Background: The health-care workers showed the highest risks of the adverse psychological reactions from the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the structure and severity of psychological distress and stigmatization in different categories of health-care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: This study included two phases of online survey in 1800 Russian-speaking health-care workers (March 30 – April 5 and May 4 – May 10, 2020). The Psychological Stress Scale (PSM-25) and modified Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination scale (Cronbach's α = 0.74) were used. Dispersion analysis was performed with P = 0.05, Cohen's d , and Cramer's V calculated (effect size [ES]). Results: The psychological stress levels decreased in the second phase (ES = 0.13), while the stigma levels (ES = 0.33) increased. Physicians experienced more stress compared with nurses and paramedical personnel (ES = 0.34; 0.64), but were less likely to stigmatize SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (ES = 0.43; 0.41). The increasing probability of contact with infected individuals was associated with higher levels of psychological stress (probable contact ES = 0.48; definite contact ES=0.97). The highest rates of contacts with COVID-19 patients were reported by physicians (χ 2 = 123.0; P = 0.00, Cramer's V = 0.2), the youngest (ES = 0.5), and less experienced medical workers (ES = 0.33). Conclusion: Direct contact with coronavirus infection is associated with a significant increase in stress among medical personnel. The pandemic compromises the psychological well-being of the youngest and highly qualified specialists. However, the stigmatizing reactions are not directly associated with the risks of infection and are most prevalent among nurses and paramedical personnel.

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed not only serious threats to the physical health of the population, but also provoked a wide range of psychological problems. The study was aimed to define the structure of anxiety in the population during the epidemic period, as well as to identify the most vulnerable social groups (including individuals with affective disorders) which were most in need of psychological and/or psychiatric help. The online survey of 1957 Russian-speaking respondents aged over 18 was carried out from March 30 to April 5, 2020. The anxiety distress level was verified using the Psychological Stress Measure (PSM-25), the stigmatization of individuals experiencing respiratory symptoms was assessed using the modified Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Questionnaire (PDD; Cronbach's α = 0.707). In 99.8% of respondents, the combination of various concerns associated with COVID-19 was observed, the mean psychological stress score was increased to moderate level (score 104.9 ± 34.4), and the stigmatization score exceeded the whole sample median value (19.5±3.4; Me = 17). About 35% of respondents had concerns associated with anxiety distress (Cohen’s d = 0.16–0.39): these were the "risk of social isolation" and the "possible lack of medication for daily use". The following groups of respondents were the most susceptible to the stress: people with affective disorders, young people (aged ≤20), unemployed persons, single persons, people with no formal education, and women. Thus, the broad sectors of the population need correction of anxiety distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the measures’ implementation should be targeted, and in terms of coverage and content oriented to the identified vulnerable social groups.

The COVID-19 pandemic imposed not only serious threats to the physical health of the population, but also provoked a wide range of psychological problems. Objective: to identify the most vulnerable populations during the epidemic period (including individuals with affective disorders) who are most in need of psychological and / or psychiatric help. Material and methods: on-line survey of 1957 Russian-speaking respondents over 18 years old from March 30 to April 5, 2020. The level of anxiety distress was verified with the psychological stress scale (PSM-25). Stigmatization of individuals experiencing respiratory symptoms was assessed with modified devaluation / discrimination questionnaire (PDD; Cronbach's α = 0.707). Results: 99.8% of respondents had variable concerns associated with COVID-19. Their mean scores of psychological stress were increased to moderate levels (104.9 ± 34.4 points), and the stigmatization scores exceeded the value of the whole sample median (19.5 ± 3.4; Me = 19). 35% of respondents had concerns about COVID-19 associated with anxiety distress (Cohen's d = 0.16-0.39): these were "risk of isolation" and "possible lack of medication for daily use". The most prone to concerns were respondents' groups with affective disorders, young people (≤20 years old), unemployed, single, those without higher education and women. Conclusions: large sub-cohorts of the Russian-speaking sample need correction of anxiety distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of such measures should be targeted and oriented in terms of coverage and content to identified vulnerable social groups.

