Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental (English Edition)最新文献

Introduction

After the outbreak of the COVID-19 was considered a global pandemic in March 2020, the state of alarm was declared in Spain. In this situation, health professionals are experiencing high levels of stress due to the overload of work the pandemic is generating and the conditions in which they are working. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors that can destabilize the mental health of these professionals in our context.

Materials and Methods

The sample was composed of 421 health professionals. The data were gathered by an online questionnaire sent to them by e-mail. The DASS-21 was used to assess anxiety, stress and depression, and the EAI to measure sleep difficulties. In addition, other descriptive variables that could be related to psychological symptomatology were collected from the sample.

Results

The results show that the COVID-19 pandemic has generated symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression and insomnia among health workers, with higher levels among women and older professionals. Some factors such as having been in contact with the virus or fear at work, triggered greater symptomatology.

Conclusions

In this critical situation, professionals are in the front line and therefore, are directly exposed to certain risks and stressors. This contributes to the development of diverse psychological symptoms. Consequently, it is recommended to offer them psychological help in order to reduce the emotional impact of the COVID-19, and thus, to ensure not only the mental health of our health professionals, but also the adequate care they provide.

Introduction

Healthcare workers are vulnerable to adverse mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed prevalence of mental disorders and associated factors during the first wave of the pandemic among healthcare professionals in Spain.

Methods

All workers in 18 healthcare institutions (6 AACC) in Spain were invited to web-based surveys assessing individual characteristics, COVID-19 infection status and exposure, and mental health status (May 5 – September 7, 2020). We report: probable current mental disorders (Major Depressive Disorder-MDD- [PHQ-8≥10], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-GAD- [GAD-7≥10], Panic attacks, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder –PTSD- [PCL-5≥7]; and Substance Use Disorder –SUD-[CAGE-AID≥2]. Severe disability assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale was used to identify probable “disabling” current mental disorders.

Results

9,138 healthcare workers participated. Prevalence of screen-positive disorder: 28.1% MDD; 22.5% GAD, 24.0% Panic; 22.2% PTSD; and 6.2% SUD. Overall 45.7% presented any current and 14.5% any disabling current mental disorder. Workers with pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders had almost twice the prevalence than those without. Adjusting for all other variables, odds of any disabling mental disorder were: prior lifetime disorders (TUS: OR=5.74; 95%CI 2.53-13.03; Mood: OR=3.23; 95%CI:2.27-4.60; Anxiety: OR=3.03; 95%CI:2.53-3.62); age category 18-29 years (OR=1.36; 95%CI:1.02-1.82), caring “all of the time” for COVID-19 patients (OR=5.19; 95%CI: 3.61-7.46), female gender (OR=1.58; 95%CI: 1.27-1.96) and having being in quarantine or isolated (OR= 1.60; 95CI:1.31-1.95).

Conclusions

One in seven Spanish healthcare workers screened positive for a disabling mental disorder during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers reporting pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders, those frequently exposed to COVID-19 patients, infected or quarantined/isolated, female workers, and auxiliary nurses should be considered groups in need of mental health monitoring and support.

Introduction

Intensive treatment in acute day-care psychiatric units may represent an efficient alternative to inpatient care. However, there is evidence suggesting that this clinical resource may not be equally effective for every psychiatric disorder.

The primary aim of this study was to explore differences between main psychiatric diagnostic groups, in the effectiveness of an acute partial hospitalization program. And, to identify predictors of treatment response.

Material and methods

The study was conducted at an acute psychiatric day hospital. Clinical severity was assessed using BPRS, CGI, and the HoNOS scales. Main socio-demographic variables were also recorded. Patients were clustered into 4 wide diagnostic groups (i.e.: non-affective psychosis; bipolar; depressive; and personality disorders) to facilitate statistical analyses.

Results

A total of 331 participants were recruited, 115 of whom (34.7%) were diagnosed with non-affective psychosis, 97 (28.3%) with bipolar disorder, 92 (27.8%) with affective disorder, and 27 (8.2%) with personality disorder. Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder showed greater improvement in BPRS (F = 5.30; P = 0.001) and CGI (F = 8.78; P < 0.001) than those suffering from psychosis or depressive disorder. Longer length of stay in the day-hospital, and greater baseline BPRS severity, were identified as predictors of good clinical response. Thirty-day readmission rate was 3%; at long-term (6 months after discharge) only 11.8% (N = 39) of patients were re-admitted to a psychiatric hospitalization unit, and no differences were observed between diagnostic groups.

Conclusions

Intensive care in an acute psychiatric day hospital is feasible and effective for patients suffering from an acute mental disorder. However, this effectiveness differs between diagnostic groups.

