopulation groups in overcoming psychosocial difficulties. Creating food\ncontaining probiotic bacteria is an exciting possibility for food science\nresearch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgements<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  The authors would like to thank \u201cLembaga\nPenelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat\u201d<\/em>, Universitas Andalas, for their grant\nresearch Contract No T\/11\/UN.16.17\/PT.01.03-KO-RT\/2020. Restu Sakinah,\nYasira Rusdi, and Yani Anggina provided dadih pudding in the nutrition\nlaboratory and all participants in this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding Source<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study was supported through a grant from Universitas Andalas for their grant research Contract No T\/11\/UN.16.17\/PT.01.03-KO-RT\/2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Jacob L, Tully M. A, Barnett Y, Lopez-Sanchez G.F, Butler L, Schuch F, et al. The relationship between physical activity and mental health in a sample of the UK public: A cross-sectional study during the implementation of COVID-19 social distancing measures. Ment Health Phys Act, 19:100345(2020).
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  2. Chtourou H, Trabelsi K, H’mida C, Boukhris O, Glenn J. M, Brach M, et al. Staying Physically Active During the Quarantine and Self-Isolation Period Controlling and Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Overview of the Literature. Front Psychol, 11:1708 (2020).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). Recommendations regarding the use of masks in the context of COVID-19 [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2020. Available from: https:\/\/www.who.int\/docs\/default-source\/searo\/indonesia\/covid19<\/li>
  4. Ferrante G, Camussi E, Piccinelli C, Senore C, Armaroli P, Ortale A, et al. Did social isolation during the SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic have an impact on the lifestyles of citizens?. Epidemiol Prev, 44; 5-6 (2020). <\/li>
  5. Saulle R, Minozzi S, Amato L, Davoli M. Impact of social distancing for covid-19 on youths\u2019 physical health: a systematic review of the literature. Recent Prog Med, 112(5): 347-359 (2021). <\/li>
  6. Chiesa V, Antony G, Wismar M, Rechel B. COVID-19 pandemic: the health impact of staying at home, social distancing and “lockdown” measures-a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Public Health (Oxf), 43(3):e462-e481 (2021).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  7. Ara\u00fajo L. A , Veloso C. F, Souza M. C, Azevedo J. M. C , Tarro G. The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child growth and development: a systematic review. J Pediatr (Rio J), 97(4): 369-377 (2021).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  8. Brooks S. K, Webster R. K, Smith L. E, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet,  395(10227): 912-920 (2020).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  9. Demaria F, Vicari S. COVID-19 quarantine: Psychological impact and support for children and parents. Ital J Pediatr, 47(1):58 (2021).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  10. Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 Epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatr, 33(2): e100213 (2020).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  11. Jiao W. Y, Wang L. N, Liu J, Fang S. F, Jiao F. Y, Pettoello-Mantovani M, et al. Behavioral and Emotional Disorders in Children during the COVID-19 Epidemic. J Pediatr,  221:264-266.e1 (2020).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  12. Orgil\u00e9s M, Morales A, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C and Espada J. P. Immediate Psychological Effects of the COVID-19 Quarantine in Youth From Italy and Spain. Front Psycho, 11:579038 (2020)
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  13. Minozzi S, Saulle R, Amato L, Davoli M. Impact of social distancing for covid-19 on young people: type and quality of the studies found through a systematic review of the literature. Recent Prog Med, 112(5):360-370 (2021). <\/li>
  14. Christner N, Essler S, Hazzam A and Paulus M. Children\u2019s psychological well-being and problem behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online study during the lockdown period in Germany.  PLoS One, 16(6): e0253473 (2021).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  15. Weiss I. C, Pryce C. R, Jongen-R\u00ealo A. L, Nanz-Bahr N. I and Feldon J. Effect of social isolation on stress-related behavioural and neuroendocrine state in the rat. Behav Brain Res, 152(2):279-95 (2004).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  16. Ravens-Sieberer U, Kaman A, Erhart M, Devine J, Schlack R and Otto C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents in Germany. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 25:1\u201311 (2021).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  17. Zag\u00f3rska A, Marcinkowska M, Jamrozik M, Wi\u015bniowska B and Pa\u015bko P. From probiotics to psychobiotics – the gut-brain axis in psychiatric disorders. Benef Microbes, 11(8):717-732 (2020).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  18. Susmiati S, Melia S, Purwati E, Alzahra H. (2022). Physicochemical and microbiological fermented buffalo milk produced by probiotic Lactiplantibacillus pentosus HBUAS53657 and sweet orange juice (Citrus nobilis). Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 23(8)
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  19. Alzahra, H., & Melia, S. (2021, November). Nutrient analysis of dadih from Lintau Regency, West Sumatra, Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science<\/em> (Vol. 888, No. 1, p. 012041). IOP Publishing.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  20. Helmizar H, Yuswita E, Putra AE. Analysis of the Nutrients and Microbiological Characteristics of the Indonesian Dadih As a Food Supplementation. Glob J Health Sci, 11(1):155 (2018).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  21. Taufiqa Z, Chandra D. N, Helmizar H, Lipoeto N. I and Hegar B. Micronutrient Content and Total Lactic Acid Bacteria of Dadiah Pudding as Food Supplementation for Pregnant Women. Open Access Maced J Med Sci, 9(B):1149\u201355 ( 2021). 
