The Short Form of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-SF; Raes et al. 2011) is composed of 12 items that evaluate the same six dimensions (Self-Kindness/SK, Self-Judgement/SJ, Common Humanity/CH, Isolation, Mindfulness/M, Over-Identification/OI) as the long scale (26 items). The Portuguese version of the SCS-SF (Castilho et al. 2015) was validated in a vast sample from clinical and general populations, the latter being composed of students, other than from medicine courses.

To analyze the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the SCS-SF in a sample of Medicine/Dentistry students.

Participants were 666 Portuguese medicine (82.6%) and dentistry (17.4%) students (81.8% girls); they answered an online survey including the SCS and other validated questionnaires from the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills/SSES: Stress resistance, Emotional control, Optimism and Persistence.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that the model composed of six factors, two second order factors (positive and negative) and one third order factor (total) presented good fit indexes (χ2/df=3.013; RMSEA=.0066, p<.001; CFI=.970; TLI=.948, GFI=.947). The Cronbach’s alfas were .892, .869 and .877 respectively for the total, self-compassion and self-criticism dimension. Pearson correlations of the SCS-SF total score, self-compassion and self-criticism dimensional scores were moderate to high with the SSES measures, from .272/-.236/.247 with Persistence to .709/-.634/.615 with Optimism.

Although reduced to less than half than the original SCS, the SCS–SF is a valid and useful alternative to measure general self-compassion and their positive and negative components in an ongoing longitudinal research with medicine/dentistry students.

No significant relationships.

The COVID-19 crisis has generated an increasing stress throughout the population.

To develop and validate the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 pandemic from the Portuguese General Directorate of Health (GDH) (ASR-MH-COVID19).

The items content was based on the GDH guides for the prevention of mental health and psychosocial well-being of the general population during the COVID-19 outbreak. After content and facial validity analysis, the preliminary version of the ASR-MH-COVID19 (8 items to be answered on a Likert scale) was completed by 413 individuals (69.2% female; mean age=31.02±14,272), in September-December 2020 (Sample1) and then by 967 (70.9% female; mean age=34.02±14,272), in February-May 2021 (Sample2). Sample1 was randomly divided in two sub-samples. Sample1A was used for exploratory factor analysis/EFA and Sample1B for confirmatory factor analysis/CFA; CFA was then replicated with Sample2. The online surveys also included the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations of Portuguese GDH to minimize the impact of COVID-19 (ASR-COVID-19; Pereira et al. 2020).

CFAs were informed by EFA and showed that the unidimensional model presented acceptable-good fit indexes (Sample1B: χ2/df=2.747; RMSEA=.0980, p<.001; CFI=.973; TLI=.918, GFI=.972; Sample2: χ2/df=3.327; RMSEA=.0490, p<.001; CFI=.993; TLI=.983, GFI=.990). Cronbach’s alfas were α<.850. Pearson correlations between ASR-MH-COVID19 and ASR-COVID19 were significant (p<.01) and moderate-high for the total (r=.753) and dimensional scores (Distance and respiratory hygiene, r=.739; House and personal hygiene, r=.584; Use of remote services and isolation r=.425).

The new ASR-MH-COVID19 has shown validity and reliability, allowing the investigation of this (mental) health behaviour.

No significant relationships.

Almost 5 million people worldwide have lost their lives due to SARS-CoV-2 (source: WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard, data of 1.10.2021; https://covid19.who.int/) and therefore, globally, there is an increase of people in grief due to the death of a significant other.

To study psychological correlates of grief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

591 university students, with a mean age of 23.84±7.95 years (range 18-65 years; 76.8% women; 91.2% Portuguese) completed an online questionnaire during the second COVID-19 confinement (from 15.02 to 13.03.2021), with sociodemographic questions, the Pandemic Stress Index, the Mental Health Inventory, Insomnia Scale, questions on physical/ psychological health, and social isolation.