One of the many negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic is the “secondary epidemic” of negative psychological effectsThe aim of the study was to identify socio-psychological factors associated with adaptive behavior in the population.Materials and methods: an on-line survey of 1957 Russian-speaking respondents over 18 years old was performed from 30.03.2020 to 05.04.2020. The level of anxiety distress was verified with the psychological stress scale (PSM-25). Dispersion analyses were used (p<0.05). The size of the effects (SE) was evaluated according to Cohen’s d and Cramer’s V criteria.Results: Increased levels of psychological stress were associated with self-isolation (SE=0.13), social distanc- ing (SE=0.14) and antiseptic usage (SE=0.11). The scores of psychological stress were higher in individuals who search the media for coronavirus news more than once or twice a day (SE=0.11). At the same time, the fre- quency of requests for information about COVID-19 was not linearly associated to the individuals fears for their own lives. The concerns about the availability of protective equipment were specifically associated to compliance with self-isolation measures (SE=0.1). The combination of concerns about the contagiousness of the virus and the unavailability of medication for daily intake were associated with the principles of social distance (SE=0.12 and SE=0.11 respectively). Moreover, concerns about the lack of specific treatment for COVID-19, the danger to one’s own life, the contagiousness of the virus and the lack of protective equipment were associated with the protective behaviours related to hand hygiene (SE=0.12, SE=0.12, SE=0.11, SE=0.11 respectively). Wearing a mask was characterized by the same anxiety patterns as hand hygiene, but their association was inverse (respectively SE=0.13, SE=0.12, SE=0.14, SE=0.15). The most common type of anxious experience—fear for the health of relatives—was not specifically associated with certain types of behavior and accompanied each of its variants.Conclusion: Psychological reactions of the population to the COVID-19 pandemic are specifically associated with adaptive behavior in the dynamics of anti-epidemic measures.

Recent biological and genetic research data confirm shared pathological mechanisms of inherited metabolic diseases and mental disorders. We suggest that for further research a model of synergistic heterozygosity can become a convenient tool. In that case the use of inherited metabolic disorders as a multisystem research model can provide both significant theoretical and practical results. At the initial stage of this hypothesis evaluation, it seems efficient to screen for mental symptoms the families of patients with inherited metabolic disorders.

We provide an overview of the recent achievements in psychiatric genetics research in the Russian Federation and present genotype-phenotype, population, epigenetic, cytogenetic, functional, ENIGMA, and pharmacogenetic studies, with an emphasis on genome-wide association studies. The genetic backgrounds of mental illnesses in the polyethnic and multicultural population of the Russian Federation are still understudied. Furthermore, genetic, genomic, and pharmacogenetic data from the Russian Federation are not adequately represented in the international scientific literature, are currently not available for meta-analyses and have never been compared with data from other populations. Most of these problems cannot be solved by individual centers working in isolation but warrant a truly collaborative effort that brings together all the major psychiatric genetic research centers in the Russian Federation in a national consortium. For this reason, we have established the Russian National Consortium for Psychiatric Genetics (RNCPG) with the aim to strengthen the power and rigor of psychiatric genetics research in the Russian Federation and enhance the international compatibility of this research.The consortium is set up as an open organization that will facilitate collaborations on complex biomedical research projects in human mental health in the Russian Federation and abroad. These projects will include genotyping, sequencing, transcriptome and epigenome analysis, metabolomics, and a wide array of other state-of-the-art analyses. Here, we discuss the challenges we face and the approaches we will take to unlock the huge potential that the Russian Federation holds for the worldwide psychiatric genetics community.

