[Psychiatric Rehabilitation in Austria - A Comparison of Symptoms at Admission Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic, as well as Rehabilitation Success]. / Medizinisch-psychiatrische Rehabilitation in Österreich ­ Ein Vergleich der Symptombelastung bei Reha-Beginn vor und während der COVID-19-Pandemie, sowie des Rehabilitationserfolgs.

OBJECTIVE: International literature reports an increase of the incidence of psychological disorders because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Especially young people and people with pre-existing psychological disorders are troubled by the pandemic. Objective of this study is the extent of psychological symptoms, the functioning and the treatment success of rehabilitation inpatients who participated in a medical and psychiatric rehabilitation in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic and those who participated during the COVID-19 phase. METHODS: The data of N=1,715 rehabilitation inpatients who completed the rehabilitation before the lockdown in 2019 and N=707 rehabilitation inpatients who began in 2020 after the lockdown of the clinic due to the pandemic (during the COVID-19 phase) from March to Mai 2020 are compared in reference to their sample characteristics and their results in patient reported outcomes. RESULTS: There are no significant differences between the two observed time periods in reference to the sociodemographic characteristics of the rehabilitation inpatients. At the beginning of the rehabilitation there was no significant difference in the scale somatization. There was a significantly higher score in the scales' anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 phase, but only to the extent of a small effect. The results of the scales of activity and participation (ICF 3 F AT) as well as functionality (WHODAS 2.0) do not differ in the time periods at the beginning of the rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation inpatients with low socioeconomic status (rehabilitation allowance or disability pension) have critical scores in some scales. The rehabilitation success is comparable to the one before the COVID-19 pandemic and falls within the range of medium to high effect sizes. CONCLUSION: The study shows - with respect to its limitations - low or no significant differences in reference to the sociodemographic data and the symptomatic load at the beginning of the rehabilitation. The effect sizes are comparable with the time frame bevor the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of international studies, which reported a considerable increase in psychological stress of the population cannot directly be transferred to the Austrian rehabilitation clientele.

Implementing Mobile HRV Biofeedback as Adjunctive Therapy During Inpatient Psychiatric Rehabilitation Facilitates Recovery of Depressive Symptoms and Enhances Autonomic Functioning Short-Term: A 1-Year Pre-Post-intervention Follow-Up Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: New treatment options for depression are warranted, due to high recurrence rates. Recent research indicates benefits of heart rate variability biofeedback (HRVBF) on symptom recovery and autonomic functioning in depressed individuals. Slow-paced breathing-induced amplification of vagus nerve activity is the main element of HRVBF. Thus, the latter represents a safe and non-invasive complementary depression treatment. However, its efficacy in patients undergoing inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation receiving highly comprehensive treatments has not been evaluated. METHODS: Ninety-two inpatients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). While the latter received the standard treatment only, adjunctive HRVBF was provided to the IG over 5 weeks. Depression severity and heart rate variability (HRV) were assessed before (pre) and after 5 weeks (post). Moreover, 1-year follow-up depression scores were available for 30 participants. RESULTS: Although depression improved in both groups, the IG exhibited significantly larger improvements at post-assessment ( η p 2 = 0.065) and significant increases in resting LF-HRV (d = 0.45) and cardiorespiratory coherence (d = 0.61). No significant effects for RMSSD, SDNN, HF-HRV, or HR were found (ps > 0.05). Additionally, the IG showed a medium- to large-sized reduction in resting respiratory rate from 13.2 to 9.8 breaths per minute (p < 0.001, d = 0.86), with the CG exhibiting only a small decrease from 13.5 to 12.4 (p = 0.49; d = 0.35). While the IG exhibited significantly lower depression scores at post-assessment (p = 0.042, d = 0.79), this effect decreased during follow-up (p = 0.195, d = 0.48). CONCLUSION: HRVBF as adjuvant therapy during inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation facilitated depression recovery. Additionally, amplified LF-HRV as well as cardiorespiratory coherence at rest and a decrease in resting breathing frequency was observed in the HRVBF group. These findings emphasize HRVBF's value as complementary therapy regardless of concurrent treatments. Moreover, these incremental benefits could serve as resource even after the actual training period. However, the additional antidepressant gains vanish during the long-term follow-up, indicating the need for more intense training or regular practice afterward, respectively. Thus, future studies are warranted to examine how the initial benefits of HRVBF during inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation can be preserved post discharge.