The present study describes the development of a short, general measure of experiential avoidance, based on a specific theoretical approach to this process. A theoretically driven iterative exploratory analysis using structural equation modeling on data from a clinical sample yielded a single factor comprising 9 items. A fully confirmatory factor analysis upheld this same 9-item factor in an independent clinical sample. The operational characteristics of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ) were then examined in 8 additional samples. All totaled, over 2,400

Background The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. Methods The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. Results Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. Conclusions These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic.

Abstract. The majority of mental health disorders remain untreated. Many limitations of traditional psychological interventions such as limited availability of evidence-based interventions and clinicians could potentially be overcome by providing Internet- and mobile-based psychological interventions (IMIs). This paper is a report of the Taskforce E-Health of the European Federation of Psychologists’ Association and will provide an introduction to the subject, discusses areas of application, and reviews the current evidence regarding the efficacy of IMIs for the prevention and treatment of mental disorders. Meta-analyses based on randomized trials clearly indicate that therapist-guided stand-alone IMIs can result in meaningful benefits for a range of indications including, for example, depression, anxiety, insomnia, or posttraumatic stress disorders. The clinical significance of results of purely self-guided interventions is for many disorders less clear, especially with regard to effects under routine care conditions. Studies on the prevention of mental health disorders (MHD) are promising. Blended concepts, combining traditional face-to-face approaches with Internet- and mobile-based elements might have the potential of increasing the effects of psychological interventions on the one hand or to reduce costs of mental health treatments on the other hand. We also discuss mechanisms of change and the role of the therapist in such approaches, contraindications, potential limitations, and risk involved with IMIs, briefly review the status of the implementation into routine health care across Europe, and discuss confidentiality as well as ethical aspects that need to be taken into account, when implementing IMIs. Internet- and mobile-based psychological interventions have high potential for improving mental health and should be implemented more widely in routine care.

No abstract

No abstract

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The Group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The Expert Group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Fortytwo priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas.Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the Expert Group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions, and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

As the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, engaging the public in adherence to precautionary measures for preventing COVID-19 spread or infection becomes difficult. The present study aims to extend our understanding of how illness perceptions, coping, and self-efficacy affect adherence to precautionary measures among the public. An online survey was administered between April and June 2020 to a sample of 514 Hong Kong citizens. Variables considered were illness perceptions toward COVID-19, problem-solving, avoidance-based coping, self-efficacy, as well as adherence to precautionary measures including physical distancing, limiting unnecessary travelling, and washing hands regularly with soap and water. Adjusted structural equation model showed that illness perceptions toward COVID-19 had significant direct effect on their adherence to precautionary measures (unstandardized β = 0.50, [95% CI, 0.28, 0.80], p = 0.001), and indirect effects through avoidance-based coping (β = −0.10 [95% CI, −0.26, −0.01], p = 0.016) and self-efficacy (β = −0.10, [95% CI, −0.18, −0.01], p = 0.025). These results imply that apart from emphasizing the health hazards of a novel infectious disease, an effective public health intervention and crisis communication should address avoidance-based coping and self-efficacy of the public in adherence to precautionary measures for COVID-19.

reports to be a stakeholder of the Institute for health training online (GET.ON), which aims to implement scientific findings related to the present research into routine care. He also received consultancy fees from several companies, such as Minddistrict, Lantern, and German health insurance companies. All other authors do not report any conflict of interest.