RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in psychological distress in the general population, but contrasting results have been shown regarding its impact on psychological symptoms in clinical and non-clinical samples. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to compare in a longitudinal design (September-November 2020 and February-April 2021) the mental health outcomes of a clinical and a control sample and to determine the implications of various risk and protective factors in this regard. A total of 234 participants from the general population and 80 psychiatric patients took part in the present online study using the following measurements: the Brief Symptom Checklist (BSCL); Three-Item Loneliness Scale (TILS); Resilience Scale-13 (RS-13); and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale-Non-Illness (FACIT-Sp Non-Illness). The results show an overall decrease in active suicidal ideation as well as "peace", a subscale of spiritual well-being, as well as increases in passive suicidal activation in the clinical sample, which did not change in the control sample. Psychological symptoms did not significantly change in either group. Significant group effects show an increase in resilience in the clinical sample. Resilience and peace turned out to be protective factors for negative mental health outcomes. However, loneliness, which interestingly increased only in the control sample, was shown to be an overall potential risk factor. Our results highlight the complex implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health outcomes of different groups in the population, demonstrating the necessity of further research, specifically regarding the risk of active and passive suicidal activation. Highlighted protective factors are discussed in regards to spirituality (i.e., peace), which is not strictly related to religion but rather personal spirituality related to the meaning of situations of one's life, as well as in terms of mental health interventions.
RESUMEN
Background: Over the past years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruptions in daily routines. Although the pandemic has affected almost everyone, it has been particularly challenging for people with pre-existing mental health conditions. Therefore, this study investigated the long-term impact of resilience and extraversion on psychological distress in individuals diagnosed with mental health disorders (MHD) compared to the general population. In addition, possible gender-specific differences were investigated. Methods: 123 patients with pre-existing MHD and 343 control subjects from Austria and Italy participated in three online surveys that had been conducted after the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (t0), during the second lockdown in both countries (t1), and one year thereafter (t2). Participants completed standardized questionnaires on psychological distress (Brief-Symptom-Checklist), resilience (Resilience Scale), and extraversion (Big Five Inventory). A mediation model was employed to test the primary hypothesis. Possible gender-specific differences were analyzed using a moderated mediation model. Results: The prevalence of psychological distress was consistently higher in patients compared to controls (t0: 37.3% vs. 13.2%, t1: 38.2% vs 11.7%, t2: 37.4% vs. 13.1%). This between-group difference in psychological distress at the first follow-up was fully mediated by baseline resilience scores (65.4% of the total effect). During the second-follow up, extraversion accounted for 18% of the total effect, whereas resilience slightly decreased to 56% of the total effect. Gender was not a significant moderator in the model. Conclusion: Next to showing that people with MHD were particularly affected by the pandemic, these findings indicate that higher degrees of resilience and extraversion are related to less long-term psychological distress. Our findings stress the relevance of strengthening resilience and extraversion and to provide mental health support in times of crises, both to patients with MHD and the general population.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and related measures have negatively impacted mental health worldwide. The main objective of the present longitudinal study was to investigate mental health in people living in Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) during the COVID-19 pandemic and to report the prevalence of psychological distress among individuals with versus those without pre-existing mental health disorders (MHD) in the long-term (summer 2020-winter 2022). Here, we specifically focus on the relevance of spirituality and perceived social support in this regard. METHODS: 161 individuals who had been diagnosed with MHD and 446 reference subjects participated in this online survey. Electronic data capture was conducted using the Computer-based Health Evaluation System and included both sociodemographic and clinical aspects as well as standardized questionnaires on psychological distress, spirituality, and the perception of social support. RESULTS: The prevalence of psychological distress was significantly higher in individuals with MHD (36.6% vs. 12.3%) and remained unchanged among both groups over time. At baseline, the perception of social support was significantly higher in healthy control subjects, whereas the two groups were comparable in regards of the subjective relevance of faith. Reference subjects indicated significantly higher spiritual well-being in terms of the sense of meaning in life and peacefulness, which mediated in large part the between-group difference of psychological distress at follow-up. Notably, both faith and the perception of social support did not prove to be relevant in this context. CONCLUSIONS: These findings point to a consistently high prevalence of psychological distress among people suffering from MHD and underscore the prominent role of meaning in life and peacefulness as a protective factor in times of crisis. Therapeutic strategies that specifically target spirituality may have a beneficial impact on mental health.