The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Psychiatric Rehabilitation in Residential Facilities: Perspectives of Staff and Residents.

The coronavirus pandemic imposed significant changes in the care of patients in psychiatric residential facilities, especially during lockdown periods. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on patients and staff of psychiatric residential facilities (RFs). This cross-sectional survey was conducted between 30 June and 30 July 2021 and involved 31 RFs located in the province of Verona (Italy). In total, 170 staff members and 272 residents participated in this study. Staff showing clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, depression and burnout were, respectively, 7.7%, 14.2% and 6%. Staff were concerned about the risk that COVID-19 infection might spread among residents (67.6%) and that residents could not receive an acceptable service due to service reconfiguration because of the pandemic (50.3%). Residents found it very unpleasant not to be permitted to attend family members (85.3%), and not to be allowed to engage in outdoor activities due to the restrictions (84%). Both staff and residents agree that the main problematic areas for the residents was the interdiction to meet family members or friends and the interdiction to outdoor activities, whereas problems related to the COVID-19 infection were considered by the staff members as more frequently problematic than reported by residents. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the rehabilitation care and recovery journeys of the residents of psychiatric RFs. Therefore, sustained, and careful attention is needed to ensure that the rehabilitation needs of people with severe mental disorders are not neglected in time of pandemics. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40737-023-00343-6.

Changes in emergency psychiatric consultations in time of COVID-19: a retrospective observational study in the Verona Academic Hospital over the two pandemic years 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, local health authorities in most Italian regions prescribed a reduction of ordinary outpatient and community mental health care. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to the emergency departments (ED) for psychiatric consultation in the pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted by using routinely collected administrative data of the two EDs of the Verona Academic Hospital Trust (Verona, Italy). All ED psychiatry consultations registered from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021 were compared with those registered in the pre-pandemic year (01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019). The association between each recorded characteristic and the year considered was estimated by chi-square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed between 2020 and 2019 (-23.3%) and between 2021 and 2019 (-16.3%). This reduction was most evident in the lockdown period of 2020 (-40.3%) and in the phase corresponding to the second and third pandemic waves (-36.1%). In 2021, young adults and people with diagnosis of psychosis showed an increase in requests for psychiatric consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of contagion may have been an important factor in the overall reduction in psychiatric consultations. However, psychiatric consultations for people with psychosis and for young adults increased. This finding underlines the need for mental health services to implement alternative outreach strategies aimed to support, in times of crisis, these vulnerable segments of the population.

Effectiveness of a Mindful Compassion Care Program in reducing burnout and psychological distress amongst frontline hospital nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that nurses have been more affected by the COVID-19 pandemic than any other group of hospital workers in terms of anxiety, depression, and burnout. Several clinical studies had previously demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness and compassion interventions in reducing burnout and emotional distress amongst healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial will assess the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a mindfulness and compassion-focused programme on frontline nurses who had been working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-two participants will be recruited from Verona University Hospital Trust (Veneto Region, north-east Italy) and will be divided equally into an intervention group and a control group. Primary outcome will be assessed using the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (MBI-GS). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the Cynicism and Professional Efficacy subscales of the MBI-GS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Impact of Stressful Events (IES-R), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), and the Forms of Self-Criticising/attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS). DISCUSSION: The study aims to fill a gap in the literature and present a scientifically validated intervention for those healthcare professionals most exposed to the stressful conditions of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05308537.

Development and psychometric validation of new questionnaires assessing experienced discrimination and internalised stigma among people with Covid-19.

AIMS: To develop and validate two new standardised measures assessing, respectively, experienced discrimination (Covid-19 Experienced DISCrimination scale, CEDISC) and internalised stigma (COvid-19 INternalised Stigma scale, COINS) in people who had been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or had developed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disease. METHODS: Both the CEDISC and the COINS were developed in Italian and tested for ease of use, comprehension, acceptability, the relevance of items and response options within a focus group session. Online cross-sectional validation survey was conducted among adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who developed Covid-19 disease, members of a closed Facebook discussion group in Italy. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Promax oblique rotation; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to assess the suitability of the sample for factor analysis. Reliability was assessed as internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and as test-retest reliability using weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Precision was examined by Kendall's tau-b coefficient. RESULTS: Overall, 579 participants completed the CEDISC, 519 also completed the COINS, 155 completed the retest for both scales after two weeks. The 12 items of the CEDISC converged over a 2-factor solution ('social life' and 'close relations') accounting for 49.2% of the variance (KMO = 0.894; Bartlett's test p < 0.001); the 13 items of the COINS converged over a 3-factor solution ('self-perception', 'close relations' and 'social life') accounting for 67.7% (KMO = 0.827; Bartlett's test p < 0.001). Cronbach's α was 0.848 for the CEDISC, and 0.837 for the COINS. The CEDISC showed three items (25%) with kappa between 0.61 and 0.80 and seven (58.4%) between 0.41 and 0.60, with only two items scoring 0.21 and 0.40; the COINS had ten items (76.9%) with kappa ranging from 0.41 to 0.60, and three items below 0.31. ICC was 0.906 (95% CI, 0.871-0.932) for the, CEDISC and 0.860 (95% CI, 0.808-0.898) for the COINS. Kendall's tau-b ranged from 0.360 to 0.556 (p < 0.001) for the CEDISC and from 0.290 to 0.606 (p < 0.001) for the COINS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the CEDISC and the COINS are two valid and reliable scales to be used in studies examining the role of stigma and discrimination of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 patients, and in research evaluating interventions designed to mitigate stigma in this population.

