Health emergencies and interoceptive sensibility modulate the perception of non-evidence-based drug use: Findings from the COVID-19 outbreak.

Scientific evidence plays an important role in the therapeutic decision-making process. What happens when physicians are forced to make therapeutic decisions under uncertainty? The absence of scientific guidelines at the beginning of a pandemic due to an unknown virus, such as COVID-19, could influence the perceived legitimacy of the application of non-evidence-based therapeutic approaches. This paper reports on a test of this hypothesis, in which we administered an ad hoc questionnaire to a sample of 64 Italian physicians during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy (April 2020). The questionnaire statements regarding the legitimacy of off-label or experimental drugs were framed according to three different scenarios (Normality, Emergency and COVID-19). Furthermore, as the perception of internal bodily sensations (i.e., interoception) modulates the decision-making process, we tested participants' interoceptive sensibility using the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). The results showed that participants were more inclined to legitimate non-evidence-based therapeutic approaches in the COVID-19 and Emergency scenarios than the Normality scenario. We also found that scores on the MAIA Trusting subscale positively predicted this difference. Our findings demonstrate that uncertain medical scenarios, involving a dramatic increase in patient volume and acuity, can increase risk-taking in therapeutic decision-making. Furthermore, individual characteristics of health care providers, such as interoceptive ability, should be taken into account when constructing models to prevent the breakdown of healthcare systems in cases of severe emergency.

Relationship between interoceptive sensibility, age, and COVID-19 anxiety during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom.

Objectives: Interoception refers to the multidimensional representation of the internal states of the body, including sensation, appraisal, integration, and regulation. COVID-19 targets internal respiratory, temperature and gastrointestinal systems, thus posing a threat to humans that causes anxiety. Here, we examined the relationship between interoceptive sensibility and COVID-19 anxiety during the first UK national lockdown, when uncertainties surrounding the virus were at their peak.Methods: Between April and July 2020, N = 232 individuals across four age-categories completed questionnaires measuring interoceptive sensibility (BPQ-SF and MAIA-2), an adapted State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to assess COVID-19 anxiety, and a Perceived Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire.Results: Higher scores on the BPQ-SF were related to higher levels of COVID-19 anxiety, while the MAIA-2 subscales Not Worrying, Attention Regulation, and Trusting of bodily signals were related to lower levels of COVID-19 anxiety. Age was related to lower levels of COVID-19 anxiety yet showed no significant (Bonferroni-corrected) relationship with interoceptive dimensions. Trait anxiety, Not Worrying, perceived quality of work, and COVID-19-related media consumption emerged as significant predictors of COVID-19 anxiety.Conclusion: Findings suggest that interoceptive dimensions differentially relate to COVID-19 anxiety irrespective of age, with implications for managing health anxiety and adaptive behaviour during a pandemic across the lifespan.

Breathing exercises and pranayamas to decrease perceived exertion during breath-holding while locked-down due to COVID-19 online randomized study.

AIM: to compare anulom vilom pranayama (AVP), kapal bhati pranayama (KBP), diaphragmatic breathing exercises (DBE), and pursed-lip breathing (PLB) for breath holding time (BHT) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Methods- Participants were assessed for BHT and RPE, before training on any one intervention using online platforms, for one week during lockdown from COVID-19.15 participants in each group total N = 60 at- (α - 0.05), (1- ß - 0.90) & (effect size - 0.55); were analysed. Results - AVP & DBE decreased RPE (p < 0.000). KBP & PLB did not decrease RPE as compared to AVP & DBE (p. > 0.05). DBE increased BHT more than KBP & PLB interventions (p < 0.05), but not more than AVP (p > 0.05). One-way ANOVA of four interventions revealed significant variation for RPE change (p < 0.05), for AVP. Conclusions - AVP reduces RPE maximally during breath-holding, whereas DPE increases BHT more.