Psychosocial predictors of trajectories of mental health distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave panel study.

Previous research suggested that during the COVID-19 pandemic, mental distress did not affect all people equally. This longitudinal study aims to examine joint trajectories of depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms in a sample of Italian adults during the pandemic, and to identify psychosocial predictors of distress states. We analyzed four-wave panel data from 3,931 adults who had received assessments of depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms between April 2020 and May 2021. Trajectories of individual psychological distress were identified by Latent Class Growth Analysis (LCGA) with parallel processes, and multinomial regression models were conducted to identify baseline predictors. Parallel process LCGA identified three joint trajectory classes for depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Most individuals (54%) showed a resilient trajectory. However, two subgroups showed vulnerable joint trajectories for depression, anxiety and stress. Expressive suppression, intolerance to uncertainty, and fear of COVID-19 were risk characteristics associated with vulnerable trajectories for mental health distress. Moreover, vulnerability to mental health distress was higher in females, younger age groups and those unemployed during the first lockdown. Findings support the fact that group heterogeneity could be detected in the trajectories of mental health distress during the pandemic and it may help to identify subgroups at risk of worsening states.

The role of emotion regulation and intolerance to uncertainty on the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and distress.

The COVID-19 pandemic is increasing negative consequences on mental health around the globe. To date, research on what psychological factors could influence individuals' distress is still scarce. The current study aims to test a multiple mediation model to examine the role of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) and emotional regulation (i.e., expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal) as joint factors, which can increase understanding of psychological distress due to the COVID-19 outbreak. An online survey measuring fear of COVID-19, IU, emotional regulation, and psychological distress was administered to 3863 Italian adults (females 73.3%; M age = 36.44; SD = 14.74) during lockdown. Results showed that IU partially mediated the effect of fear of COVID-19 on depression, anxiety and stress. Moreover, individuals with difficulties in managing the uncertainties due to their fear of COVID-19 may be at risk for heightened use of expressive suppression and depression. However, individuals with both higher IU and expressive suppression showed lower level of stress. High cognitive reappraisal has a mediational effect on the relationship between fear of COVID-19, IU, and lower psychological distress. Findings suggest that IU and emotional regulation should be targeted for informing the development of tailored treatments to reduce the negative consequences of the outbreak. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03071-5.

Factors Related to Women's Psychological Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from a Two-Wave Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has highlighted the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women's mental health. Previous studies showed that women have higher levels of depression, anxiety and PTSD, and worse psychological adjustment than men, which also persisted after the earlier phase of the pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate changes in women's psychological distress during the pandemic and to evaluate the factors that have a more significant impact in predicting women's psychological distress. METHODS: This two-wave longitudinal study (T1 = Italian first lockdown, and T2 = second phase, when the restrictive measures were eased) involved 893 women (Mage = 36.45, SD = 14.48). Participants provided demographic and health data as well as measures of psychological distress, emotion regulation processes, and ability to tolerate uncertainty. RESULTS: No significant changes were found in women's psychological distress between T1 and T2, i.e., during and after the first lockdown. Lower social stability status and higher maladaptive emotional coping predicted high psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that modifiable psychological variables play a central role in predicting distress and indicated that emotion regulation interventions might be helpful in increasing psychological resilience and mitigating the adverse impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic within the female population.

Psychological distress associated with the COVID-19 lockdown: A two-wave network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although preliminary research has evidenced negative psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic among the general population, little research has been carried out examining the interplay among the broader dimensions and correlates of individual distress. Via network analysis, the current study investigated the pathways that underlie some components of psychological distress and their changes over time (during and post COVID-19-related lockdown). METHODS: 1,129 adult participants (79.1% women) completed a two-wave online survey during and after the lockdown, and reported on variables such as depression, anxiety, stress, fear of COVID, intolerance of uncertainty, emotion regulation and social support. The networks were estimated via Gaussian Graphical Models and their temporal changes were compared through the centrality measures. RESULTS: Depression, stress, anxiety and fear of COVID formed a spatially contiguous pattern, which remained unchanged in both the two waves. After the lockdown, the fear of COVID node reduced its strength in the network, whereas inhibitory intolerance of uncertainty and emotion suppression were associated with depression. Emotion regulation was connected to depression, but not to stress and anxiety during both waves. Perceived emotional support had few connections to the other nodes. LIMITATIONS: Only 32.7% of participants provided complete responses for both waves. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 outbreak has had a significant psychosocial impact on adults. In the context of the network approach, depressive symptoms had the highest strength and their associations to other dimensions of individual distress may be key factors in understanding the influence of exposure to the COVID-19 outbreak on mental health.

Which Methodological Practice(s) for Psychotherapy Science? A Systematic Review and a Proposal.

Three main methodological practices have been employed in psychotherapy science: the empirical-quantitative, empirical-qualitative, and theoretical one. Some scholars have argued for a monopoly of the empirical-quantitative methodological practice, sustained by scientific monism. This systematic review aims at exploring the contribution of each methodological practice to the field. Fifteen journals were searched from 2003 to 2013. A total of 9796 publications and 9915 studies met inclusion criteria and were coded for the methodological practice employed. Empirical-quantitative studies were the most published overall, over time, and in most of the journals considered. This overwhelming prevalence increased when considering the citation rates of the publications. We argue that these results are indicative of a quantitative monopoly, which in turn is due to a lack of critical thinking sustaining scientific monism. We call for disciplinary critical thinking and the consequent scientific pluralism valuing the plurality, diversity, and multiplicity of all the existing methodological practices.

Correction to: Which Methodological Practice(s) for Psychotherapy Science? A Systematic Review and a Proposal.

We would like to note the following corrections to the original version of Zhang, Sun, Lin and Ren.

A systematic review of psychotherapy research topics (2000-2016): a computer-assisted approach.

The present work aims to empirically map what has been investigated and which issues (i.e. topics) characterize the debates of psychotherapy research, using a computer-assisted, bottom-up method of content analysis. The abstract of papers (N=13,499), published between 2000-2016 and retrieved from a sample of 10 journals selected as representing the field of psychotherapy research, were subjected to a method of automated content analysis. Five different research topics were identified (clinical relationship, clinical efficacy, clinical practice and research, psychopathology, and neuroscientific approaches to mental disorders) and each abstract was labeled according to the retrieved research topic. Two different Chi-square analyses investigated the distributions of research topics over time and among the selected journals. Results concerning the distribution over time highlighted an increase in the clinical relationship and clinical efficacy topics and a decrease in the others. An examination of the distribution among journals showed that psychopathology and neuroscientific approaches to mental disorders were associated with psychiatric journals, while the others were associated with non-psychiatric journals. The findings are discussed in light of the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications offering pointers for a critical understanding of the current psychotherapy research domain.