Search

The new 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak forced mental health providers to overcome their general reluctance about telematic assistance, shifting from a face-to-face approach to online therapy to promote continuity of care for psychiatric patients.An ad-hoc web-based survey questionnaire assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on therapeutic setting in Mental Health Services was sent via email from March 15, 2021 to June 15, 2021 to mental health providers in Genova, Italy. The survey was anonymous and a free Google Forms® software was used.Two hundred nineteen mental health providers completed the survey, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 65%. During the COVID-19 pandemic period, the continuity of care was mainly guaranteed using electronic devices. Psychologists reported a higher availability of video call assistance service to guarantee continuity of care for psychiatric patients compared to psychiatrists and psychotherapists (p0,001). Psychiatrists reported the lowest degree of satisfaction about this new telematic approach (p0,01), while psychologists and to a lesser extent psychotherapists speculated to use it even in non-pandemic times (p=0,02).COVID-19 pandemic creates an opportunity to overcome normative, technological and cultural barriers to the use of online psychotherapy, showing the importance of adapting the therapeutic setting to both collective and individual needs. Despite initial concerns about its effectiveness and efficacy, a general degree of satisfaction was expressed by the majority of the mental health providers. Further efforts will be needed to enhance this new way of working and to train therapists with particular regard to those employed in the public health system.

Background and aim of the work: Suicide is a worldwide phenomenon, with a relevant number of victims. Moreover, repercussions of suicidality-across its entire spectrum-involve not only the individual but also survivors and communities, in a profound and lasting way. As such, suicidality represents a crucial public mental health concern, in which risk/protection factors’ study represent a key issue. However, research primarily focused on suicidality risk factors. This study, moving from Frankl’s first observations on “Meaning in Life” (MiL) as protective against suicidality, aimed to identify the main themes that suicidal patients identified as MiL carriers, or potential carriers, in their existences. Methods: Qualitative study on 144 patients admitted to the Geneva University Hospital’s emergency department for suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempt (SA). Results: Interpersonal/affective relationships constituted the main theme (71.53%), with emphasis on family (39.80%), children/grandchildren (36.89%). Profession/education, intellectual/non-intellectual pleasures, and transcendental dimension also emerged. Conclusions: These aspects could be considered among a public health agenda’s points for suicide prevention programs taking into account also protective factors promotion/support, including community’s mental health resources. Reconnecting to introduction’s historical part, our findings are consistent with Frankl’s observations. Even if exposed to “absurd” and reluctant to deliberate on this, he seems approach Camus conceptualization who, confronted to the necessity of predictable and conform to recognizable personal patterns transcending chaos for a sense-giving perspective, invited to imagine that a meaning, even a “non-absolute meaning”, may lie in apparent smallest things and that Sisyphus can have “the possibility to revolt by trying to be happy”.