doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) of the Verona academic hospital trust (Italy) one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify predicted risk factors. A web-based survey was conducted from mid-April to mid-May 2021 on hospital workers one year after the first evaluation performed during the lock-down phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress, general anxiety, depression, and burnout were assessed by using, respectively, the impact of event scale (IES-R), the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the four mental health outcomes one year after the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 1033 HCWs participated. The percentage of HCWs scoring above the cut-off increased from 2020 to 2021 in all of the outcome domains (anxiety, 50.1% vs. 55.7, p < 0.05; depression, 26.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; burnout, 28.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; chi-square test), with the exception of post-traumatic distress. There was also an increase when stratifying by occupation and workplace, with a greater increase for depression and burnout. Multivariate analysis revealed that, one year after the COVID-19 outbreak, nurses were at the greatest risk of anxiety and depression, whereas residents were at the greatest risk of burnout (in terms of low professional efficacy). Working in intensive care units was associated with an increased risk of developing severe emotional exhaustion and a cynical attitude towards work.

No abstract

The lockdown due to coronavirus pandemic may exacerbate depressive symptoms, experts argue. Here we evidence that students, a high-risk category for mental disorders, report on average worse depressive symptoms than 6 months before isolation. The prospective data reported herein should alert clinician of a possible aggravation as well as new-onsets of depressive symptoms in students.

Aims To develop and validate two new standardised measures assessing, respectively, experienced discrimination (Covid-19 Experienced DISCrimination scale, CEDISC) and internalised stigma (COvid-19 INternalised Stigma scale, COINS) in people who had been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or had developed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disease. Methods Both the CEDISC and the COINS were developed in Italian and tested for ease of use, comprehension, acceptability, the relevance of items and response options within a focus group session. Online cross-sectional validation survey was conducted among adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who developed Covid-19 disease, members of a closed Facebook discussion group in Italy. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Promax oblique rotation; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to assess the suitability of the sample for factor analysis. Reliability was assessed as internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and as test–retest reliability using weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Precision was examined by Kendall's tau-b coefficient. Results Overall, 579 participants completed the CEDISC, 519 also completed the COINS, 155 completed the retest for both scales after two weeks. The 12 items of the CEDISC converged over a 2-factor solution (‘social life’ and ‘close relations’) accounting for 49.2% of the variance (KMO = 0.894; Bartlett's test p < 0.001); the 13 items of the COINS converged over a 3-factor solution (‘self-perception’, ‘close relations’ and ‘social life’) accounting for 67.7% (KMO = 0.827; Bartlett's test p < 0.001). Cronbach's α was 0.848 for the CEDISC, and 0.837 for the COINS. The CEDISC showed three items (25%) with kappa between 0.61 and 0.80 and seven (58.4%) between 0.41 and 0.60, with only two items scoring 0.21 and 0.40; the COINS had ten items (76.9%) with kappa ranging from 0.41 to 0.60, and three items below 0.31. ICC was 0.906 (95% CI, 0.871–0.932) for the, CEDISC and 0.860 (95% CI, 0.808–0.898) for the COINS. Kendall's tau-b ranged from 0.360 to 0.556 (p < 0.001) for the CEDISC and from 0.290 to 0.606 (p < 0.001) for the COINS. Conclusions Both the CEDISC and the COINS are two valid and reliable scales to be used in studies examining the role of stigma and discrimination of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 patients, and in research evaluating interventions designed to mitigate stigma in this population.

Background Recent studies have shown that nurses have been more affected by the COVID-19 pandemic than any other group of hospital workers in terms of anxiety, depression, and burnout. Several clinical studies had previously demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness and compassion interventions in reducing burnout and emotional distress amongst healthcare professionals. Methods and analysis A parallel-group randomized controlled trial will assess the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a mindfulness and compassion-focused programme on frontline nurses who had been working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-two participants will be recruited from Verona University Hospital Trust (Veneto Region, north-east Italy) and will be divided equally into an intervention group and a control group. Primary outcome will be assessed using the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (MBI-GS). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the Cynicism and Professional Efficacy subscales of the MBI-GS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Impact of Stressful Events (IES-R), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), and the Forms of Self-Criticising/attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS). Discussion The study aims to fill a gap in the literature and present a scientifically validated intervention for those healthcare professionals most exposed to the stressful conditions of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05308537

Background During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, local health authorities in most Italian regions prescribed a reduction of ordinary outpatient and community mental health care. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to the emergency departments (ED) for psychiatric consultation in the pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. Methods This is a retrospective study conducted by using routinely collected administrative data of the two EDs of the Verona Academic Hospital Trust (Verona, Italy). All ED psychiatry consultations registered from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021 were compared with those registered in the pre-pandemic year (01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019). The association between each recorded characteristic and the year considered was estimated by chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Results A significant reduction was observed between 2020 and 2019 (-23.3%) and between 2021 and 2019 (-16.3%). This reduction was most evident in the lockdown period of 2020 (-40.3%) and in the phase corresponding to the second and third pandemic waves (-36.1%). In 2021, young adults and people with diagnosis of psychosis showed an increase in requests for psychiatric consultation. Conclusions Fear of contagion may have been an important factor in the overall reduction in psychiatric consultations. However, psychiatric consultations for people with psychosis and for young adults increased. This finding underlines the need for mental health services to implement alternative outreach strategies aimed to support, in times of crisis, these vulnerable segments of the population.

No abstract