Пандемия COVID-19 не только создала серьезные угрозы для физического здоровья населения, но и вызвала широкий спектр психологических проблем. Целью работы было выявить структуру тревожных переживаний населения в период эпидемии и определить наиболее уязвимые социальные группы (в том числе среди лиц с аффективными расстройствами), больше всего нуждающиеся в психологической и/или психиатрической помощи. Было проведено онлайн-анкетирование 1957 русскоговорящих респондентов старше 18 лет в период с 30 марта по 5 апреля 2020 г. Уровень тревожного дистресса верифицировали по шкале психологического стресса (PSM-25), стигматизацию лиц с респираторными симптомами — по модифицированному опроснику обесценивания/дискриминации (PDD; Cronbach's α = 0,707). У 99,8% респондентов обнаружено сочетание нескольких типов тревожных переживаний о COVID-19, показатель стресса был повышен до уровня средней интенсивности (104,9 ± 34,4 балла), а показатель стигматизации превосходил медианное значение по выборке (19,5 ± 3,4; Me = 17). До 35% респондентов имели опасения, ассоциированные с тревожным дистрессом (Cohen’s d = 0,16–0,39): «риск изоляции» и «возможное отсутствие лекарств для ежедневного приема». Особенно подверженными психологическому стрессу оказались страдающие аффективными расстройствами, лица молодого возраста (≤ 20 лет), безработные, холостые/незамужние, не имеющие высшего образования и женщины. Таким образом, широкие слои населения нуждаются в коррекции дистрессовых опасений на фоне пандемии COVID-19, поэтому их проведение должно быть адресным, ориентированным по степени охвата и содержанию на выявленные уязвимые социальные группы.

Background Eating Disorders pose a serious health risk to individuals. Often, eating disorder symptoms are overlooked when assessing obesity risk. The current cross-sectional study was focused on the search of association between disordered eating behaviors evaluated by Eating Attitudes Test 26 (EAT-26) and obesity in a large cohort of Russian-speaking adults seeking online assistance with medical weight correction. Methods The web-based cross-sectional study evaluated the data of online Eating Attitudes Test 26 (EAT-26) completed by 13,341 registered adult visitors of weight loss clinic website. The EAT-26 provides an overall score for potential eating disorders risk, as well as scores for three subscales: Bulimia, dieting, and oral control. Additional self-reported information about sex, weight, height, and age of respondents was used for analysis. The nonparametric analysis of variance and binominal logistic regression modeling were applied to search for an association between obesity and EAT-26 total score and subscales scores. The critical level of the significance was considered as α = 0.05. Results Women (94%) had lower BMI values but higher EAT-26 total score than men, which was indicated as statistically significant by a Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test (Z = − 11.80, p < 0.0001). Logistic regression for the whole cohort revealed that Bulimia subscale score was associated with higher risk of obesity (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.05) whereas higher score of EAT-26 oral control subscale was associated with decreased risk of obesity (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91–0.95). Separate analysis for men and women showed that in men higher obesity risk was associated with higher oral control subscale scores (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.06–1.11); while in women both dieting and bulimia subscales scores were associated with higher obesity risk (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03 and OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.05, respectively). Older age was associated with obesity risk for both women and men. Conclusions In a large cohort of individuals seeking medical weight correction assistance, the risk of obesity was associated with the higher EAT-26 scores, age, and sex. Moreover, different eating disorder risk profiles were associated with obesity in men and women. Higher oral control subscale score was associated with decreased risk of obesity in women, but with higher risk in men. Older age was a shared obesity risk factor for both sexes. Therefore, the use of EAT-26 would facilitate individual diagnostic assessment for specific eating disorders in different sub-cohorts. Further assessment of separate EAT-26 subscales may be important to predict sex-/age-specific risks of obesity that implies their study in the future. Plain English summary Obesity is a significant health problem. Different factors (e.g. social, biological, and behavioral) are important for their successful treatment. Abnormal eating behaviors may be one of the most likely predictors of increased body weight. This study aims to determine whether there is a significant association between obesity and scores on the eating behavior questionnaire-Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26)-in a large cohort of adults seeking medical weight correction assistance at a private weight loss clinic web-site. According to the study results, the association was shown for the male sex, older age, and higher Bulimia scores as measured on the EAT-26. Moreover, different EAT-26 scales were associated with obesity risks in women and men subgroups, while older age was a shared risk factor for obesity in both sexes. The findings may suggest sex-/age-specific diagnostic approach and treatment strategies for individuals with obesity.