The Sustained Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers One Year after the Outbreak-A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey in a Tertiary Hospital of North-East Italy.

This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) of the Verona academic hospital trust (Italy) one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify predicted risk factors. A web-based survey was conducted from mid-April to mid-May 2021 on hospital workers one year after the first evaluation performed during the lock-down phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress, general anxiety, depression, and burnout were assessed by using, respectively, the impact of event scale (IES-R), the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the four mental health outcomes one year after the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 1033 HCWs participated. The percentage of HCWs scoring above the cut-off increased from 2020 to 2021 in all of the outcome domains (anxiety, 50.1% vs. 55.7, p < 0.05; depression, 26.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; burnout, 28.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; chi-square test), with the exception of post-traumatic distress. There was also an increase when stratifying by occupation and workplace, with a greater increase for depression and burnout. Multivariate analysis revealed that, one year after the COVID-19 outbreak, nurses were at the greatest risk of anxiety and depression, whereas residents were at the greatest risk of burnout (in terms of low professional efficacy). Working in intensive care units was associated with an increased risk of developing severe emotional exhaustion and a cynical attitude towards work.

Students' mental health problems before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdown in Italy.

The lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic may have exacerbated mental health problems. To what degree mental health may be affected by social isolation is still poorly known. We collected prospective data on students' mental health in two instances: (i) in October and December 2019, and (ii) 6 months later, in April 2020 amidst the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy and in mid-May/June 2020, after the lifting of lockdown. A total of 358 Italian students aged 18-30 completed socio-demographic questionnaires and the Beck Depression Inventory - 2 (BDI-2), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory - Revised (OCI-R), the Eating Habits Questionnaire (EHQ), and the Eating Disorder Inventory-3 (EDI-3). We applied multiple regression models to evince any changes in the aforementioned questionnaire scores during and after lockdown with respect to the scores before lockdown. Students reported on average worse depressive symptoms during lockdown than 6 months before isolation (median increase in the BDI-2 score +2; IQR = -3, 6; ß = 0.09 ± 0.03, p = 0.005), with students without any established diagnosis of psychopathology being affected the most. The regression models predict that 86.2% (IQR = 67.9, 91.4%) of students would not experience a clinically significant worsening of symptoms, while approximately 6% of our target population could develop more severe depressive symptoms. This study supports the view that depressive symptomatology may be aggravated during lockdown, but also highlights that after the lifting of lockdown any changes quickly vanished, as the BDI-2 scores were not different from the ones reported before lockdown.

Aripiprazole monotherapy as transdiagnostic intervention for the treatment of mental disorders: An umbrella review according to TRANSD criteria.

Aripiprazole is approved in different countries as treatment for several mental disorders, but its transdiagnostic potential has not yet been assessed according to established criteria such as the recently proposed TRANSD criteria. The present work aims to test whether aripiprazole monotherapy could be considered a transdiagnostic intervention. An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of aripiprazole monotherapy vs placebo was conducted for any disorder defined according to standard diagnostic criteria. Primary outcomes were levels of psychiatric disease-specific symptoms. TRANSD criteria were applied to assess transdiagnosticity, while the AMSTAR -2 tool was used to assess the quality of eligible meta-analyses. Four pairwise meta-analyses and three network meta-analyses were included, consisting of 25 RCTs of aripiprazole monotherapy vs. placebo (N=5469). Aripiprazole outperformed placebo on primary outcomes in Alzheimer's disease with behavioral disturbance (AD) (neuropsychiatric symptoms SMD 0.20, 95%CI 0.05-0.35, max 15 mg/day), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (severity of symptoms SMD 0.39, 95%CI 0.30-0.48, max 15 mg/day), bipolar I disorder (BD) (severity of manic symptoms SMD 0.30, 95%CI 0.12-0.47, max 30 mg/day), and schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (response rate RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.78-0.92, max 30 mg/day). TRANSD criteria were met (pooled SMD 0.25, 95%CI 0.09-0.41) across these disorders Quality was high in all the included meta-analyses according to AMSTAR-2. According to TRANSD criteria, aripiprazole monotherapy is a (dose-specific) transdiagnostic intervention to treat psychiatric disease-specific symptoms across 5 diagnoses (AD, ASD, BD (mania), schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder), across four DSM-5 diagnostic groups (neurocognitive disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, bipolar and related disorders, schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders).