The outbreak of COVID-19 is severely affecting mental health worldwide, although individual response may vary. This study aims to investigate the psychological distress perceived by the Italian general population during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to analyze affective temperament and adult attachment styles as potential mediators. Through an online survey, we collected sociodemographic and lockdown-related information and evaluated distress, temperament, and attachment using the Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale (K10), the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego-Autoquestionnaire short version (TEMPS-A) andthe Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ).In our sample (n=500), 62% of the individuals reported no likelihood of psychological distress, whereas 19.4% and 18.6% displayed mild and moderate-to-severe likelihood. Cyclothymic (OR:1.24; p<0.001), depressive (OR: 1.52; p<0.001) and anxious (OR: 1.58; p=0.002) temperaments, and the ASQ "Need for approval" (OR: 1.08; p=0.01) were risk factors for moderate-to-severe psychological distress compared to no distress, while the ASQ "Confidence" (OR: 0.89; p=0.002) and "Discomfort with closeness" were protective (OR: 0.92; p=0.001). Cyclothymic (OR: 1.17; p=0.008) and depressive (OR: 1.32; p=0.003) temperaments resulted as risk factors in subjects with moderate-to-severe psychological distress compared to mild distress, while the ASQ "Confidence" (OR: 0.92; p=0.039) and "Discomfort with closeness" (OR: 0.94; p=0.023) were protective.Our data indicated that a relevant rate of individuals may have experienced psychological distress following the COVID-19 outbreak. Specific affective temperament and attachment features predict the extent of mental health burden. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first data available on the psychological impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on a sizeable sample of the Italian population. Moreover, our study is the first to investigate temperament and attachment characteristics in the psychological response to the ongoing pandemic. Our results provide further insight into developing targeted intervention strategies.

Background: Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time. The consequences of climate change on exposed biological subjects, as well as on vulnerable societies, are a concern for the entire scientific community. Rising temperatures, heat waves, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, fires, loss of forest, and glaciers, along with disappearance of rivers and desertification, can directly and indirectly cause human pathologies that are physical and mental. However, there is a clear lack in psychiatric studies on mental disorders linked to climate change. Methods: Literature available on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library until end of June 2019 were reviewed. The total number of articles and association reports was 445. From these, 163 were selected. We looked for the association between classical psychiatric disorders such as anxiety schizophrenia, mood disorder and depression, suicide, aggressive behaviors, despair for the loss of usual landscape, and phenomena related to climate change and extreme weather. Review of literature was then divided into specific areas: the course of change in mental health, temperature, water, air pollution, drought, as well as the exposure of certain groups and critical psychological adaptations. Results: Climate change has an impact on a large part of the population, in different geographical areas and with different types of threats to public health. However, the delay in studies on climate change and mental health consequences is an important aspect. Lack of literature is perhaps due to the complexity and novelty of this issue. It has been shown that climate change acts on mental health with different timing. The phenomenology of the effects of climate change differs greatly-some mental disorders are common and others more specific in relation to atypical climatic conditions. Moreover, climate change also affects different population groups who are directly exposed and more vulnerable in their geographical conditions, as well as a lack of access to resources, information, and protection. Perhaps it is also worth underlining that in some papers the connection between climatic events and mental disorders was described through the introduction of new terms, coined only recently: ecoanxiety, ecoguilt, ecopsychology, ecological grief, solastalgia, biospheric concern, etc. Conclusions: The effects of climate change can be direct or indirect, short-term or longterm. Acute events can act through mechanisms similar to that of traumatic stress, leading

