The mediating effect of resilience between work fatigue and psychological distress among healthcare workers in Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Serbia, and Tunisia.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that resilience has a mediating effect on the association between work fatigue and psychological distress. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted online in eight countries in 2021: Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Serbia, and Tunisia. A total of 1094 healthcare professionals specialized in medicine, pharmacy, and nurse practitioners that were exposed to/worked with COVID-19 patients were included (age: 33.89 ± 10.79 years; 59.6% females). RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders (i.e., country, gender, primary work in emergency department, primary work in infectious disease, primary work in intensive care unit, working in a COVID-19 ward, and working voluntary hours), the results of the mediation analysis showed that resilience fully mediated the association between physical work fatigue and psychological distress and partially mediated the associations between mental and emotional work fatigue and psychological distress. Higher work fatigue was significantly associated with less resilience; higher resilience was significantly associated with less psychological distress. Finally, higher mental and emotional, but not physical, work fatigue, were directly and significantly associated with more psychological distress. CONCLUSION: Identifying resilience as an important mediator in the path from fatigue to distress helps elucidate underlying mechanisms and pathways leading to the mental health-alteration process among healthcare workers during COVID-19. New strategies targeting resilience may be developed to further improve mental health outcomes among healthcare workers.

Ultra-high risk for psychosis stigma: an updated Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify if stigma associated with schizophrenia has also been directed towards the ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR) population, the present review aimed at synthetizing the existing literature to update and extend our understanding on the topic. METHODS: A systematic PRISMA-compliant review was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science for articles published until 30/04/2023, using a combination of search terms describing the at-risk mental states for psychosis and stigma and correlated terms. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included. Twenty-nine addressed UHR individuals directly, and 9 conducted interviews with non-patients regarding UHR. A total of 2560 UHR individuals were assessed; mean sample size was of 88.3 participants. Most of the studies were quantitative non-randomized/observational with young adults, 71.4% used SIPS (Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes) and 25.0% used CAARMS (Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States). Overall, the summarized studies have mainly involved individuals already attending UHR clinics from Western and high income countries. Studies can be grouped into five forms of stigma, among which the most frequently explored was perceived public stigma, followed by public stigma, self-stigma/internalized stigma, stigma stress and associative stigma. The main study design was quantitative nonrandomized, with only one interventional study. Most of the results confirmed the presence of stigma toward UHR individuals and findings provide additional support to the fact that stigma seems to be present since the very early stages of the disease. CONCLUSION: There is still a paucity of research and knowledge gaps about UHR-related stigma. Nevertheless, results suggest the presence of stigma toward UHR individuals, supporting the fact that stigma is present since the early stages of psychosis.

Cannabis use influences disorganized symptoms severity but not transition in a cohort of non-help-seeking individuals at-risk for psychosis from São Paulo, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing a psychotic disorder. However, in individuals with at-risk mental states for psychosis (ARMS) this association is not clear, as well as the impact of cannabis use on symptom severity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of cannabis use patterns and ARMS risk status, transition to psychotic and psychiatric disorders, and psychopathology. METHOD: A sample of 109 ARMS and 197 control individuals was drawn from the general population. Lifetime, maximum and current amount of cannabis use were assessed with the South Westminster modified questionnaire. Participants were followed-up for a mean of 2.5 years and reassessed for transition to any psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: There were no differences between ARMS and controls regarding lifetime use, current amount of use, or maximum amount of cannabis use. There were also no differences between those who transitioned to a psychiatric disorder and those who did not regarding cannabis use variables. In ARMS individuals, cannabis use was significantly related to disorganization symptoms. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that cannabis plays a role in the psychopathology of ARMS individuals, leading to more severe symptomatology.

Stigma of ultra-high risk for psychosis: an updated systematic review

Objective: To determine whether the stigma associated with schizophrenia has also been directed towards people at ultra-high risk of psychosis (UHR), the present review aimed to synthetize the literature to update and extend our understanding of this topic. Methods: A systematic review compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for articles published until April 30, 2023, using a combination of search terms describing at-risk mental states for psychosis, stigma, and related terms. Results: Thirty-eight studies were included. Twenty-nine addressed individuals with UHR directly, and nine conducted interviews with non-patients regarding UHR. A total of 2,560 individuals with UHR were assessed, with a mean sample size of 88.3 participants. Most were quantitative non-randomized/observational studies with young adults, 71.4% used the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes, and 25% used the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States. Overall, the studies mainly involved patients of UHR clinics from high-income Western countries. The described stigma can be grouped into five forms, the most frequently explored of which was perceived public stigma, followed by public stigma, self-stigma/internalized stigma, stigma stress, and associative stigma. Quantitative nonrandomized studies predominated: only one was an interventional study. Most of the results confirmed the presence of stigma toward individuals with UHR. Conclusion: Despite the knowledge gaps and scarcity of research on UHR-related stigma, the results suggest that stigma toward people with UHR exists and that it is already present at early stages of psychosis. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022332037.

Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries.

Background: The clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm is one of the best studied preventive paradigms in psychiatry. However, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries. It is unclear if knowledge from such countries applies to low and middle-income countries (LAMIC), and if there are specific limitations hindering CHR research there. Our aim is to systematically review studies on CHR from LAMIC. Methods: A multistep PRISMA-compliant literature search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science for articles published until 1/03/2022, conducted in LAMIC, addressing the concept and correlates of CHR. Study characteristics as well as limitations were reported. Corresponding authors of the included studies were invited to answer an online poll. Quality assessment was done with the MMAT. Results: A total of 109 studies were included in the review: none from low-income countries, 8 from lower middle-income countries, and 101 from upper middle-income countries. The most frequent limitations were small sample size (47.9%), cross-sectional design (27.1%), and follow-up issues (20.8%). Mean quality of included studies was of 4.4. Out of the 43 corresponding authors, 12 (27.9%) completed the online poll. They cited further limitations as few financial resources (66.7%), no involvement of population (58.2%) and cultural barriers (41.7%). Seventy five percent researchers reported that CHR research should be conducted differently in LAMIC compared to high-income countries, due to structural and cultural issues. Stigma was mentioned in three out of five sections of the poll. Discussion: Results show the discrepancy of available evidence on CHR in LAMIC, given the shortage of resources in such countries. Future directions should aim to increase the knowledge on individuals at CHR in such settings, and to address stigma and cultural factors that may play a role in the pathways toward care in psychosis. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=316816, CRD42022316816.