Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on extreme psychological trauma caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is largely unknown. The aim of this paper was to systematically review empirical studies of MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate them and their effectiveness in different areas of mental health. Methods: The electronic databases searched were Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The date when each database was last searched was September 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), and non-randomized non-controlled trials (NRNCTs) focused on MBIs for health care staff who were working in healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. All of them employed standardized measures of mental health. The review followed the best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines. A data collection form, adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, was used to extract and synthesize the results. The methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies were the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the ROBINS-I Tool. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. The results showed the effectiveness of MBIs in improving levels of stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being. However, no conclusive results were found regarding the effectiveness of MBIs in improving the levels of burnout, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and resilience of HCPs. Conclusions: The MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly contributed to improving stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being at a time of serious health emergency. However, more robust studies at a methodological level would have been desirable. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021267621

Deficits in executive functions (EFs) are frequently detected in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) is a screening test for assessing EFs although it has not been so far adapted and validated in Spain. We evaluated the reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the FAB (FAB-E) in PD patients. Our study included 54 healthy subjects and 67 PD patients. Cognitive assessment of participants was conducted using the FAB-E, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail Making Test (TMT), Revised-Barcelona Test (RBT) and Executive Interview (EXIT-25). Internal consistency, intra- and test-retest reliabilities, concurrent and discriminant validity of the FAB-E were examined. To evaluate the influence of cognitive dysfunction in PD on the performance of the FAB-E, we also classified the PD patients into groups according to their cognitive status as measured by the MMSE using published criteria to identify cognitive deficits in PD. The FAB-E showed good internal consistency (α = 0.751). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ranging from 0.559 to 0.891) and Spearman correlations (from 0.494 to 0.864) of the FAB-E subtests indicated a good-strong reliability. The total and subtest scores generally showed a good concurrent validity, except for the prehension behaviour item of the FAB-E and the Interference and Go/no-go tasks of the EXIT-25 that presented low estimates. Excluding the prehension behaviour subtest, the performance of the FAB-E was higher in the control group than in PD patients. Cognitive dysfunction in PD patients also indicated significant poorer FAB-E scores excepting the motor and prehension behaviour subtests. Discriminant analysis determined a cut-off of 14.5 was optimal to differentiate healthy subjects from PD patients. Moreover, a cut-off <12.5 allocated satisfactorily those PD patients with cognitive impairment (MMSE<26) and scores <11.5 classified suitably those PD patients with dementia (MMSE<24). The FAB-E is an accurate tool for evaluating EFs in patients with PD and can provide useful information for distinguishing PD patients with and without cognitive dysfunction at a bedside assessment.

Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen in a subacute stroke population. Participants and setting: Fifty-seven subacute stroke outpatients and 54 healthy individuals were recruited in Alicante province, Spain. Main measure: The Oxford Cognitive Screen. Other measures: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Barcelona test, and the Barthel Index. Design: A validation study was conducted to analyze the inter-rater, intra-rater, test–retest, and internal consistency of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Barcelona test, and divergent validity using the Barthel index. Discriminant indices such as the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and optimal cut-offs were also estimated. Results: The subtests of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen showed excellent estimates for the inter-reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.790 to 1.000; r_s = 0.693 to 1.000), and acceptable-good for intra-reliability (ICC = 0.181 to 0.990) and test–retest reliability ( r_s = 0.173 to 0.971). Internal consistency was also excellent (standardized Cronbach’s α = 0.907). Spearman correlations for the concurrent validity were low-strong ( r_s = −0.193 to 0.95) and low-moderate ( r_s = −0.091 to 0.443) for divergent validity. The optimal cut-offs estimated for the subtests of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen showed good-high specificity (66.7%–100%) and positive predictive value (67.9%–100%), and low-good sensitivity (14.8%–83.3%) and moderate-good negative predictive value (53.5%–76.6%). Discriminant power as measured by the area under the curve indicated acceptable-good values (0.397 to 0.894). Conclusion: Our findings support that the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen is a reliable and valid tool for screening cognitive impairments in subacute stroke patients.

We assessed the association between body mass index (BMI) and sensory processing in 445 Spanish children aged 3–7 from the InProS project. Child sensory processing was measured using the short sensory profile (SSP); an atypical sensory performance was defined as an SSP total score <155 and scores of tactile sensitivity <30; taste/smell sensitivity <15; movement sensitivity <13; under-responsive/seeks sensation <27; auditory filtering <23; low energy/weak <26; and visual/auditory sensitivity <19. The BMI was calculated according to the cutoffs by the World Health Organization for children aged 0–5 and 5–19 years. We used multiple Poisson regression models with robust variance to obtain prevalence ratios (PR). No associations between children’s overweight and obesity and the prevalence of atypical sensory outcomes were observed. A one-point increase in BMI was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of atypical tactile sensitivity (PR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02; 1.12). A statistically marginal association was also observed for atypical total SSP (PR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00; 1.07) and atypical movement sensitivity (PR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00; 1.10). To our knowledge, this is the first time the association between children’s BMI and sensory processing has been reported. Our findings suggest that sensory processing issues may play a part in the complex context of childhood obesity. Further research is required to confirm these findings.

Sensory processing difficulties may have potential detrimental consequences on the physical, social and intellectual development of children. It includes serious disturbances affecting emotional regulation, motor performance, social behavior and daily life functioning, among others factors. Since these symptoms are more frequent among children with disabilities, most research has been carried out in clinical populations. However, recent studies have suggested that sensory problems may be prevalent in around 20% of children without clinical conditions. To date, epidemiological research on sensory dysfunctions in normally developing children is lacking; therefore, it is unknown whether or not sensory processing difficulties are significant factors that affect child’s development. Hence, this study has a double general purpose: (1) to determine the sensory profile of school-aged children; (2) to examine the associations between atypical sensory processing patterns and socio-demographic, health and lifestyle features of these children and their parents. The Infancia y Procesamiento Sensorial (InProS, Childhood and Sensory Processing in English) project is a population-based cross-sectional study of Spanish children aged 3–7 years. Data were gathered from different ad hoc questionnaires and several standardized tests. We propose an objective and reliable methodology using statistical and research procedures to describe and determine associations with sensory processing outcomes. We believe that this project will contribute to filling the gap in epidemiological research on sensory issues by providing more convincing evidence. Nevertheless, the potential results should be corroborated in other larger samples.