Students bereaving the death of a significant other (n=93, 15.7%; n=25, 26.9% reported cause was SARS-CoV-2; time since death: < 3 months to 1-year), compared to those who did not (n= 498; 84.3%), described poorer psychological health, higher psychological distress (depression, anxiety, lack of control) and sleep difficulties, higher levels of stress (higher impact of COVID pandemic in daily life, and higher behavior changes in response to COVID-19) and more social isolation.

COVID-19 pandemic-related stress is a source of additional stress for bereaved students. Grief is also associated with social isolation, poor mental health (depression, anxiety, lack of control) and sleep difficulties. Screening efforts, guidance, and counseling from professionals of mental health care, primary health care, and universities health care services during and after the COVID-19 pandemic could be extremely beneficial for bereaved students, particularly for those at higher risk of developing prolonged grief disorder.

No significant relationships.

The Portuguese shortest version of the Perinatal Depression Screening Scale/PDSS-7 proved to be valid and reliable, in Portugal and Brazil, but it is essential to analyze its operational characteristics before using it for screening purposes.

To determine PDSS-7 cut-off points and associated conditional probabilities to screen for major depression, according to the DSM-5.

he pregnancy sample was composed of 259 women in the second trimester (Mean gestation weeks=17.83±4.750). The postpartum sample consisted of 241 women assessed between the 2nd-6thmonths postpartum(M=17.99±4.689 weeks postpartum). All women completed the PDSS-7 and were interviewed with the Diagnostic Interview for Psychological Distress(Pereira et al., 2017), a semi-structured clinical interview to assess the most prevalent psychiatric disorders in the perinatal period according to the DSM-5 criteria. MedCalc was used to perform ROC analysis.

During pregnancy, the major depression prevalence was of 4.6%(n=12). The cut-off point that maximizes the Youden Index(J=.98, 95%CI: .97-.99; AUC=.99; se=.004; p<.001) was of 18(95%CI:17-19), which resulted in a sensitivity of 100%(71.5%-100%), a specificity of 97.98%(95.3%-99.3%), a positive predictive value/+PP of 68.8%(48.0%-84.0%) and a negative predictive value/-PP of 100%. In the postpartum, the major depression prevalence was of 10.4%(n=25). The cut-off point(J=.79, 95%CI: .63-.82; AUC=.89; se=.036; p<.001) was of 14(95%CI: 12-16), with a sensitivity of 85.0%(69.3%-93.2%), a specificity of 85.0%(69.3%-93.2%), a +PP of 56.5%(46.1%-67.3%) and a -PP of 97.5%(94.6%-98.8%).

The Portuguese version of PDSS-7 presents good combinations of sensitivity and specificity, being accurate and usable to screen for depression during pregnancy and in the postpartum both in research and primary health care.

No significant relationships.

The Inventory of Academic Sources of Stress in Medical Education (IASSME) evaluates the presence and intensity of the main sources of academic stress for Portuguese Medicine students in five dimensions: Course demands/CD, Human demands/HD, Lifestyle/LS, Academic competition/AC, and Academic adjustment/AA.

To further validate the ISSME using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and to analyze[ATP1] the psychometric properties of a new version including additional sources of stress.

Participants were 666 Portuguese medicine (82.6%) and dentistry (17.4%) students (81.8% girls); they answered an online survey including the ISSME and other validated questionnaires: Maslach Burnout Inventory – Students Survey (MBI-SS) and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that the second order model composed of five factors (the original structure by Loureiro et al. 2008), but excluding item 11 (loading=.371), presented good fit indexes (χ2/df=3.274; RMSEA=.0581, p<.001; CFI=.917; TLI=.904, GFI=.919). The Cronbach’s alfas were α=.897 for the total and from α=.669 (F2-HD) to α=.859 (F1-CD) for the dimensions. The expanded version, including two additional items related to lack of interest in medicine/dentistry (F6, α=.543) and two additional COVID-19 stress-related-items (F7, α=.744) also showed acceptable fit indexes (χ2/df=3.513; RMSEA=.061, p<.001; CFI=.88.; TLI=.866, GFI=.892). This new version’s α was of .896. Pearson correlations between ISSME and the other measures were significant (p<.01) and high: >.55 with DASS and >.50 with MBI-SS. Girls presented significantly higher ISSME scores. F6 score was significantly higher in dentistry students.

