The spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to numerous negative consequences on the mental health of the population throughout the world. The main aim of our study was to compare the risk for depression, anxiety, and stress during the second wave of the pandemic in Slovenia. An additional goal was to analyze the association of depression, anxiety, and stress, with the most relevant subjective factors that define the quality of life. Furthermore, we aimed at determining whether health workers have a higher risk for depression following the course of the pandemic. The study was conducted on the general population, between July 2020 and January 2021 through an online survey. The data of 1,728 respondents in two samples of respondents (782 at baseline – first measurement point and 946 during the second measurement point) of the second wave were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and Mann-Whitney U-test. The findings of this study show that the rise the second wave was associated with a higher risk for depression, anxiety and stress. The risk for all three was higher for younger participants. Women showed a higher risk for anxiety and stress. Finances, relationships, and housing dissatisfaction were relevant predictors for depression, anxiety and stress. Health workers in our sample showed a higher risk for stress, but not for depression or anxiety, than the general population. Our findings highlight the urgent need for coordinating and developing mental health services and tailored interventions to reduce the mental health burden, especially in the younger.

Background Depression, anxiety and fear of childbirth have numerous consequences for women and their developing offspring. Insecure attachment in close adult relationships is considered to be a risk factor for depressive symptoms. This study aims to gain further insight into the risk factors for depressive and anxiety symptoms in nulliparous women during the third trimester of pregnancy regarding the main contextual relations, with an emphasis on partner attachment. Methods A group of 325 nulliparas in the third trimester of pregnancy was enrolled in a childbirth preparation program. The following instruments were applied: Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised, the Edinburgh Depression Scale, the Zung Anxiety Scale, and a questionnaire regarding fear of childbirth. Three separate multiple linear regression models were built to explore the associations between demographic, social and attachment variables and mental health functioning. Results Highly educated nulliparas and those with a higher level of co-workers’ emotional support experienced a lower level of anxiety when other predictors in the model were held constant. Of all the predictors in the model, only attachment anxiety and co-workers’ support were statistically significantly associated with the level of depression. Attachment anxiety was significantly associated with all three mental health indicators (level of depression, anxiety and fear of childbirth). Conclusions The results suggest that intimate attachment anxiety could be a key contextual factor for mood and anxiety mental health functioning during the third trimester of pregnancy, accessible to change. Our results could facilitate the formulation of interventions for reducing antenatal depressive symptoms.

AimsTo measure the stigma of healthcare providers toward people suffering from mental illness, the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a commonly applied instrument. However, this scale has not been thoroughly validated in many European countries, its psychometric properties are still unknown and data on practicing psychiatrists is lacking. Therefore, this multicenter study aimed to assess the psychometric characteristics of the 15-item OMS-HC in trainees and specialists in adult and child psychiatry in 32 countries across Europe.Materials and methodsThe OMS-HC was conducted as an anonymous online survey and sent via Email to European adult and child psychiatrists. Parallel analysis was used to estimate the number of OMS-HC dimensions. Separate for each country, the bifactor ESEM, a bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach, was applied to investigate the factor structure of the scale. Cross-cultural validation was done based on multigroup confirmatory factor analyses and reliability measures.ResultsA total of 4,245 practitioners were included, 2,826 (67%) female, 1,389 (33%) male. The majority (66%) of participants were specialists, with 78% working in adult psychiatry. When country data were analyzed separately, the bifactor model (higher-order factor solution with a general factor and three specific factors) showed the best model fit (for the total sample χ2/df = 9.760, RMSEA = 0.045 (0.042–0.049), CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.960, WRMR = 1.200). The average proportion of variance explained by the general factor was high (ECV = 0.682). This suggests that the aspects of ‘attitude,’ ‘disclosure and help-seeking,’ and ‘social distance’ could be treated as a single dimension of stigma. Among the specific factors, the ‘disclosure and help-seeking’ factor explained a considerable unique proportion of variance in the observed scores.ConclusionThis international study has led to cross-cultural analysis of the OMS-HC on a large sample of practicing psychiatrists. The bifactor structure displayed the best overall model fit in each country. Rather than using the subscales, we recommend the total score to quantify the overall stigmatizing attitudes. Further studies are required to strengthen our findings in countries where the proposed model was found to be weak.

No abstract