Objective: To compare the distress level among Brazilian healthcare professionals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and estimate risks by sex, age, and occupation.Methods: In a longitudinal cohort design, a nationally distributed online survey was used to collect data from 10,490 active healthcare professionals who worked during the pandemic. Participants were mostly female, aged 18 to 82 years; 13 different health professions and all states of Brazil were represented.Results: The most frequent professions were psychology, dentistry, and nursing. The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) score suggested an increased distress perception among health professionals. Females showed poorer mental health than males, but the absolute rise in Global Severity Index (GSI) score was larger in males than in females. Younger adults reported more symptoms of psychological distress than older adults. The most impacted age group was between 30-39 years. Nurse technicians presented the highest risk of distress. Conclusion: Health professionals are essential to overcoming the pandemic; thus, their mental health status should be monitored, and features associated with increased distress should be identified. Our findings suggest distress risk should be stratified by occupation, age, and sex. Health professionals showed an increased distress perception. Women, individuals between the ages of 30 and 39, nursing personnel, and physicians were more likely to report distress compared with other health professionals.

Emotion regulation refers to use of strategies to change or suppress a response to an affective experience and is an important component of an individual's subjective wellbeing. Difficulties properly regulating emotions are related to psychopathological processes. This study assessed the factor structure of the Brazilian version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ); the invariance of its psychometric parameters as a function of gender; and its convergent validity with other scales measuring affective processes. A total of 813 adults (73.7% women), aged between 18 and 64 years and with a high educational level used an electronic platform to complete the ERQ, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Affect Scale (AS), and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the adapted version of the ERQ were investigated. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) revealed adequate goodness of fit for the ERQ's two-factor model (cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression), providing evidence of invariance of its psychometric parameters as a function of gender. Correlations between the ERQ's factors and measures of affect and emotional dysregulation presented positive indicators, with significant associations between emotion regulation and affective experiences depending on gender. The ERQ presents good psychometric indicators for use with the Brazilian population.

Although the Impact Event Scale-Revised is widely used, its factor structure is still controversial. In addition, its longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI) remains uninvestigated. In this sense, we carried out three studies to investigate its psychometric properties. In Study 1, we evaluated the factorial structure of the scale comparing the different models existing in the literature in Brazilian samples who responded to the instrument during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 2, we provide support for a five-factor model throughout convergent validity with psychological distress and sleep problems, and criterion validity between people with diagnostic of mental disorders. Finally, we evaluated the LMI over a 6-month interval. The results indicated that the five-factor model has excellent goodness of fit and holds strict longitudinal invariance. Additionally, internal consistency and stability coefficients indicate that the scale is appropriate to measure posttraumatic stress symptomatology) in nonclinical samples across multiple assessments. Public Significance Statement This study compared different factor structures for the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). Findings support a five-factor model to explain posttraumatic stress symptoms. In addition, IES-R holds for longitudinal measurement invariance, and it is related to psychopathology indicators, worsening quality of life, and sleep difficulties. The scale is widely used in research and can contribute to clinical assessment.