Background: Adverse life occurrences (e.g., severe accidents, violence/abuse, organic disorders such as COVID-19) can elicit traumatic responses that heighten fear, anxiety, and depression. However, scientific research has shown that certain variables, such as self-esteem, based on theories like terror management theory (TMT) and the anxiety-buffering hypothesis (ABH), can mitigate the negative effects of trauma. This study aimed to test the ABH by assessing the buffering role of self-esteem in the relationships among the impact of traumatic experiences, fear, anxiety, and depression. Method: An observational research design was used. This study involved 321 participants who experienced COVID-19 as a traumatic experience. A sequential multiple-mediation model with observed variables (path analysis) was used to test the impact of the traumatic experience on fear, anxiety, and depression, examining the protective role of self-esteem. Results: A path analysis revealed that fear and anxiety mediated the relationship between the impact of the traumatic experience of COVID-19 and depression. Additionally, in line with the ABH, self-esteem was found to mediate the relationship between the predictors and their adverse psychological consequences. This suggests that self-esteem played a buffering role, mitigating the negative impact of traumatic experiences on mental health outcomes. Conclusions: These findings underscore the central mediating role of self-esteem, as well as fear and anxiety, in the pathway from trauma-related factors to depression. These insights advocate for evidence-based interventions aimed at alleviating the psychological suffering associated with traumatic experiences, fostering adaptation, and supporting psychological health.

Background: Psychological support was provided by the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Integrative Group Treatment Protocol (EMDR-IGTP) within the hospitals in the Northern Italy in favor of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of treatment in terms of (a) symptomatology reduction related to peri- and post-traumatic stress; (b) clinical improvement over time; and (c) the maintenance of the achieved outcome over time.Methods: The population was composed of healthcare workers who spontaneously requested psychological intervention in both the first and the second emergency waves. Statistical analyses were carried out to highlight the differences in Impact of Event-Revised (IES-R) and Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) before and after the group intervention.Results: In both the first and the second waves, pre-treatment values are higher than post-treatment values for all dimensions of the IES-R. The results show that there are no significant differences between the first and the second wave with regard to the treatment effect. Healthcare workers maintained positive changes over time despite their prolonged exposure to an emergency and the possibility of retraumatization at the onset of a new emergency phase, irrespective of their working place. Healthcare workers who were treated in the first wave showed at the beginning of the second emergency wave less vulnerability and more resilience than those who were treated only in the second wave.Pre-treatment scores of healthcare workers affected by COVID-19 are discussed.Conclusion: COVID-19 had a significant impact on the well-being of healthcare workers who were working in hospitals. Psychological support in case of emergency is needed.

Background/Objectives: Suicidal ideation and behavior in adolescence remain difficult to assess due to their multifactorial and fluctuating nature. Performance-based measures may provide additional information on psychological correlates associated with suicidality beyond self-report and interview data. Methods: This study examined multivariate associations between RorschachPerformance Assessment System (R-PAS) variables and suicidality in a clinical sample of 153 help-seeking adolescents. Elastic net penalized regression models were estimated to evaluate joint patterns of R-PAS variables derived from the Suicide Concern Composite (SC-Comp) and selected developmentally relevant indices, controlling for age, sex at birth, sociodemographic and clinical factors. Suicidal ideation severity and lifetime suicidal behavior were assessed using the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Results: For both outcomes, morbid content (MOR) and Location, Space, and Object Qualities-Complexity (LSO-Cmplx) emerged as consistent multivariate correlates, with vigilance–avoidance (VFD) contributing only in the model for suicidal ideation severity. Model performance was modest (R² = 0.09), indicating limited explanatory power. The findings do not support clinical or predictive use of R-PAS variables for suicidal ideation and behaviors, but indicate a small set of reproducible multivariate associations within this sample. Conclusions: The results suggest that certain R-PAS variables show weak but consistent associations with suicidality in a help-seeking adolescent sample. Given the cross-sectional design and modest explanatory power, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, and further studies are needed to clarify the robustness and meaning of these associations.