The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic is increasing negative emotions and decreasing positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes may have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we will examine the impact of reappraisal, a widely studied and highly effective form of emotion regulation. Participants from 55 countries (expected N = 25,448) will be randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing), an active control condition, or a passive control condition. We predict that both reappraisal interventions will reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions relative to the control conditions. We further predict that reconstrual will decrease negative emotions more than repurposing, and that repurposing will increase positive emotions more than reconstrual. We hope to inform efforts to create a scalable intervention for use around the world to build resilience during the pandemic and beyond.

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies.

No abstract

Background Medication nonadherence of patients with chronic conditions is a complex phenomenon contributing to increased economic burden and decreased quality of life. Intervention development relies on accurately assessing adherence but no “gold standard” method currently exists. Purpose The present scoping review aimed to: (a) review and describe current methods of assessing medication adherence (MA) in patients with chronic conditions with the highest nonadherence rates (asthma, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, hypertension), (b) outline and compare the evidence on the quality indicators between assessment methods (e.g., sensitivity), and (c) provide evidence-based recommendations. Methods PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were screened, resulting in 62,592 studies of which 71 met criteria and were included. Results Twenty-seven self-report and 10 nonself-report measures were identified. The Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5) was found to be the most accurate self-report, whereas electronic monitoring devices such as Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) corresponded to the most accurate nonself-report. Higher MA rates were reported when assessed using self-reports compared to nonself-reports, except from pill counts. Conclusions Professionals are advised to use a combination of self-report (like MARS-5) and nonself-report measures (like MEMS) as these were found to be the most accurate and reliable measures. This is the first review examining self and nonself-report methods for MA, across chronic conditions with the highest nonadherence rates and provides evidence-based recommendations. It highlights that MA assessment methods are understudied in certain conditions, like epilepsy. Before selecting a MA measure, professionals are advised to inspect its quality indicators. Feasibility of measures should be explored in future studies as there is presently a lack of evidence.