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  22. Irwanto and Melani N. Modul Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 (PSC-17). Universitas Airlangga HKI EC00201932934 (2019).<\/li>
  23. Achenbach T. M, Ivanova M. Y, Rescorla L. A, Turner L. V and Althoff R. R. Internalizing\/Externalizing Problems: Review and Recommendations for Clinical and Research Applications. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 55:647\u201356 (2016).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  24. Marques de Miranda D, da Silva Athanasio B, Sena Oliveira A. C and Simoes-E-Silva A. C. How is COVID-19 pandemic impacting the mental health of children and adolescents? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 51:101845 (2020).  
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  25. Clapp M, Aurora N, Herrera L, Bhatia M, Wilen E and Wakefield S. Gut microbiota\u2019s effect on mental health: The gut-brain axis. Clin Pract, 7(4):987 ( 2017).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  26. Johnson D, Thurairajasingam S, Letchumanan V, Chan K. G and Lee L. H. Exploring the Role and Potential of Probiotics in the Field of Mental Health: Major Depressive Disorder. Nutrients, 13(5):1728 (2021).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  27. Mindus C, Ellis J, van Staaveren N, Harlander-Matauschek A. Lactobacillus-Based Probiotics Reduce the Adverse Effects of Stress in Rodents: A Meta-analysis. Front Behav Neurosci, 15:642757 (2021).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  28. Messaoudi M, Violle N, Bisson J-F, Desor D, Javelot H, Rougeot C. Beneficial psychological effects of a probiotic formulation ( Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175) in healthy human volunteers. Gut Microbes,  2(4): 256 – 61 (2011) .
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  29. Liu R. T, Walsh R. F. L and Sheehan A. E. Prebiotics and probiotics for depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 102:13-23 (2019).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  30. Vitellio P, Chira A, De Angelis M, Dumitrascu DL, Portincasa P. Probiotics in Psychosocial Stress and Anxiety. A Systematic Review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2020 Mar 13;29(1):77-83. doi: 10.15403\/jgld-352. PMID: 32176751.Nobile, V., & Puoci, F. (2023). Effect of a Multi-Strain Probiotic Supplementation to Manage Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Clinical Trial. Neuropsychobiology<\/em>, 82<\/em>(2), 61-71.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  31. \u00d6nning G, Montelius C, Hillman M, Larsson N. Intake of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum<\/em> HEAL9 Improves Cognition in Moderately Stressed Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Study. Nutrients<\/em>. 2023; 15(15):3466. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/nu15153466
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  32. Minayo MS, Miranda I, Telhado RS. A systematic review of the effects of probiotics on depression and anxiety: an alternative therapy? Cien Saude Colet. 2021 Sep;26(9):4087-4099. Portuguese, English. doi: 10.1590\/1413-81232021269.21342020. Epub 2020 Jun 28. PMID: 34586262.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  33. Alzahra, H., Susmiati, S., & Melia, S. (2022). Evaluation of Lactiplantibacillus pentosus probiotic fermented buffalo milk with citrus juice. Adv Anim Vet Sci<\/em>, 10<\/em>(10).
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  34. Ng Q. X, Peters C, Ho C. Y. X, Lim D. Y and Yeo W.S. A meta-analysis of the use of probiotics to alleviate depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord,  228:13-19(2018).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  35. Azad M. A. K, Sarker M, Li T and Yin J. Probiotic Species in the Modulation of Gut Microbiota: An Overview. Biomed Res Int, 18:9478630 ( 2018).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  36. Forsythe P, Sudo N, Dinan T, Taylor V. H and Bienenstock J. Mood and gut feelings. Brain Behav Immun, 24(1):9-16 (2010).
     CrossRef <\/a> <\/li>
  37. Slyepchenko A, Carvalho A. F, Cha D. S, Kasper S and McIntyre R. S. Gut emotions – mechanisms of action of probiotics as novel therapeutic targets for depression and anxiety disorders. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets, 13(10):1770-86 ( 2014).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  38. Lee Y and Kim Y. K. Understanding the Connection Between the Gut-Brain Axis and Stress\/Anxiety Disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep, 23(5):22 (2021).
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) became a world health problem […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[115],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol17no2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58004"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58004\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59671,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58004\/revisions\/59671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}