Introduction

Healthy lifestyles are relevant to several diseases and to maintain individuals’ mental health. Exposure to epidemics and confinement have been consistently associated with psychological consequences, but changes on lifestyle behaviours remain under-researched.

Materials and Methods

An online survey was conducted among the general population living in Spain during the COVID-19 home-isolation. In addition to demographic and clinical data, participants self-reported changes in seven lifestyle domains. The Short Multidimensional Inventory Lifestyle Evaluation was developed specifically to evaluate changes during the confinement (SMILE-C).

Results

A total of 1254 individuals completed the survey over the first week of data collection. The internal consistency of the SMILE-C to assess lifestyles during confinement was shown (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.747). Most participants reported substantial changes on outdoor time (93.6%) and physical activity (70.2%). Moreover, about one third of subjects reported significant changes on stress management, social support, and restorative sleep. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated to lifestyle scores. In the multivariate model, those independently associated with a healthier lifestyle included substantial changes on stress management (p < 0.001), social support (p = 0.001) and outdoor time (p < 0.001), amongst others. In contrast, being an essential worker (p = 0.001), worse self-rated health (p < 0.001), a positive screening for depression/anxiety (p < 0.001), and substantial changes on diet/nutrition (p < 0.001) and sleep (p < 0.001) were all associated with poorer lifestyles.

Conclusions

In this study, sizable proportions of participants reported meaningful changes in lifestyle behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Moreover, the SMILE-C was sensitive to detect these changes and presented good initial psychometric properties. Further follow-up studies should collect relevant data to promote healthy lifestyles in pandemic times.

Objective

We investigated the presence of cognitive biases in people with a recent-onset psychosis (ROP), schizophrenia and healthy adolescents and explored potential associations between these biases and psychopathology.

Methods

Three groups were studied: schizophrenia (N = 63), ROP (N = 43) and healthy adolescents (N = 45). Cognitive biases were assessed with the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ). Positive, negative and depressive symptoms were assessed with the PANSS and Calgary Depression Scale (ROP; schizophrenia) and with the CAPE-42 (healthy adolescents). Cannabis use was registered. The association between CBQ and psychopathology scales was tested with multiple linear regression analyses.

Results

People with schizophrenia reported more cognitive biases (46.1 ± 9.0) than ROP (40 ± 5.9), without statistically significant differences when compared to healthy adolescents (43.7 ± 7.3). Cognitive biases were significantly associated with positive symptoms in both healthy adolescents (Standardized β = 0.365, p = 0.018) and people with psychotic disorders (β = 0.258, p = 0.011). Cognitive biases were significantly associated with depressive symptoms in healthy adolescents (β = 0.359, p = 0.019) but in patients with psychotic disorders a significant interaction between schizophrenia diagnosis and CBQ was found (β = 1.804, p = 0.011), which suggests that the pattern differs between ROP and schizophrenia groups (positive association only found in the schizophrenia group). Concerning CBQ domains, jumping to conclusions was associated with positive and depressive symptoms in people with schizophrenia and with cannabis use in ROP individuals. Dichotomous thinking was associated with positive and depressive symptoms in all groups.

Conclusions

Cognitive biases contribute to the expression of positive and depressive symptoms in both people with psychotic disorders and healthy individuals.

Introduction

Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to being satisfied with one's life, having positive affect and having little negative affect. We may understand it as a subjective definition of good life, or in colloquial terms “happiness”, and it has been associated with several important benefits such as lower mortality. In the last decades, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the efficacy of several interventions in increasing SWB in the general population but results from different disciplines have not been integrated.

Methods

We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCT that assess the efficacy of any kind of interventions in increasing SWB in the general population, including both positive psychology interventions (PPI) and other interventions. We (re)calculated the meta-analytic statistics needed to objectively assess the quality of the evidence of the efficacy of each type of intervention in improving each component of SWB according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

There was moderate-quality evidence that PPI might induce small decreases of negative affect, and low-quality evidence that they might induce moderate increases of positive affect. We found similar results for those PPI specifically consisting in conducting acts of kindness (especially spending money on or giving items to others), for which there was low-quality evidence that they might induces small increases of life satisfaction, but not for PPI specifically consisting in practicing gratitude. Quality of the evidence of the efficacy for the other interventions included in the umbrella review (yoga, resilience training, physical activity, leisure, control enhancement, psychoeducation, and miscellaneous) was very low.

Conclusion

There is some evidence that PPI, and specially conducting acts of kindness such as spending money on others, may increase the SWB of the general population. The quality of the evidence of the efficacy for other interventions (e.g., yoga, physical activity, or leisure) is still very low.

Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020111681.