Mental Health
Recently Published Documents


(FIVE YEARS 72664)



2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 96-105
Jing Han ◽  
Zixing Zhang ◽  
Cecilia Mascolo ◽  
Elisabeth Andre ◽  
Jianhua Tao ◽  

2021 ◽  
Young Joo Lee

Abstract Background: Mobile health interventions are being widely tried because of their attractive advantages. However, there is not enough evidence for its effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of mobile app-based stress management intervention (mSMI) on highly stressed workers. Methods: A sample of 82 white-collar workers with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale-10≥22) were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The mSMI consisted of three modules: self-management including a work diary, counseling based on cognitive behavioral therapy and interventions focused on music, meditation, relaxation and image healings. Self-report data were collected the baseline and post-intervention. Study outcomes were perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and work engagement. Data were assessed using analysis of covariance with covariates. Results: There was significantly reduced perceived stress from baseline to 6 weeks in mSMI (t=5.788, p<.001) and control group (t=3.184, p=.003). After adjusting for covariates, the between-group difference in the perceived stress was significantly different (F=4.051, p=.048); however, the effect size was small. There was no significant intervention effect on anxiety, depression, and work engagement. The process evaluation indicated that most participants (85.3%) were satisfied with the intervention and their mental health benefited. Conclusion: This study found that mobile health intervention facilitated stress management for highly stressed workers. Further studies should address job-related outcomes and mental health symptoms in workers by applying the latest information technology and addressing the limitations of mobile interventions. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

Psico ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. e41332
Marcela Mansur-Alves ◽  
Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes ◽  
Camila Batista Peixoto ◽  
Matheus Bortolosso Bocardi ◽  
Marina Luiza Nunes Diniz ◽  

As most evidence for mental health impacts of the COVID-19 crisis is cross-sectional, the present study aimed to analyze the longitudinal development of psychological suffering among 619 Brazilian adults by assessing mental health outcomes and individual factors in two periods: a year before and a month after the break of the pandemic. As major findings, pandemic psychological suffering was directly explained by previous-year suffering, conscientiousness, and pandemic perceived stress, and correlated with pandemic suicidal ideation. Pandemic perceived stress correlated with pandemic psychological distress, and was explained by previous-year suffering, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, as well as by pandemic life satisfaction and perceived pandemic impact. Finally, pandemic suicidal ideation variance was explained by prior ideation and pandemic life satisfaction. These findings are in line with current models of mental health and highlight the importance of integrating both more stable individual factors and more transient variables towards and explanation for mental health outcomes.

Leah G. Pope ◽  
Tehya Boswell ◽  
Adria Zern ◽  
Blake Erickson ◽  
Michael T. Compton

Kristen R. Choi ◽  
Enrico G. Castillo ◽  
Marissa J. Seamans ◽  
Joseph H. Grotts ◽  
Shayan Rab ◽  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Stephen Thomson ◽  
Eric C. Ip ◽  
Shing Fung Lee

Abstract International comparisons of the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) based on national case and mortality data are fraught with underestimated complexity. This article calls for stronger attention to just how extensive is the multifactorial nature of national case and mortality data, and argues that, unless a globally consistent benchmark of measurement can be devised, such comparisons are facile, if not misleading. This can lead to policy decisions and public support for the adoption of potentially harmful NPIs that are ineffective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic and damaging to mental health, social cohesion, human rights and economic development. The unscientific use of international comparisons of case and mortality data in public discourse, media reporting and policymaking on NPI effectiveness should be subject to greater scrutiny.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document