Mentalizing and epistemic trust as critical success factors in psychosomatic rehabilitation: results of a single center longitudinal observational study.

Background: Inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation is a key treatment for patients with mental health issues. However, knowledge about critical success factors for beneficial treatment outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of mentalizing and epistemic trust with the improvement of psychological distress during rehabilitation. Methods: In this naturalistic longitudinal observational study, patients completed routine assessments of psychological distress (BSI), health-related quality of life (HRQOL; WHODAS), mentalizing (MZQ), and epistemic trust (ETMCQ) before (T1) and after (T2) psychosomatic rehabilitation. Repeated measures ANOVA (rANOVAs) and structural equation models (SEMs) were calculated to investigate the association of mentalizing and epistemic trust with the improvement in psychological distress. Results: A total sample of n = 249 patients were included in the study. Improvement in mentalizing was correlated with improvement in depression (r = 0.36), anxiety (r = 0.46), and somatization (r = 0.23), as well as improved cognition (r = 0.36), social functioning (r = 0.33), and social participation (r = 0.48; all p < 0.001). Mentalizing partially mediated changes in psychological distress between T1 and T2: the direct association decreased from ß = 0.69 to ß = 0.57 and the explained variance increased from 47 to 61%. Decreases in epistemic mistrust (ß = 0.42, 0.18-0.28; p < 0.001) and epistemic credulity (ß = 0.19, 0.29-0.38; p < 0.001) and increases in epistemic trust (ß = 0.42, 0.18-0.28; p < 0.001) significantly predicted improved mentalizing. A good model fit was found (χ2 = 3.248, p = 0.66; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.000). Conclusion: Mentalizing was identified as a critical success factor in psychosomatic inpatient rehabilitation. A key component to increase mentalizing in this treatment context is the improvement of epistemic mistrust.

Disagreement between mothers' and fathers' rating of health-related quality of life in children with cancer.

PURPOSE: Serial assessment of health condition based on self-report made by children and their proxies has consistently shown a lack of congruence. The study explored the discrepancies between mother's, father's, and children's reports on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during the first two months of pediatric cancer treatment. METHODS: In this cohort study, children and parents completed the generic and cancer-specific Pediatric Quality-of-Life Inventory (PedsQL) questionnaires at initial diagnosis and in the subsequent months. Evaluation of discrepancies included intraclass correlations between mother-child and father-child dyads at different domain levels. RESULTS: Thirty-six children with a diagnosis of cancer between May 2020 and November 2021 and their parents were included in this study. At diagnosis, mother-child dyads showed better agreement on more domains of the PedsQL Generic Core Scale than father-child dyads; moderate agreement persisted for both parents at subsequent time points on the physical domain. The disease-specific PedsQL Cancer Module revealed moderate and better agreement for mother-child dyads during active cancer therapy. In particular, agreement of mother-child dyads was pronounced for domains such as worry (0.77 [95% CI 0.52-0.89, P < 0.001]), whereas fathers tended to overestimate the child's symptom burden for most of the remaining domains of the PedsQL Cancer Module. CONCLUSION: This cohort study shows that both parent proxy reports can provide valid information on child's HRQOL, but that fathers tend to overestimate, particularly for non-observable domains. Proxy reports derived from mothers more closely agreed with children's HRQOL and might be more weighted, if there is uncertainty between parents.

Large improvement of mental health during in outpatient short-term group psychotherapy treatment-a naturalistic pre-/post-observational study.

BACKGROUND: Group psychotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with mental health issues. This study aims to evaluate data on the effectiveness of a cost-free short-term outpatient group psychotherapy project for patients with mixed mental health issues in Tyrol, Austria. METHODS: In this naturalistic observational study, outpatients taking part in the psychotherapeutic group treatment between spring 2018 and spring 2020 were included. Patients completed the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-D), an item of the working ability index (WAI) and single items on symptom burden, treatment expectation and perceived benefit before the first (T0) and/or last group session (T1). Mean changes were investigated using repeated measure analyses of variance (rANOVA). RESULTS: A total of 98 patients were included in the study. Statistically significant improvements with medium to large effect sizes were observed for depression (η2 = 0.22, p < 0.001), somatization (η2 = 0.10, p = 0.008), anxiety (η2 = 0.18, p < 0.001), and subjective working ability (η2 = 0.22, p < 0.001). Neither age (p = 0.85), sex (p = 0.34), baseline symptoms (p = 0.29-0.77), nor previous experience with individual (p = 0.15) or group psychotherapy (p = 0.29) were associated with treatment outcome. However, treatment expectation at baseline was significantly associated with the patients' perception of the treatment benefit (r = 0.39, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the benefit of outpatient short-term group psychotherapy for individuals with mental health issues. Group psychotherapy should be offered free of charge to individuals with mental health issues by social health providers.