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Next to an increased use of alcohol, the current pandemic has been associated with increased psychological distress among the general population. Research on its effects on individuals suffering from substance use disorders (SUD) is scarce. This study aimed at expanding the existing literature on this topic with a focus on the impact of loneliness and perceived social support. Methods: Sixty-eight people diagnosed with SUD according to ICD-10 from the Austrian state of Tyrol and from the Italian Province of South Tyrol who had been treated in a psychiatric hospital in 2019 and one hundred and thirty-six matched reference subjects of the same regional background participated in an online survey. Sociodemographic variables and scores on the Brief Symptom Checklist, the Three-Item Loneliness Scale, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support were collected at baseline and 5 months thereafter. Baseline took place after the first wave, while follow-up largely coincided with the second wave of the pandemic. Results: Among both patients and the matched reference group, substance use as a means to feel better facing the pandemic rose and predicted higher levels of psychological distress. Patients were less likely to receive specific care at follow-up than at baseline and presented with a significantly higher prevalence of clinically relevant psychological distress and loneliness than the matched reference group at both assessment times. Among both groups, psychological burden remained unchanged over time. Perceived social support was generally significantly higher in the matched reference group than in patients. Loneliness and, to a lesser degree, low perceived social support predicted psychological distress. Conclusion: These findings emphasize the need of preventive and educational measures regarding substance use behavior for both individuals suffering from SUD and those without mental health disorders.
RESUMEN
Research on the long-term mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across mental disorders is limited, and information on the impact of public health policy measures with varying strictness is missing. This study therefore aimed at investigating psychological distress among residents of Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) at the early stages of the pandemic and 5 months thereafter and examined how sociodemographic, protective, and risk factors relate to change over time. One hundred and fifteen people with severe mental illness (SMI; schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder with psychotic features) or major depressive disorder without psychotic features (MDD) and 481 community controls without mental disorders participated in an online survey. Next to the collection of sociodemographic and COVID-19 related variables, the Brief Symptom Checklist, the Resilience Scale, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, the Three-Item Loneliness Scale, and the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale-Short Form were used to assess psychological distress, resilience, perceived social support, loneliness, and boredom. Levels of psychological symptoms and the prevalence of psychological distress were significantly higher in individuals with MDD compared to the other two groups, and Italian participants were more prone to anxiety than those from Austria. Psychological distress was predicted by a lower degree of both resilience and perceived social support as well as loneliness and boredom. Notably, the prevalence of clinically relevant psychological symptoms remained unchanged among each group over time. These results underscore the relevance of tailored prevention and mitigation strategies to meet the specific needs of people both with and without mental disorders.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the satisfaction with emergency interventions among severely mentally ill (SMI) service users of a community-based and a hospital-based mental health service (South-Verona, Italy and Nunhead, South-London, UK). METHODS: A measurement of the satisfaction with psychiatric emergency services was conducted among all those users in the two catchment areas who, in a 1-year period: (1) had at least two contacts with the service; (2) had a diagnosis of psychosis according to ICD10; (3) had not been living in hospital or sheltered apartment for most of the time. These users completed seven items belonging to the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale (VSSS) regarding their satisfaction with crisis response during and out of office hours and their satisfaction with the different interventions, which may be provided during emergencies, such as consultation for the user, consultation for the relative, day-centre attendance, informal and compulsory admission. RESULTS: Users in South-Verona were generally more satisfied with emergency interventions. The main differences between the two samples were due to contacts outside the hospital setting, whilst satisfaction scores for informal admission were similar. The number of users who did not receive, but would have liked, different types of emergency intervention was smaller in South-Verona than in Nunhead. In South-Verona, users wishes mainly concerned consultation for the relatives during emergencies; in the Nunhead sample, the most requested types of intervention were consultation for the user and the possibility of day-centre attendance during crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that users of a service with a well developed community-oriented approach and with crisis intervention outside the hospital setting are more satisfied of the emergency interventions than users of a mental health service relying mostly on hospital facilities during emergencies.
