Resilience refers to an individual’s healthy coping abilities when encountering adverse life events. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a situation with a high amount of stress exposure, which in turn may be associated with negative emotional outcome like depressive symptoms. The current study investigated if resilience moderated the effect of stress on symptoms of depression and if anxiety symptoms mediated this association. An adult sample of community controls completed the Perceived stress scale 14 (PSS-14), the Resilience scale for adults (RSA), the Patient health questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized anxiety disorder 7 (GAD-7). Independent samples t-test, correlation analyses and moderated mediation analyses were conducted. The results showed that resilience moderated the relations between stress and anxiety symptoms (β = −0.131, p < 0.001) as well as between stress and depressive symptoms (β = −0.068, p < 0.05). In support of a moderated mediation model, resilience moderated the indirect effect of stress on depressive symptom, as confirmed by the index of moderated mediation (IMM = −0.036, p < 0.001; [95% BCa: −0.055, −0.020]). The high resilience subgroup was less affected than the low resilience subgroup by the effect of stress exposure symptoms of depression, mediated by anxiety. The study shows that stress exposure is associated with symptoms of depression, and anxiety mediates this association. Level of resilience differentiates the direct and indirect effect of stress on depression. Knowledge about the effect of stress in response to a pandemic is important for developing treatment and prevention strategies for stress, depression and health-related anxiety.

There are few long-term follow-up studies on psychological treatment of anxiety disorders carried out in clinical mental health settings, so called effectiveness studies. The present paper presents a four year follow-up of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder treated by the Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT), a concentrated form of exposure and response prevention (ERP). A total of 77 obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) patients received treatment during four consecutive days and were assessed with the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) pre, post, and at follow-ups after 3 and 6 months, and 4 years post-treatment. The Y-BOCS mean score changed from 25.9 at pre- to 10.0 post-treatment and 9.9 at long-term follow-up. The proportion fulfilling the strict international consensus criteria for remission was 73% at post-treatment and 69% at follow-up. When taking declining rate, attrition rate, remission, relapse, and further improvement during the follow-up period into account, 72% were recovered on a long-term basis. A comparison with previously published effectiveness studies of ERP indicated that the 4-day treatment yielded significantly higher proportions of remission at post-treatment and recovery at follow-up, as well as within-group effect size on the Y-BOCS. The implications of these results are discussed.

Oslo University Hospital, Norway, had by autumn 2016, accumulated a waiting list of 101 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who had a legal right to receive treatment by a specialized OCD team. In this challenging situation, the Bergen OCD-team suggested to solve the problem by offering all patients an option for the rapid Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT). The B4DT is an individual treatment delivered during four consecutive days in a group of six patients with the same number of therapists. The approach has previously shown a post-treatment response rate of 90% and a 3-month remission rate of 70%. Ninety-seven of the wait-list patients were available for the scheduled time slots, and 90 received the 4-day format during 8 days (45 patients each week). The therapists were recruited from 22 different specialized OCD-teams from all over Norway, and 44 (68%) had not previously delivered the 4-day format. Post-treatment; 91.1% of the patients were classified as responders, and 72.2% were in remission. At 3-month follow-up; 84.4 were classified as responders and the remission rate was 67.7%. Oslo University Hospital now offers the 4-day treatment as standard treatment for OCD. We conclude that the B4DT is an acceptable and potentially effective OCD-treatment.

Background: The Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT) is a concentrated exposure-based treatment for patients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) delivered during four consecutive days. The B4DT has in a number of effectiveness studies demonstrated promising results as approximately 90% of patients gain reliable clinical change post-treatment and nearly 70% are recovered on a long-term basis. Methods: The current study is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of the B4DT. Forty-eight patients diagnosed with OCD were randomized to B4DT, self-help (SH), or waiting list (WL) with 16 patients in each condition. All participants randomized to the B4DT underwent the treatment without any attrition. Results: The B4DT yielded significantly better effects than control conditions on measures of OCD, depression, and generalized anxiety. The response rate (≥35% reduction of the individual patient’s pre-treatment Y-BOCS score) was 93.8% in B4DT, 12.5% in SH and 0% in WL, while remission rate (response criterion is fulfilled and the post-treatment Y-BOCS score is ≤12 points) was 62.5%, 6.3%, and 0%, respectively. Furthermore, patients who had received the B4DT, showed improved work- and social functioning. None of the patients treated with B4DT showed signs of deterioration. In comparison, one patient in the SH condition was in remission, and one showed significant clinical improvement, whereas the remaining showed no change. Conclusion: The results indicate that the B4DT is an effective treatment for patients suffering from OCD. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02886780.

Parenting a child with neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) is related to a higher rate of anxiety and depression, increased stress, and reduced quality of life. Although there is reason to believe that parenting children with NDD in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) can be challenging, there is a lack of knowledge on the psychological distress among these caregivers, especially in rural areas. The aim of the study was to examine the psychological distress among caregivers having children with NDD in rural Nepal. Sixty-three caregivers were visited in their homes and interviewed by experienced mental health professionals. This study examined demographic information, severity of disability, perceived caregiver burden, and psychological distress, measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). The study found a high level of psychological distress in the caregivers (M = 5.38, SD = 2.8). A majority (90.5%) scored two or higher, indicating the presence of a common mental disorder (CMD). Almost half (46%) scored six or higher, indicating a high level of distress. A majority of the caregivers reported that caring for their disabled child had a negative effect on the caregiver’s economy (70%), physical health (65%), social life (64%), and dreams and expectations for the future (81%). There was a significant relationship between the caregiver’s psychological distress (GHQ-12) and degree of disability in the child (Gross Motor Function Classification System), degree of caregiver burden, feeding problems, having health workers as a possible source of help, receiving incentive from the government, having somebody to confide in, and caregiver illiteracy. A forward regression analysis entering the significant factors indicated that caregiver burden, having someone to confide in, and having health workers as a possible source of help were significant related to psychological distress. The final step of the model explained 42.4% of the variance in psychological distress among the caregivers. The study indicates a high level of psychological distress and high overall burden in caregivers of children with NDD in rural Nepal. Further implications for research and service development are discussed.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 2%,^1,2 often with onset in childhood.³ Exposure and response prevention (ERP) and antidepressants are effective treatments,^4,5 but response is mixed, indicating a need to develop more effective strategies. Based on experimental animal studies demonstrating that D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor agonist,^6,7 facilitates extinction learning, a number of human clinical trials have assessed whether ERP is augmented by DCS. While some early publications were promising,^8,9 more recent meta-analyses show only small augmentation of DCS vs placebo (effect size, 0.25)¹⁰ and others no significant difference,^11-13 including no significant difference in several studies involving patients with OCD.^10,11,14-16 A study by Andersson et al¹⁷ concluded that DCS did not augment the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy, but found that antidepressants may interact with DCS to block its facilitating effect on fear extinction.