The aim of the present validation study is to determine the psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the Mental Health Literacy Scale. For this purpose, the factorial structure, internal consistency, cross-cultural, convergent and discriminant validity were assessed. The measure was translated and adapted to Slovenian context through a blind back-translation process. It was applied to a representative sample of the Slovenian adult population via an online research panel. A total of 1189 participants (598 women), aged between 18 and 95 years ( M = 46.7, SD = 16.2) completed the survey. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, reliability analyses, hypothesis testing, and correlational analyses were conducted. The analyses rejected a hypothesised unidimensional model and demonstrated that a four-factor model with 27 items was the most theoretically and psychometrically adequate. The Slovenian version of Mental Health Literacy Scale (S-MHLS) consists of the following factors: (1) Attitudes Towards People With Mental Health Problems, (2) General Attitudes Towards Mental Health Problems and Help-Seeking, (3) Recognition of Mental Health Disorders and (4) Knowledge About Seeking Mental Health Information. The factors have adequate construct validity and internal consistency, which is also adequate for the entire S-MHLS. However, a decreased scope of the content might result in an inadequate representation of the construct of mental health literacy. In addition, the psychometric interpretation of the MHLS varies widely in validation studies across different linguistic contexts. Therefore, we propose a further improvement of the instrument with a psychometrically and theoretically sound multifactorial structure that demonstrates strong cross-cultural validity.

Background The changing landscape of the work environment, which often encompasses expectations of employees being continuously available, makes it difficult to disengage from work and recover. This can have a negative impact on employees’ well-being, resulting in burnout, depression and anxiety, among other difficulties. The current study will test the effectiveness of two different online interventions (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy; CBT and mindfulness-based stress reduction; MBSR) on employees’ psychological detachment, burnout and other variables related to general (e.g., life satisfaction) and work-specific (e.g., work engagement) well-being. Methods/design The study is designed as a randomized control trial with two intervention groups (i.e., CBT, MBSR) and a waitlist control group. Participants will be full-time employees from a wide range of organizations from Slovenia, who report moderate difficulties with psychological detachment from work and burnout and are not receiving any other form of treatment. The online interventions will encompass 12 sessions over 6 weeks (2 sessions per week); each session will include 1) an active audio-guided session and 2) home assignments, accompanied by handouts and worksheets. The study outcomes (i.e., psychological detachment, burnout, general and work-specific well-being), potential mechanisms (i.e., work-related maladaptive thinking patterns, mindfulness) and moderators (e.g., supervisor support for recovery) will be assessed immediately before and after the interventions (pre and post measurement) and 3 months after intervention completion (follow-up). Additionally, participants will fill out questionnaires for the assessment of the central mechanisms and study outcomes each week. Discussion We expect that the CBT-based intervention will lead to greater improvements in psychological detachment from work and burnout compared to the MBSR and the waitlist control group. Additionally, we expect that the CBT-based intervention will also lead to greater enhancement of both general and work-related well-being. Trial registration https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN98347361 [May 19, 2020].

No abstract

Background: While loneliness is recognized as a risk to mental and physical health, there is a lack of data covering a broad age range. This study used a Slovenian adult sample to investigate loneliness. Aims: To examine levels of social, emotional and general loneliness within the general population. Method: A survey on a sample representative of the general population ( N = 1,189; aged between 18 and 95 years old ( M = 46.74, standard deviation ( SD) = 16.18); 49.7% were men) was conducted in Slovenia by means of an online questionnaire, covering data on demographic variables and levels of emotional, social and general loneliness. Results: In general, people experienced more social than emotional loneliness. Demographic variables that were significant for emotional, social and general loneliness were the history of past mental illness, civil status and employment status. Other demographic variables played different roles in different types of loneliness. Conclusions: Our study shows that differences in loneliness among demographic subgroups are an important factor in understanding and studying loneliness, especially with regard to the distinction between social and emotional loneliness. Given that loneliness represents today not only a social threat but also a significant health problem, it is important to understand which demographic subgroups are more at risk and how we can help them.

Background: On 12 March 2020, Slovenia formally declared the presence of a pandemic of COVID-19 disease, followed by measures to stop the spread of the virus. Scope: The aim of this study was to explore how people experienced the progress of events related to the COVID-19 epidemic. Method: We conducted a general adult population survey by an online questionnaire that included-among others-three open-ended questions. Thematic analysis was applied for each question separately to identify key patterns in the data. Results: The first topic (questions about the epidemic) resulted in four core themes: concerns about the disease, concerns about the future, concerns about measures, and concerns about well-being and daily life. The second topic (positive changes during the epidemic) resulted in three core themes: changes in oneself, changes in close relationships, and changes in the environment and society. Lastly, the third topic (requests for psychological support during the epidemic) resulted in three core themes: direct help and support, information and awareness raising, and media activity. Conclusion: Overall, the themes that emerged from our study provide information that can help in understanding how people perceive the influence on their mental health and well-being of the negative and (some) positive effects of the COVID-19 epidemic. This may be helpful in the general preparedness to a feared second wave of the pandemic.