The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in mental health occupational therapy. Research into these changes and the associated risks of relapse is insufficient. To explore the changes that have taken place in forms of occupational intervention (face-to-face and online) during the pandemic, and to analyze their association with subsequent relapses, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was carried out of 270 patients with mental disorder diagnoses under follow-up in day hospitals during 2020. Our results show that the frequency of face-to-face occupational therapy interventions decreased during lockdown and subsequently recovered. Interventions via telehealth increased during lockdown and have since been continued to a greater extent than before lockdown. Patients who received occupational intervention via telehealth relapsed less in the following six months (10.7% vs. 26.3%; χ² = 10.372; p = 0.001), especially those who received intervention via videoconferencing (4.2% vs. 22%; χ² = 5.718; p = 0.017). In conclusion, lockdown subsequent to the COVID-19 outbreak led to a reduction in face-to-face occupational therapy interventions, putting people with prior mental disorders at risk, while the implementation of telehealth tools helped reduce relapses.

Background: The recovery model assumes that the patient can experience personal growth even while maintaining symptoms of a mental disorder. In order to achieve this recovery, the practices of professionals must also change. However, in our setting, there are limited data on the implementation of practices based on the recovery model and their effect on personal recovery. Objective: To describe the association between professionals’ practices and patients’ personal recovery. Methods: An observational and cross-sectional study in which the Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA) was used to assess the degree of implementation of the different practices and the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was used to assess the personal recovery of 307 patients with severe mental disorders. Results: Patients attended by professionals who followed the recovery model obtained a greater personal recovery (p < 0.001, d = 1.10). The dimension associated with greater recovery was that of working toward life goals. The least implemented dimensions had to do with offering treatment options and patient participation in decision-making. This study was conducted in accordance with STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology). Conclusions: Although this is a cross-sectional study that does not allow us to establish causal relationships, it shows that the model with which mental health professionals work is associated with patients’ chances of recovery. We therefore consider that it is important to foster the implementation of practices based on the recovery model within mental health care.

For people with severe mental disorders (SMDs) the COVID-19 pandemic may pose a number of risks. These include the loss of needed care, a higher probability of infection, and the worsening of their mental health. To analyze the pandemic’s impact on care received, relapses, loss of employment, and adherence to preventive guidelines in SMD sufferers, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was carried out comparing 185 patients diagnosed with SMD and 85 with common disorders. The results showed that during lockdown, there was a significant reduction in face-to-face psychotherapeutic, nursing, and occupational therapy interventions. In the same period, telematic interventions were introduced which, although subsequently reduced, now continue to be used to a greater extent than before the pandemic. Employment decreased significantly (13% vs. 9.2%; χ² = 126.228 p < 0.001). The percentage of people with SMD following preventive guidelines was significantly lower for both hand washing (56.2% vs. 75.3%; χ² = 9.360, p = 0.002) and social distancing (47% vs. 63.5; χ² = 6.423 p = 0.011). In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in the interventions that are needed for the recovery of people with SMDs, together with a significant loss of employment and an increased risk of contagion due to less adherence to preventive guidelines. In the future, appropriate attention to these people’s needs must be guaranteed.

Type 1 diabetes (Dm1) is a chronic endocrine and metabolic disease that affects the whole person and requires active, decisive treatment. However, personality traits may influence a patient’s adherence to treatment guidelines. The objective of this work is firstly to identify the 3 Asendorpf personality prototypes (resilient, undercontrolled and overcontrolled) in a sample of Dm1 individuals and determine whether there are any differences in comparison with a control sample; and, secondly, to study their association with adherence to self-care guidelines using both physiological indicators (HbA1C) and self-report measures. To achieve these objectives, a descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out. The sample comprised 294 participants, of whom 104 were people with Dm1 and 190 were controls. The participants, aged between 14 and 34 years, were classified by their scores in NEO-FFI-R, according to the personality characteristics inherent to Asendorpf’s prototypes. Asendorpf’s 3 prototypical personality patterns were found both in the group of people with Dm1 and in the control sample. These patterns showed different degrees of association with adherence to self-care guidelines for this disease and with psychological health factors. Importance should therefore be attached to the personality traits and Asendorpf prototypes of people with Dm1 when proposing interventions to address medical, psychological, and behavioral aspects.

The consequences of physical neglect on retardation in the development of adaptive behaviors and the increased risk of poor physical and mental health are well documented. As physical neglect is a phenomenon found almost exclusively among socially deprived people, it is important to distinguish the health effects caused by neglect from those caused by poverty. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of poverty and physical neglect on the development of problematic externalizing and internalizing behaviors, adaptive skills, and school problems among school children between the ages of 3 and 12. A group of 157 children were chosen from 28 Andalusian schools and classified in three homogeneous groups. Children in group 1 (n = 53) had two target conditions: living in slums (poverty) and suffering from neglect. Children in group 2 (n = 52) had one target condition: living in the same slums as the children in group 1, but not suffering from neglect. Group 3 (n = 52) consisted of children from other (non-slum) neighborhoods who did not suffer from neglect. Adaptive and maladaptive behaviors were evaluated with the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). Significant differences were found between group 1 and group 2, but there were no important differences between group 2 and group 3. The conclusion was that externalizing and internalizing problems, school problems, and low adaptive skills found in neglected children were associated with neglect rather than with poverty or socially deprived environments.