Effectiveness of family connections intervention for family members of persons with personality disorders in two different formats: Online vs face-to-face.

Introduction: Personality disorders (PD) have a serious impact on the lives of individuals who suffer from them and those around them. It is common for family members to experience high levels of burden, anxiety, and depression, and deterioration in their quality of life. It is curious that few interventions have been developed for family members of people with PD. However, Family Connections (FC) (Hoffman and Fruzzetti, 2005) is the most empirically supported intervention for family members of people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Aim: The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness of online vs face-to-face FC. Given the current social constraints resulting from SARS-CoV-2, interventions have been delivered online and modified. Method: This was a non-randomized pilot study with a pre-post evaluation and two conditions: The sample consisted of 45 family members distributed in two conditions: FC face-to-face (20) performed by groups before the pandemic, and FC online (25), performed by groups during the pandemic. All participants completed the evaluation protocol before and after the intervention. Results: There is a statistically significant improvement in levels of burden (η 2 = 0.471), depression, anxiety, and stress (η 2 = 0.279), family empowerment (η 2 = 0.243), family functioning (η 2 = 0.345), and quality of life (µ2 η 2 = 0.237). There were no differences based on the application format burden (η 2 = 0.134); depression, anxiety, and stress (η 2 = 0.087); family empowerment (η 2 = 0,27), family functioning (η 2 = 0.219); and quality of life (η 2 = 0.006), respectively). Conclusions: This study provides relevant data about the possibility of implementing an intervention in a sample of family members of people with PD in an online format without losing its effectiveness. During the pandemic, and despite the initial reluctance of family members and the therapists to carry out the interventions online, this work shows the effectiveness of the results and the satisfaction of the family members. These results are particularly relevant in a pandemic context, where there was no possibility of providing help in other ways. All of this represents a great step forward in terms of providing psychological treatment.

Incubation period of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The incubation period of COVID-19 helps to determine the optimal duration of the quarantine and inform predictive models of incidence curves. Several emerging studies have produced varying results; this systematic review aims to provide a more accurate estimate of the incubation period of COVID-19. METHODS: For this systematic review, a literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Scopus/EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all observational and experimental studies reporting the incubation period and published from 1 January 2020 to 21 March 2020.We estimated the mean and 95th percentile of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables. RESULTS: We included seven studies (n=792) in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity (I2 83.0%, p<0.001) was significantly decreased when we included the study quality and the statistical model used as moderator variables (I2 15%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.6 (95% CI: 5.2-6.0) to 6.7 days (95% CI: 6.0-7.4) according to the statistical model. The 95th percentile was 12.5 days when the mean age of patients was 60 years, increasing 1 day for every 10 years. CONCLUSION: Based on the published data reporting the incubation period of COVID-19, the mean time between exposure and onset of clinical symptoms depended on the statistical model used, and the 95th percentile depended on the mean age of the patients. It is advisable to record sex and age when collecting data in order to analyze possible differential patterns.

[Incubation period of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Período de incubación de la COVID-19: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The incubation period of COVID-19 helps to determine the optimal duration of the quarantine and inform predictive models of incidence curves. Several emerging studies have produced varying results; this systematic review aims to provide a more accurate estimate of the incubation period of COVID-19. METHODS: For this systematic review, a literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Scopus/EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all observational and experimental studies reporting the incubation period and published from 1 January 2020 to 21 March 2020.We estimated the mean and 95th percentile of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables. RESULTS: We included seven studies (n = 792) in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity (I2 83.0%, p < 0.001) was significantly decreased when we included the study quality and the statistical model used as moderator variables (I2 15%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.6 (95% CI: 5.2 to 6.0) to 6.7 days (95% CI: 6.0 to 7.4) according to the statistical model. The 95th percentile was 12.5 days when the mean age of patients was 60 years, increasing 1 day for every 10 years. CONCLUSION: Based on the published data reporting the incubation period of COVID-19, the mean time between exposure and onset of clinical symptoms depended on the statistical model used, and the 95th percentile depended on the mean age of the patients. It is advisable to record sex and age when collecting data in order to analyze possible differential patterns.