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 (χ² = 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. 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.

INTRODUCTION: The limited practice of depot antipsychotics and psychoeducation use, recommended for overcoming the noncompliance of patients with severe mental disorders, is linked to a high incidence of treatment violation. Therefore, the development of personalized mental healthcare approaches is a crucial healthcare task. AIM: To describe and differentiate the role of clinical, social and psychological factors that lead to different level of treatment engagement of psychiatric inpatients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of findings from 91 inpatients, based on the Treatment Motivation Assessment Questionnaire and Medication Compliance Scale, as well as the Scale of Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness and Perceived Discrimination and Devaluation Scale. Factorial analysis, cluster analysis and analysis of variance with p-level=0.05 and the calculation of the effect size (ES) according to Cohens d and Cramers V were used. RESULTS: The nature of therapy compliance in various categories of patients is mediated differentially, including: the severity of negative symptoms (ES=0.29), the global level of functioning and work maladjustment (ES=0.230.26), various motivational and behavioral styles (ES0.74) and the intensity of psychiatric stigmatization (ES0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of the clinical, social and psychological factors should empirically determine the strategies for the personalized use of prolonged antipsychotics and socio-psychotherapeutic interventions when developing an individual treatment plan for psychiatric in-patients.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the neurological complications affecting people infected with COVID-19, cognitive impairment symptoms and symptoms of anxiety and depression remain a frequent cause of complaints. The specificity of cognitive impairment in patients with COVID-19 is still poorly understood. AIM: An exploratory study of factors that may be associated with cognitive decline during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The cross-sectional multicentre observational study was conducted in a polyclinic unit in Saint Petersburg and in the regions of the North-Western Federal Region. During the study, socio-demographic parameters and information about the somatic condition of patients who applied for primary health care was collected. Emotional and cognitive state were investigated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Mathematical and statistical data processing was carried out using SPSS and RStudio statistical programs. RESULTS: The study included 515 participants, 60% (n=310) of which were women. The sample was divided into those who did (28.5%, n=147) and did not (71.4%, n=368) complain of cognitive decline. Patients with complaints of cognitive decline were significantly older, had lower levels of education and higher levels of depression and anxiety according to HADS (p 0.05). Patients with complaints of cognitive decline underwent the MoCA test (24.3%, n=125). The median MoCA test scores were within the normal range (Median=27, Q1=25, Q3=28), and cognitive decline (MoCA less than 26 points) was detected in 40% (n=50) of patients with complaints of cognitive decline. No significant correlations were found between the MoCA scores and the levels of anxiety and depression according to the HADS (p 0.05). Patients with mild severity of the COVID-19 course were more successful with MoCA subtests than patients with moderate and severe courses. CONCLUSION: We found no linear association between objective cognitive deficit and the affective state of respondents. Patients subjective complaints about cognitive dysfunction were mostly caused by their emotional state than an objective decrease of their cognitive functions. Therefore, in case of subjective complaints on cognitive decline, it is necessary to assess not only the cognitive but also the affective state of the patient. The severity of the COVID-19 course affects the functions of the cognitive sphere, including attention, regulatory functions and speech fluency. Mild and moderate severity of the COVID-19 correlates with clinically determined depression. The absence of this relationship with the severe course of the disease is probably explained by the significant somatic decompensation of patients.

BACKGROUND: Exploring the professional values and educational needs of future and practicing mental health specialists is required to develop effective measures aiming at improving their skills and interest in their work. AIM: Our aim was to explore professional values and educational needs of mental health specialists in Russia. METHODS: We conducted a survey that captured socio-demographic data, professional characteristics, professional values, and educational needs. Fisher's exact test, logistic regression, and the k-means cluster analysis were used in our statistical analysis. RESULTS: The survey included 133 participants, 71% of whom had completed their postgraduate education. The following items were mentioned as important professional values by the respondents: Job opportunities, Stimulation of intellectual activity, and Work-life balance. The most popular options for educational activities were English language (63.4%), the principles of evidence-based medicine (63.4%), and developing skills for conducting scientific research (59.4%). In comparison with practicing specialists, respondents who had not yet completed their postgraduate education were more interested in developing their curriculum vitae (39% vs. 60%, p=0.044) and communication skills (49% vs. 77%, p=0.0048). Compared to male respondents, female respondents were more interested in developing skills in conducting scientific research (47 vs. 70%, p=0.0165). A cluster analysis showed that specialists who attached more importance to almost all professional values, in comparison to those who did not, were more interested in activities aimed at developing their research skills (64% vs. 41%, p=0.0287), learning about the principles of evidence-based medicine (70% vs. 41%, p=0.0063), and participating in journal clubs (39% vs. 11%, p=0.0193). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that job opportunities, intellectual stimulation, and work-life balance are the most important professional values for future and practicing mental health specialists. These findings might be used as a basis for developing educational activities for mental health specialists.