The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) can cause neurological, psychiatric, psychological, and psychosocial impairments. Literature regarding cognitive impact of COVID-19 is still limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate cognitive deficits and emotional distress among COVID-19 and post–COVID-19 patients who required functional rehabilitation. Specifically, this study explored and compared cognitive and psychological status of patients in the subacute phase of the disease (COVID-19 group) and patients in the postillness period (post–COVID-19 group). Forty patients admitted to rehabilitation units were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups according to the phase of the disease: (a) COVID-19 group (n= 20) and (b) post–COVID-19 group (n= 20). All patients underwent a neuropsychological assessment including Mini-Mental State Evaluation (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and Impact of Event Scale–Revised (IES-R). A larger part of the COVID group showed neuropsychological deficits in the total MMSE (35%) compared to the post-COVID group (5%), whereas the majority of both groups (75–70%) reported cognitive impairments in the total MoCA. The post-COVID group reported significantly higher score in MMSE subtests of language (p= 0.02) and in MoCA subtests of executive functions (p= 0.05), language (p= 0.01), and abstraction (p= 0.02) compared to the COVID group. Regarding emotional disturbances, ~40% of patients presented with mild to moderate depression (57.9–60%). The post–COVID-19 group reported significantly higher levels of distress at the IES-R compared to the COVID group (p= 0.02). These findings highlight the gravity of neuropsychological and psychological symptoms that can be induced by COVID-19 infection and the need for tailored rehabilitation, including cognitive training and psychological support.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has induced considerable psychological distress in healthcare workers, increasing the risk of burnout. This research aimed to investigate sociodemographic, work‐related, COVID‐19‐related, and psychological factors associated with emotional exhaustion (the core component of burnout) among healthcare professionals during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Italy. A cross‐sectional study was conducted to assess risk (e.g. perceived risk and fear of contagion, stress) and protective factors (e.g. job satisfaction, resilience) for emotional exhaustion among 616 hospital staff. Women, nurses, shift workers, those with a permanent contract, and frontline workers reported significantly higher levels of emotional exhaustion compared to others. Significant risk factors predicting emotional exhaustion were prolonged use of personal protective equipment, increased work pressure, lack of support, and prolonged working hours; psychologically protective factors were resilience and job satisfaction, while perceived stress was found to be a significant psychological risk factor. Organizational interventions should focus on these factors to prevent the onset of burnout.

Purpose: Understanding how difficulties in emotion regulation can be related to metacognitive beliefs during early abstinence, identifying which factors are associated with craving and relapse risk may be useful in residential rehabilitation treatment of alcohol addiction. Methods: Sixty-five patients underwent a 28-day rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction. They underwent a brief semi-structured interview at admission and completed a battery of five self-report questionnaires between days 7 and 10 of alcohol abstinence (T0) and 3 days prior to discharge (T1). Results: After rehabilitation program, all symptoms of psychological distress decreased. We found a significant improvement in all emotional, cognitive and metacognitive scales except for “Cognitive harm” (NAM), “Awareness” (DERS) and a small effect size (low statistical power) for “Emotional clarity” (DERS). Compared to those still abstinent at 1 month from discharge, we found more difficulties in “Emotional clarity” in those who had an early relapse. Difficulties in “Emotional clarity” were observed also in patients with a high level of craving at discharge. Conclusion: Significant differences were observed between the groups “abstinence vs non-abstinence” at 1 month from discharge concerning difficulties in emotion regulation. In particular, we found difficulty in the awareness and understanding of emotion, precisely to identify correctly the emotions. The “Emotional Clarity” seems to be the emotional difficulty that characterized also the group with a high level of craving at discharge and the individuals with early relapse, suggesting the importance of this function as a preliminary factor in emotion regulation.

Background Due to SARS-CoV-2-related encephalopathic features, COVID-19 patients may show cognitive sequelae that negatively affect functional outcomes. However, although cognitive screening has been recommended in recovered individuals, little is known about which instruments are suitable to this scope by also accounting for clinical status. This study thus aimed at comparatively assessing the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in detecting cognitive deficits in post-COVID-19 patients premorbidly/contextually being or not at risk for cognitive deficits (RCD + ; RCD-). Methods Data from N = 100 COVID-19-recovered individuals having been administered both the MMSE and the MoCA were retrospectively analyzed separately for each group. RCD ± classification was performed by taking into consideration both previous and disease-related conditions. Equivalent scores (ESs) were adopted to examine classification performances of the two screeners. Results The two groups were comparable as for most background and cognitive measures. MMSE or MoCA adjusted scores were mostly unrelated to disease-related features. The two screeners yielded similar estimates of below-cut-off performances—RCD + : MMSE: 20%, MoCA: 23.6%; RCD-: MMSE: 2.2%, MoCA: 4.4%. However, agreement rates dropped when also addressing borderline, “low-end” normal, and normal ability categories—with the MoCA attributing lower levels than the MMSE (RCD + : Cohen’s k = .47; RCD-: Cohen’s k = .17). Discussion Although both the MMSE and the MoCA proved to be equally able to detect severe cognitive sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in both RCD + and RCD- patients, the MoCA appeared to be able to reveal sub-clinical defects and more sharply discriminate between different levels of ability.

Although a growing body of research has analyzed the determinants and effects of technostress, it is still unclear how and when technostress would impact workers’ psycho-physical health and work-family interface during the pandemic. To fill this gap, this study tests the mediating mechanisms and the boundary conditions associated with the impact of technostress on workers’ psycho-physical well-being and work-family conflict. A total of 266 Italian workers completed online questionnaires measuring (traditional vs. remote) working modalities, technostress, fear of COVID-19, working excessively, psycho-physical distress, work-family conflict, loss of a loved one due to COVID-19, and resilience. Structural equation models were performed. Results indicated that technostress was positively related to psycho-physical distress and work-family conflict, as mediated by fear of COVID-19 and working excessively, respectively. The loss of a loved one exacerbated the effects of fear of COVID-19 on psycho-physical health, while resilience buffered the effects of working excessively on work-family conflict. Since numerous organizations intend to maintain remote working also after the COVID-19 emergency, it is crucial to study this phenomenon during its peaks of adoption, to prevent its potential negative outcomes. The implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.