Procrastination and Stress: A Conceptual Review of Why Context Matters.

Research over the past two decades has continued to highlight the robust associations between procrastination and stress across multiple populations and contexts. Despite this burgeoning evidence base and theory linking procrastination to higher levels of stress, as well as the reverse, the role of context in this potentially dynamic association has received relatively little attention. In this conceptual review I argue that from a mood regulation perspective of procrastination, stressful contexts necessarily increase risk for procrastination because they deplete coping resources and lower the threshold for tolerating negative emotions. Drawing on insights from coping and emotion regulation theory, the new stress context vulnerability model of procrastination proposes that the risk for procrastination increases in stressful contexts primarily because procrastination is a low-resource means of avoiding aversive and difficult task-related emotions. The new model is then applied to evidence on the primary and secondary sources of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they may have increased vulnerability for procrastination. After discussing potential applications of the new model for understanding how and why risk for procrastination may increase in other stressful contexts, approaches that might mitigate vulnerability for procrastination in high-stress contexts are discussed. Overall, this new stress context vulnerability model underscores the need for taking a more compassionate view of the antecedents and factors that may increase the risk for procrastination.

Mental health burden for NHS healthcare staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: First results of a longitudinal survey.

Background: The current investigation aimed to assess the mental health burden on healthcare workers during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A link to an online survey was sent to an estimate of 18,100 employees of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (STH) who had access to email. The survey was completed between 2nd and June 12, 2020.1390 healthcare workers (medical, nursing, administrative and other professions) participated in the first survey. Data from a general population sample (n = 2025) was used for comparison. Severity of somatic symptoms was measured by the PHQ-15. Severity and probable diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were measured by the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and ITQ. Linear and logistic regressions were performed to determine if population group predicted the severity of mental health outcomes, and probable diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Additionally, ANCOVAs were performed to compare mental health outcomes between occupational roles in HCWs. Analysis was performed using SPSS. Findings: Healthcare workers are more likely to experience greater severity of somatic symptoms, as well as severity and probable diagnosis of depression and anxiety, compared to the general population, but not increased traumatic stress symptoms. Scientific and technical, nursing and admin staff were more likely to experience worse mental health outcomes, compared to medical staff. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased mental health burden in some, but not all healthcare workers during the first acute phase of the pandemic. The findings from the current investigation provide valuable insights into which healthcare workers are particularly vulnerable to developing adverse mental health outcomes during and after a pandemic.

Factors Associated With Psychological Distress in Health-Care Workers During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Rapid Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Objective: Health-care workers (HCW) are at risk for psychological distress during an infectious disease outbreak, such as the coronavirus pandemic, due to the demands of dealing with a public health emergency. This rapid systematic review examined the factors associated with psychological distress among HCW during an outbreak. Method: We systematically reviewed literature on the factors associated with psychological distress (demographic characteristics, occupational, social, psychological, and infection-related factors) in HCW during an outbreak (COVID-19, SARS, MERS, H1N1, H7N9, and Ebola). Four electronic databases were searched (2000 to 15 November 2020) for relevant peer-reviewed research according to a pre-registered protocol. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify fixed, modifiable, and infection-related factors linked to distress and psychiatric morbidity. Results: From the 4,621 records identified, 138 with data from 143,246 HCW in 139 studies were included. All but two studies were cross-sectional. The majority of the studies were conducted during COVID-19 (k = 107, N = 34,334) and SARS (k = 21, N = 18,096). Consistent evidence indicated that being female, a nurse, experiencing stigma, maladaptive coping, having contact or risk of contact with infected patients, and experiencing quarantine, were risk factors for psychological distress among HCW. Personal and organizational social support, perceiving control, positive work attitudes, sufficient information about the outbreak and proper protection, training, and resources, were associated with less psychological distress. Conclusions: This review highlights the key factors to the identify HCW who are most at risk for psychological distress during an outbreak and modifying factors to reduce distress and improve resilience. Recommendations are that HCW at risk for increased distress receive early interventions and ongoing monitoring because there is evidence that HCW distress can persist for up to 3 years after an outbreak. Further research needs to track the associations of risk and resilience factors with distress over time and the extent to which certain factors are inter-related and contribute to sustained or transient distress.

Neural connectome prospectively encodes the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected humans worldwide and led to unprecedented stress and mortality. Detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health, including risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), have become an increasing concern. The identification of prospective neurobiological vulnerability markers for developing PTSD symptom during the pandemic is thus of high importance. METHODS: Before the COVID-19 outbreak (September 20, 2019-January 11, 2020), some healthy participants underwent resting-state functional connectivity MRI (rs-fcMRI) acquisition. We assessed the PTSD symptomology of these individuals during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic (February 21, 2020-February 28, 2020) in China. This pseudo-prospective cohort design allowed us to test whether the pre-pandemic neural connectome status could predict the risk of developing PTSD symptom during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 5.60% of participants (n = 42) were identified as being high-risk to develop PTSD symptom and 12.00% (n = 90) exhibited critical levels of PTSD symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pre-pandemic measures of functional connectivity (the neural connectome) prospectively classified those with heightened risk to develop PTSD symptom from matched controls (Accuracy = 76.19%, Sensitivity = 80.95%, Specificity = 71.43%). The trained classifier generalized to an independent sample. Continuous prediction models revealed that the same connectome could accurately predict the severity of PTSD symptoms within individuals (r 2 = 0.31p<.0). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms COVID-19 break as a crucial stressor to bring risks developing PTSD symptom and demonstrates that brain functional markers can prospectively identify individuals at risk to develop PTSD symptom.

Effectiveness of Progressive Muscle Relaxation, Deep Breathing, and Guided Imagery in Promoting Psychological and Physiological States of Relaxation.

Research suggests that multiple forms of relaxation training (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation, meditation, breathing exercises, visualization, and autogenics) can help individuals reduce stress, enhance relaxation states, and improve overall well-being. We examined three different, commonly used approaches to stress relaxation-progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, and guided imagery-and evaluated them in a head-to-head comparison against each other and a control condition. Sixty healthy undergraduate participants were randomized to one of the four conditions and completed 20 minutes of progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, or guided imagery training that was delivered by recorded audio instruction. Baseline and follow-up assessment of psychological relaxation states were completed. Physiological relaxation was also assessed continuously using measures of electrodermal activity and heart rate. Results showed that progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, and guided imagery all increased the state of relaxation for participants in those groups, compared to participants in the control group. In each case, the increase was statistically significant and although the groups did not differ on relaxation before training, all groups were significantly higher on relaxation after training, as compared to the control group. Progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery showed an immediate linear trend toward physiological relaxation, compared to the control group, and the deep breathing group showed an immediate increase in physiological arousal followed quickly by a return to initial levels. Our results lend support to the body of research showing that stress relaxation training can be effective in improving relaxation states at both the psychological and physiological level. Future research could examine stress relaxation techniques in a similar manner using designs where multiple techniques can be compared in the same samples.