Search

Daily-life stressors and food cravings are dynamic and vary within and across persons. Some evidence suggests interpersonal stressors increase appetite. However, little is known about the association of food craving with different types of stressors at the momentary level in the general population. We aimed to explore the momentary relationships between daily-life stressful events and food craving in a non-clinical community sample, and to compare the associations with food craving when the most stressful event was perceived as interpersonal versus non-interpersonal. We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to collect reports on the most stressful event, perceived stressor type, stressor appraisal, and food craving from 123 adults three times a day scheduled at fixed intervals over 10 days. Mixed effects random intercepts and slopes models examined the within- and between-person associations. Experiencing a stressor was significantly positively associated with within-person food craving at the same measurement. No differences in momentary food craving were found when the most stressful event was perceived as interpersonal or non-interpersonal (within-person level). However, frequently reporting the most stressful event as interpersonal (vs. non-interpersonal) was positively associated with food craving across the study (between-person level), particularly when the stressor was appraised as more unpleasant. Daily-life stressors were associated with momentary food craving. Individuals who generally perceived interpersonal stressors as their most stressful event tended to experience food cravings. Future research could further investigate the role of interpersonal stressors as a factor for overeating in daily life and the potential benefits of stress management in interventions., (© 2024 The Authors. Stress and Health published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Psychiatric rehabilitation for people with severe mental illness (SMI) has many documented benefits, but less is known about cultural related aspects. To date, no comparison of psychiatric rehabilitation outcomes between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs has been carried out. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare the outcome measures of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews consuming psychiatric rehabilitation services. As part of the Israeli Psychiatric Rehabilitation Reported Outcome Measurement project (PR-ROM), a cross-sectional study comparing different ethnic-religious groups was performed. Data is based on 6,751 pairs of psychiatric rehabilitation consumers and their service providers. The consumers filled questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and functioning, and their providers completed mirroring instruments. The findings revealed that QoL and functioning ratings were lower among Muslim Arabs compared to Jews on both consumers' and providers' ratings. Among Muslim Arabs, differences in outcomes according to the service's location were indicated. The observed differences between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews with SMI in the PR-ROM point to the need for culturally adapted rehabilitation services that take into account how cultural differences may affect the benefits of such services., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The high rates of psychiatric re-hospitalizations (also termed "revolving door") presents a "wicked problem" which requires a systematic and holistic approach to its resolution. Israel's mental-health rehabilitation law provides a comprehensive set of services intended to support the ability of persons with severe mental illness to rely on community rather than in-patient facilities for their ongoing care needs. Guided by the Health Behavior Model, we examined the relationship between psychiatric re-hospitalizations and the three Health Behavior Model factors (predisposing factor: socio-demographic characteristics and health beliefs; enabling factor: personal and social/vocational relationships facilitated by rehabilitation interventions and services; and need factor: outcomes including symptoms, and mental health and functional status) among persons with severe mental illness receiving rehabilitation services., Methods: Logistic regression models were used to measure the association between re-hospitalization within a year and variables comprising the three Health Behavior Model factors on the sample of consumers utilizing psychiatric services (n = 7,165). The area under the curve for the model was calculated for each factor separately and for all three factors combined., Results: A total of 846 (11.8%) consumers were hospitalized within a year after the study began. Although multivariable analyses showed significant associations between re-hospitalization and all three Health Behavior Model factors, the magnitude of the model's area under the curve differed: 0.61 (CI = 0.59-0.64), 0.56 (CI = 0.54-0.58), 0.78 (CI = 0.77-0.80) and 0.78 (CI = 0.76-0.80) for predisposing, enabling, need and the full three-factor Health Behavior Model, respectively., Conclusion: Findings revealed that among the three Health Behavior Model factors, the need factor best predicted re-hospitalization. The enabling factor, comprised of personal relationships and social/vocational activities facilitated by interventions and services representing many of psychiatric rehabilitation's key goals, had the weakest association with reduced rates of re-hospitalization. Possible explanations may be inaccurate assessments of consumers' personal relationships and social/vocational activities by the mental healthcare professionals, problematic provider-consumer communication on the consumers' involvement in social/vocational activities, or ineffective methods of facilitating consumer participation in these activities. Clearly to reduce the wicked "revolving-door" phenomenon, there is a need for targeted interventions and a review of current psychiatric rehabilitation policies to promote the comprehensive integration of community rehabilitation services by decreasing the fragmentation of care, facilitating continuity of care with other healthcare services, and utilizing effective personal reported outcomes and experiences of consumers with severe mental illness., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis and those with a history of trauma are at high risk for depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) following exposure to new traumatic events. Nevertheless, research is scarce on how having both a psychiatric diagnosis and a trauma history affect reactions to new traumatic events, and how different trauma types may affect individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis. We thus examined whether different stressful contexts (War and COVID-19) affected individuals with and without a psychiatric diagnosis differentially and whether results might be explained by prior trauma exposure. In the same cohort, we assessed depression and PTSS during wartime (2014), routine time (2016), and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) in a sample with (n = 89) and without (n = 104) a self-reported psychiatric diagnosis. This cohort was recruited during the 2014 Israel-Gaza War using social media, snowballing and outreach to mental health rehabilitation centres. We used a linear mixed modelling approach on data from the entire sample, as well as on the two study groups separately. We found that trauma history predicted PTSS and depression whereas a history of psychiatric diagnosis did not. Regarding trauma types, we found that individuals in the psychiatric diagnosis group relative to themselves had more symptoms during COVID-19 compared to war and routine time, while those without diagnosis had more PTSS and depression symptoms during wartime compared to routine time and COVID-19. In conclusion, a traumatic past may have an important influence on reactions to different types of traumatic events. Distinct traumatic events may affect individuals with or without a psychiatric diagnosis differentially., (© 2023 The Authors. Stress and Health published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)