The COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown restrictions could have adverse consequences for patients with severe mental disorders (SMD). Here, we aim to compare the early psychological impact (depression, anxiety, and stress responses, intrusive and avoidant thoughts, and coping strategies) on people with SMD ( n = 125) compared with two control groups: common mental disorders (CMD, n = 250) and healthy controls (HC, n = 250). An anonymous online questionnaire using a snowball sampling method was conducted from March 19–26, 2020 and included sociodemographic and clinical data along with the DASS-21 and IES scales. We performed descriptive and bivariate analyses and multinomial and linear regression models. People with SMD had higher anxiety, stress, and depression responses than HC, but lower scores than CMD in all domains. Most people with SMD (87.2%) were able to enjoy free time, although control groups had higher percentages. After controlling for confounding factors, anxiety was the only significant psychological domain with lower scores in HC than people with SMD (OR = 0.721; 95% CI: 0.579–0.898). In the SMD group, higher anxiety was associated with being single (beta = 0.144), having COVID-19 symptoms (beta = 0.146), and a higher score on the stress subscale of DASS-21 (beta = 0.538); whereas being able to enjoy free time was a protective factor (beta = −0.244). Our results showed that patients with SMD reacted to the pandemic and the lockdown restrictions with higher anxiety levels than the general public, and suggesting this domain could be a criterion for early intervention strategies and closer follow-up.

Background Epidemic outbreaks have significant impact on psychological well-being, increasing psychiatric morbidity among the population. We aimed to describe the early psychological impact of COVID-19 and its contributing factors in a large Spanish sample, globally and according to mental status (never mental disorder NMD, past mental disorder PMD, current mental disorder CMD). Methods An online questionnaire was conducted between 19 and 26 March, five days after the official declaration of alarm and the lockdown order. Data included sociodemographic and clinical information and the DASS-21 and IES questionnaires. We analysed 21 207 responses using the appropriate descriptive and univariate tests as well as binary logistic regression to identify psychological risk and protective factors. Results We found a statistically significant gradient in the psychological impact experienced in five domains according to mental status, with the NMD group being the least affected and the CMD group being the most affected. In the three groups, the depressive response was the most prevalent (NMD = 40.9%, PMD = 51.9%, CMD = 74.4%, F = 1011.459, P < 0.001). Risk factors were female sex and classification as a case in any psychological domain. Protective factors were younger age and ability to enjoy free time. Variables related to COVID-19 had almost no impact except for having COVID-19 symptoms, which was a risk factor for anxiety in all three groups. Conclusions Our results can help develop coping strategies addressing modifiable risk and protective factors for each mental status for early implementation in future outbreaks.

IntroductionNonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a multifaceted phenomenon and a major health issue among adolescents. A better understanding of self-injury comorbidities is crucial to improve our ability to assess, treat, and prevent NSSI.PurposeThis study aimed at analyzing some of the psychobehavioral correlates of NSSI: psychological problems, alexithymia, impulsiveness, and sociorelational aspects.Patients and methodsThis was a case–control study. The clinical sample (n=33) included adolescents attending our unit for NSSI and other issues; the controls (n=79) were high-school students. Data were collected using six questionnaires: Youth Self-Report, Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Children’s Depression Inventory, Symptom Checklist-90-R, and Child Behavior Checklist.ResultsCases scored significantly higher in all questionnaires. Habitual self-injurers scored higher on impulsiveness and alexithymia. The gesture’s repetition seems relevant to the global clinical picture: habitual self-injurers appear more likely to seek help from the sociosanitary services. We found a difference between the self-injurers’ and their parents’ awareness of the disorder.ConclusionHabitual self-injurers show signs of having difficulty with assessing the consequences of their actions (nonplanning impulsiveness) and the inability to manage their feelings. Given the significantly higher scores found for cases than for controls on all the psychopathological scales, NSSI can be seen as a cross-category psychiatric disorder, supporting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders decision to include it as a pathological entity in its own right.