Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
European Psychiatry ; 65(Supplement 1):S381, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2153934


Introduction: Long-term COVID-19 effects has been recently described as persistent and prolonged symptoms after an acute and severe SARS-COV-2 (1). An important concern is that the sequelae of severe COVID-19 may suppose a substantial outpatient's burden for the specialized services in reopening pandemic phase (2). Objective(s): To describe the frequency of mental health service use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients after discharge and to estimate the costs associated to the post- discharge consultations. Method(s): We used a 1-year follow-up cohort of 1455 COVID-19 inpatients hospitalized in La Paz University Hospital of Madrid, Spain between March 16th and April 15th, 2020. Data were retrieved from Psychiatry Service (PS) electronic health records and we described the frequency of mental health reason for consultation. We used information published by the Madrid health Office to estimate the cost of initial and following appointments. Result(s): Our sample consisted of 1,455 patients admitted with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 16th and April 15th, 2020, and then discharged. Roughly half of them were men (776, 53%), 238 (16%) had a prior history of mental health problems, and 44 (3%) died. 193 participants (13%) visited the mental health department after being discharged. The total cost was estimated in 103,581 USD, of which two-thirds corresponded to patients with prior history of mental health problems. Conclusion(s): Our results indicate that the mental health burden of severe COVID-19 inpatient s after discharge was substantial during the first year of follow-up. This generate important economic impact to mental health providers and society at large.

European Psychiatry ; 65(Supplement 1):S323-S324, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2153906


Introduction: The use of technological supports in psychotherapeutic interventions has been widespread in recent years. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase has been greater. The feasibility of online group interventions has been proved in previous studies. Research comparing dropout rates in group interventions with clinical population that include mindfulness training is infrequent. Objective(s): To compare the difference in dropout rates between online and face-to-face mindfulness-based group interventions. Method(s): This study was carried out in a Mental Health Unit in Colmenar Viejo (Madrid, Spain). One hundred thirty-five adult patients with anxiety disorders were included in group interventions (74 face-to-face;61 online). The group treatments were Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and a Mindfulness-based Emotional Regulation intervention, during 8 weeks, guided by two Clinical Psychology residents. A descriptive analysis of dropout rates (participants attending 3 or fewer sessions out of the total number of participants starting the intervention) was performed. Result(s): Of the 135 patients included, 8 did not participate in the interventions (5 face-to-face;3 online), which represents a 5.93% rejection rate;6.76% for the face-to-face intervention and 4.92% for the online intervention. Of the remaining sample (127 participants), a total dropout rate of 12.6% was obtained, with 8.69% in the faceto-face intervention versus 17.24% online. Conclusion(s): A higher dropout rate was obtained in online interventions compared to face-to-face, with an increase of almost double. Research on specific factors that may interfere with treatment adherence to online group interventions is needed.