Search

Objectives: This paper outlines fieldwork procedures for Wave 4 of the COVID‐19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study in the UK during November–December 2020. Methods: Respondents provided data on socio‐political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, and mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress). In Phase 1, adults (N = 2878) were reinvited to participate. At Phase 2, new recruitment: (i) replenished the longitudinal strand to account for attrition; and (ii) oversampled from the devolved UK nations to facilitate robust between‐country analyses for core study outcomes. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was representative of the baseline sample characteristics. Results: In Phase 1, 1796 adults were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 4 (62.4% retention rate). In Phase 2, 292 new respondents were recruited to replenish the panel, as well as 1779 adults from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, who were representative of the socio‐political composition of the adult populations in these nations. The raking procedure successfully re‐balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1% of population estimates for selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusion: The C19PRC Study offers a unique opportunity to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The COVID‐19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the adult population in multiple countries. This paper describes the third wave of the UK survey (the 'parent' strand of the Consortium) during July‐August 2020. Methods: Adults (N = 2025) who participated in the baseline and/or first follow‐up surveys were reinvited to participate in this survey, which assessed: (1) COVID‐19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours; (2) the occurrence of common mental disorders; as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure that the cross‐sectional sample is nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, and representative of the baseline sample characteristics for household composition, ethnicity, urbanicity and born/raised in UK. Results: 1166 adults (57.6% of baseline participants) provided full interviews at Wave 3. The raking procedure successfully re‐balanced the cross‐sectional sample to within 1% of population estimates across selected socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates the strength of the C19PRC Study data to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The C19PRC study aims to assess the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the adult population of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and Spain. This paper describes the conduct of the first two waves of the UK survey (the "parent" strand of the Consortium) during March–April 2020. Methods: A longitudinal, internet panel survey was designed to assess: (1) COVID‐19 related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders as well as the role of (3) psychological factors and (4) social and political attitudes, in influencing the public's response to the pandemic. Quota sampling (age, sex, and household income) was used to recruit a nationally representative sample of adults. Results: Two thousand and twenty five adults were recruited at baseline, and 1406 were followed‐up one‐month later (69.4% retention rate). The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in relation to economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Attrition was predicted by key socio‐demographic characteristics, and an inverse probability weighting procedure was employed to ensure the follow‐up sample was representative of the baseline sample. Conclusion: The C19PRC study data has strong generalizability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important public health questions relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examines whether a 4‐day dot‐probe attentional training to orient attention toward positive words could lead participants with dysphoria to change selective attention to emotional faces. It was also explored whether this positive attentional bias training could lead to a decrease in depressive symptoms. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to Positive Training Group (PTG) and No Training Group (NTG). PTG was composed of 16 subjects, whereas NTG was composed of 15 subjects. All participants were women with a mean age of 22.87 (SD = 3.21). Results: Results showed that dysphoric participants in the PTG did not show changes in attentional patterns to emotional faces. Furthermore, depressive symptoms did not significantly change after the 4‐session training. Conclusions: These results suggest that cognitive training procedures based on dot‐probe paradigms are probably not adequate to modify attentional patterns in individuals with depressive symptoms. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although there is a growing interest in the role of attentional biases in depression, there are no studies assessing changes in these biases after psychotherapeutic interventions.Methods: We used a validated eye-tracking procedure to assess pre-post therapy changes in attentional biases toward emotional information (i.e., happy, sad, and angry faces) when presented with neutral information (i.e., neutral faces). The sample consisted of 75 participants with major depression or dysthymia. Participants were blindly assigned to one of two 10 weekly sessions of group therapy: a cognitive behavior therapy intervention (N = 41) and a positive psychology intervention (N = 34).Results: Both treatments were equally efficacious in improving depressive symptoms (p = .0001, η² = .68). A significant change in attentional performance after therapy was observed irrespective of the intervention modality. Comparison of pre-post attentional measures revealed a significant reduction in the total time of fixations (TTF) looking at negative information (i.e., sad and angry faces) and a significant increase in the TTF looking at positive information (i.e., happy faces)-all p < .02.Conclusions: Findings reveal for the first time that psychotherapeutic interventions are associated with a significant change in attentional biases as assessed by a direct measure of attention. Furthermore, these changes seem to operate in the same direction typically found in healthy populations (i.e., a bias away from negative information and a parallel bias toward positive information). These findings illustrate the importance of considering attentional biases as clinical markers of depression and suggest the viability of modifying these biases as a potential tool for clinical change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing evidence on the efficacy of positive psychology interventions (PPI) to treat clinical disorders. However, very few studies have addressed their acceptability. The present study aimed to analyse 2 key components of acceptability (i.e., client satisfaction and adherence to treatment) of a new PPI programme, the Integrative Positive Psychological Intervention for Depression (IPPI-D), in comparison to a standard cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme in the treatment of clinical depression. One hundred twenty-eight women with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression or dysthymia were allocated to a 10-session IPPI-D or CBT group intervention condition. Results showed that both interventions were highly acceptable for participants. Attendance rates were high, and there were no significant differences between conditions. However, the IPPI-D condition showed significantly higher client satisfaction than the CBT condition. Moreover, acceptability did not differ based on participants' severity of symptoms, regardless of condition. These findings encourage further investigations of the applicability of PPI in clinical settings in order to broaden the range of acceptable and suitable therapies for depressed patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]