Search

Background: As the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic continues, medical workers may have allostatic load. Objective: During the reopening of society, medical and nonmedical workers were compared in terms of allostatic load. Methods: An online study was performed; 3,590 Chinese subjects were analyzed. Socio-demographic variables, allostatic load, stress, abnormal illness behavior, global well-being, mental status, and social support were assessed. Results: There was no difference in allostatic load in medical workers compared to nonmedical workers (15.8 vs. 17.8%; p = 0.22). Multivariate conditional logistic regression revealed that anxiety (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18–1.31; p < 0.01), depression (OR = 1.23; 95% CI 1.17–1.29; p < 0.01), somatization (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.14–1.25; p < 0.01), hostility (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18–1.30; p < 0.01), and abnormal illness behavior (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.34–1.66; p < 0.01) were positively associated with allostatic load, while objective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.78–0.89; p < 0.01), subjective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.80–0.88; p < 0.01), utilization of support (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.72–0.88; p < 0.01), social support (OR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.87–0.93; p < 0.01), and global well-being (OR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.22–0.41; p < 0.01) were negatively associated. Conclusions: In the post-COVID-19 epidemic time, medical and nonmedical workers had similar allostatic load. Psychological distress and abnormal illness behavior were risk factors for it, while social support could relieve it.

Introduction: Worries about the immediate and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic may for some individuals develop into pervasive worry that is disproportionate in its intensity or duration and significantly interferes with everyday life. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if a brief self-guided, online psychological intervention can reduce the degree of dysfunctional worry related to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated symptoms. Methods: 670 adults from the Swedish general population reporting daily uncontrollable worry about CO­VID-19 and its possible consequences (e.g., illness, death, the economy, one’s family) were randomised (1:1 ratio) to a 3-week self-guided, online cognitive behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry and associated symptoms, or a waiting list of equal duration. The primary outcome measure was a COVID-19 adapted version of the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale administered at baseline and weeks 1–3 (primary endpoint). Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 month after treatment completion. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04341922) before inclusion of the first participant. Results: The main pre-specified intention-to-treat analysis indicated significant reductions in COVID-19-related worry for the intervention group compared to the waiting list (β = 1.14, Z = 9.27, p < 0.001), corresponding to a medium effect size (bootstrapped d = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58–0.90]). Improvements were also seen on all secondary measures, including mood, daily functioning, insomnia, and intolerance of uncertainty. Participant satisfaction was high. No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: A brief digital and easily scalable self-guided psychological intervention can significantly reduce dysfunctional worry and associated behavioural symptoms related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP) is a brief psychotherapeutic intervention, and a pivotal study found it to be remarkably effective in reducing repeat suicide attempts. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of ASSIP to crisis counseling (CC) in a randomized clinical trial (ISRCTN13464512). Methods: Adult patients receiving treatment for a suicide attempt in a Helsinki City general hospital emergency room in 2016–2017 were eligible to participate. We excluded psychotic or likely non-adherent substance-abusing or substance-dependent patients. Eligible patients (n = 239) were randomly allocated to one of two interventions. (a) ASSIP comprised three visits, including a videotaped first visit, a case formulation, and an individualized safety plan, plus letters from the therapist every 3 months for 1 year, and then, every 6 months for the next year. (b) CC typically involved 2–5 (median 3) face-to-face individual sessions. In addition, all participants received their usual treatment. One and 2 years after baseline, information related to participants’ suicidal thoughts and attempts, and psychiatric treatment received was collected via telephone and from medical and psychiatric records. Results: Among randomized patients, two-thirds initiated either ASSIP (n = 89) or CC (n = 72), with 73 (82%) completing ASSIP and 58 (81%) CC. The proportion of patients who attempted suicide during the 2-year follow-up did not differ significantly between ASSIP and CC (29.2% [26/89] vs. 35.2% [25/71], OR 0.755 [95% Cl 0.379–1.504]). Conclusions: We found no difference in the effectiveness of the two brief interventions to prevent repeat suicide attempts.

Introduction: Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a group-based psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for managing stress. Objective: to assess the effectiveness of SH+ in preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe. Methods: we conducted a randomized controlled trial in 5 European countries. Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire score >= 3), but without a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) or ICD/10 diagnosis of mental disorder, as assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to SH+ or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of mental disorders with the MINI at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of mental disorders at postintervention, self-identified problems, psychological symptoms, and other outcomes. Results: four hundred fifty-nine individuals were randomly assigned to SH+ or ETAU. For the primary outcome, we found no difference in the frequency of mental disorders at 6 months (Cramer V = 0.007, p = 0.90, RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.52-1.78), while the difference significantly favored SH+ at after the intervention (secondary outcome, measured within 2 weeks from the last session; Cramer V = 0.13, p = 0.01, RR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.87). Conclusions: this is the first randomized indicated prevention study with the aim of preventing the onset of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees in Western Europe. As a prevention effect of SH+ was not observed at 6 months, but rather after the intervention only, modalities to maintain its beneficial effect in the long term need to be identified., European Union (EU); Horizon 2020; European Commission (EC); RE-DEFINE: Refugee Emergency: DEFining and Implementing Novel Evidence-based Psychosocial Interventions

Background: The innovative treatment model Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) and its Norwegian adaptation, Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), have been evaluated by cohort studies only. Albeit yielding promising results, the extent to which these are attributable to the treatment thus remains unsettled. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of the PMHC treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) at 6-month follow-up. Methods: A randomized controlled trial with parallel assignment was performed in two PMHC sites (Sandnes and Kristiansand) and enrolled clients between November 9, 2015 and August 31, 2017. Participants were 681 adults (aged ≥18 years) considered for admission to PMHC due to anxiety and/or mild to moderate depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] scores above cutoff). These were randomly assigned (70:30 ratio; n = 463 to PMHC, n = 218 to TAU) with simple randomization within each site with no further constraints. The main outcomes were recovery rates and changes in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) between baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome data were available for 73/67% in PMHC/TAU. Sensitivity analyses based on observed patterns of missingness were also conducted. Secondary outcomes were work participation, functional status, health-related quality of life, and mental well-being. Results: A reliable recovery rate of 58.5% was observed in the PMHC group and of 31.9% in the TAU group, equaling a between-group effect size of 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.85, p < 0.001). The differences in degree of improvement between PMHC and TAU yielded an effect size of –0.88 (95% CI –1.23 to –0.43, p < 0.001) for PHQ-9 and –0.60 (95% CI –0.90 to –0.30, p < 0.001) for GAD-7 in favor of PMHC. All sensitivity analyses pointed in the same direction, with small variations in point estimates. Findings were slightly more robust for depressive than anxiety symptoms. PMHC was also more effective than TAU in improving all secondary outcomes, except for work participation (z = 0.415, p = 0.69). Conclusions: The PMHC treatment was substantially more effective than TAU in alleviating the burden of anxiety and depression. This adaptation of IAPT is considered a viable supplement to existing health services to increase access to effective treatment for adults who suffer from anxiety and mild to moderate depression. A potential effect on work participation needs further examination.