Introduction There are few published empirical data on the effects of COVID‐19 on mental health, and until now, there is no large international study. Material and methods During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. Results Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed. Conclusions The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them.

No abstract

Purpose The year 2020 was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, massively disruptive at the general population level and for healthcare systems. We aimed to evaluate the psychological distress associated with work-related experiences among medical professionals and supporting staff during the pandemic outbreak. Patients and Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and May 2020, employing a self-administered on-line questionnaire that included the collection of socio-demographic and professional status information, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Maslach Burnout Inventory - General Survey, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and a subscale of the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) for empathy. A total of 364 professionals of the county-coordinated area responded. Descriptive statistics summarized the findings and a mediation model was analyzed, applying the causal step strategy. The specific direct and causal mediation effects were estimated with the bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap sampling method. Results Anxiety, burnout, stress, resilience, and empathy proved to be significantly associated with both the professional category (ie, consultant, specialty doctor, trainee doctor, senior nurse, trainee nurse or other) and the perceived professional support (the nonparametric multivariate permutation test resulted in p=0.048 and p<0.001, respectively). When controlling for the marital and professional status, the female gender had an OR=2.26, 95% CI (1.21; 4.22) toward a high level of empathy compared to males. The causal mediation effect of the perceived lack of professional support on empathy through burnout-depersonalization was highly significant (p<0.001) with an average of 0.0599, 95% CI (0.0238; 0.10), while the direct effect was non-significant (p=0.536) with an average of 0.0295, 95% CI (−0.0774; 0.15). Conclusion We highlighted the impact of the lack of professional support on healthcare workers’ empathy through burnout-depersonalization in a context of a high workload, time pressure, job stress beyond previous training, and inherently limited organizational support, which are potentially modifiable factors in the mid-term.

Background and Hypothesis Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation. Study Design In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5–20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200–800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the “non-improvers”) were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound (“stayers”) or to switching to the other antipsychotic (“switchers”) for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined “switchers” and the “stayers” after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression. Study Results A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the ‘stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the “switchers” reached remission at endpoint (p = .006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. “Switchers” and “stayers” did not differ in safety outcomes. Conclusions Switching “non-improvers” from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary.

BackgroundSuicidality is a serious public health concern at a global scale. Suicide itself is considered to be preventable death; worldwide, suicide rates and their trends are under constant scrutiny. As part of the international COMET-G cross-sectional study, we conducted a national level investigation to examine the individual disturbances (such as anxiety, depression, or history of life-threatening attempts) and contextual factors (such as adherence to conspiracy theories or Internet use) associated with suicidality related to the COVID-19 lockdown in a lot of Romanian adults.Participants and MethodsOne thousand four hundred and forty-six adults responded to an anonymous on-line questionnaire, with mean age ± standard deviation of 47.03 ± 14.21 years (1,142 females, 292 males, 12 identified themselves as non-binary). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling (SEM).ResultsUnivariate analysis showed strong significant correlation between anxiety and depression scorings among the respondents (Spearman R = 0.776, p &lt; 0.001). Both the suicidality scorings and the Internet use correlated fairly with anxiety and depression, with two-by-two Spearman coefficients between R = 0.334 and R = 0.370 (p &lt; 0.001 for each). SEM analysis substantiated the emotional disturbances, previous life-threatening attempts, and younger age as significant predictors for suicidality. The patterns of reality reading (including religious inquiries, Internet use, and beliefs in conspiracy theories) did not reach the statistical significance as influential factors in the suicidality of these respondents. There was no covariance between the Internet use and belief in conspiracy theories.ConclusionThe study confirmed the suicidality risk initially hypothesized as being associated with the history of life-threatening attempts, increased depression within the younger population, and higher anxiety during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and its related lockdown. National strategies for effective interventions at various levels of the healthcare system should be developed.