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

No abstract

BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions for cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction as first-line treatment, but it is still unclear which intervention, if any, should be offered first. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of all available psychosocial interventions (alone or in combination) for the short- and long-term treatment of people with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction.Methods and findingsWe searched published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any structured psychosocial intervention against an active control or treatment as usual (TAU) for the treatment of cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction in adults. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (proportion of patients in abstinence, assessed by urinalysis) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out due to any cause) at the end of treatment, but we also measured the acute (12 weeks) and long-term (longest duration of study follow-up) effects of the interventions and the longest duration of abstinence. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42017042900). We included 50 RCTs evaluating 12 psychosocial interventions or TAU in 6,942 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from high to very low. Compared to TAU, contingency management (CM) plus community reinforcement approach was the only intervention that increased the number of abstinent patients at the end of treatment (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.24–6.51, P = 0.013), and also at 12 weeks (OR 7.60, 95% CI 2.03–28.37, P = 0.002) and at longest follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.33–7.17, P = 0.008). At the end of treatment, CM plus community reinforcement approach had the highest number of statistically significant results in head-to-head comparisons, being more efficacious than cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.02–5.88, P = 0.045), non-contingent rewards (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.32–8.28, P = 0.010), and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.13–14.69, P = 0.031). CM plus community reinforcement approach was also associated with fewer dropouts than TAU, both at 12 weeks and the end of treatment (OR 3.92, P < 0.001, and 3.63, P < 0.001, respectively). At the longest follow-up, community reinforcement approach was more effective than non-contingent rewards, supportive-expressive psychodynamic therapy, TAU, and 12-step programme (OR ranging between 2.71, P = 0.026, and 4.58, P = 0.001), but the combination of community reinforcement approach with CM was superior also to CBT alone, CM alone, CM plus CBT, and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (ORs between 2.50, P = 0.039, and 5.22, P < ...

No abstract

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterised by a persistent and impairing pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity and it is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions. Evidence about interventions of adults with ADHD is growing rapidly and clinicians need a reliable summary of all the best available information in order to better inform their daily practice. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases until 31 May 2016 for systematic reviews about pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in adults with ADHD and carried out a meta-review to address clinically relevant questions. We identified a total of 40 papers. Psychostimulants-such as methylphenidate, dexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine-and non-psychostimulants-such as atomoxetine-were the most studied agents. Overall, pharmacological treatments were significantly more efficacious than placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52), albeit less well accepted (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36) and tolerated (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.66). The effects of pharmacological treatment for individuals with co-occurring ADHD and substance use disorder are still uncertain. The evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments of ADHD in adults, as well as the combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, is only preliminary. In conclusion, while available evidence addressed mainly the efficacy and tolerability of psychostimulants and nonpsychostimulants for ADHD core symptoms in the short term, we still need further empirical support for the non-pharmacological and multimodal treatments. A comprehensive evidence-informed hierarchy of ADHD drugs based on their efficacy and tolerability is not yet available but it should be the next research priority in the field. INTRODUCTIONAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions, 1 with a pooled worldwide prevalence estimated at about 5% in school-aged children and persistence of impairing symptoms in adulthood in up to 65% of cases.1 The pooled estimated prevalence of ADHD (as categorical diagnosis) in adults is around 2.5%.

Social isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected lifestyles: from sedentary behaviors to reduced physical activity, from disrupted sleep patterns to altered dietary habits. As a consequence, serious mental and emotional responses have been registered. There was a significant decline in physical and other meaningful activities of daily living, leisure, social activity, and education. In children, collateral effects of the pandemic include inadequate nutrition with a risk of both overweight and underweight, addiction to screens, lack of schooling, and psychosocial difficulties. Older adults are frequently unable to adapt to lockdown measures and suffer from depression and cognitive complaints. Recent studies focusing on changes in lifestyle during the Covid-19 pandemic and consequences on mental health have been identified in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and ScienceDirect. All the available literature has been retrospectively reviewed. The results of the present narrative review suggest that mental distress caused by social isolation seems to be linked not only to personality characteristics but also to several lifestyle components (sleep disruption, altered eating habits, reduced physical activity). This review aims to explore major changes in the lifestyle and quality of life and the impact of these changes on mental health, and to inform clinicians and policymakers about elements that may reduce the negative psychological effects of the quarantine period imposed during this worldwide crisis. There is an urgent need for tailored preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic mental health interventions for the general population and for higher risk groups.