This further validation study underlines that IASSME presents good validity (construct and convergent) and reliability.

No significant relationships.

The Inventory of Academic Sources of Stress in Medical Education (IASSME) evaluates the presence and intensity of the main sources of academic stress for Portuguese Medicine students in five dimensions: Course demands/CD, Human demands/HD, Lifestyle/LS, Academic competition/AC, and Academic adjustment/AA.

To further validate the ISSME using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and to analyze the psychometric properties of a new version including additional sources of stress.

Participants were 666 Portuguese medicine (82.6%) and dentistry (17.4%) students (81.8% girls); they answered an online survey including the ISSME and other validated questionnaires: Maslach Burnout Inventory – Students Survey (MBI-SS) and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that the second order model composed of five factors (the original structure by Loureiro et al. 2008), but excluding item 11 (loading=.371), presented good fit indexes (χ2/df=3.274; RMSEA=.0581, p<.001; CFI=.917; TLI=.904, GFI=.919). The Cronbach’s alfas were α=.897 for the total and from α=.669 (F2-HD) to α=.859 (F1-CD) for the dimensions. The expanded version, including two additional items related to lack of interest in medicine/dentistry (F6, α=.543) and two additional COVID-19 stress-related-items (F7, α=.744) also showed acceptable fit indexes (χ2/df=3.513; RMSEA=.061, p<.001; CFI=.88.; TLI=.866, GFI=.892). This new version’s α was of .896. Pearson correlations between ISSME and the other measures were significant (p<.01) and high: >.55 with DASS and >.50 with MBI-SS. Girls presented significantly higher ISSME scores. F6 score was significantly higher in dentistry students.

This further validation study underlines that IASSME presents good validity (construct and convergent) and reliability.

No significant relationships.

Since the literature investigating the stigmatising attitudes of psychiatrists is scarce, this is the first study which examines the phenomena across Europe. The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a widely used questionnaire to measure stigma in healthcare providers towards people with mental illness, although it has not been validated in many European countries.

A cross-sectional, observational, multi-centre study was conducted in 32 European countries to investigate the attitudes towards patients among specialists and trainees in general adult and child psychiatry. In order to be able to compare stigma scores across cultures, we aimed to calculate measurement invariance.

An internet-based, anonymous survey was distributed in the participating countries, which was completed by n=4245 psychiatrists. The factor structure of the scale was investigated by using separate confirmatory factor analyses for each country. The cross-cultural validation was based on multigroup confirmatory factor analyses.

When country data were analysed separately, the three dimensions of the OMS-HC were confirmed, and the bifactor model showed the best model fit. However, in some countries, a few items were found to be weak. The attitudes towards patients seemed favourable since stigma scores were less than half of the reachable maximum. Results allowed comparison to be made between stigma scores in different countries and subgroups.

This international cooperation has led to the cross-cultural validation of the OMS-HC on a large sample of practicing psychiatrists. The results will be useful in the evaluation of future anti-stigma interventions and will contribute to the knowledge of stigma.

No significant relationships.

We have recently validated the Portuguese shortest version of the Perinatal Depression Screening Scale-PDSS-7 (items selected from the PDSS-21; each one representing a dimension evaluated by the PDSS-35), for the assessment of depression severity in pregnancy, both in Portugal and Brazil.

To analyze the validity and reliability of the PDSS-7 Portuguese version to evaluate postpartum women both from Portugal and Brazil.

The Portuguese sample was composed of 304 women between the 2nd-6th postpartum months (Mean=20.09±7.21 weeks postpartum). These participants were not the same who participated in the psychometric study that led to the selection of the seven items. The Brazilian sample was composed of 121 women (Mean=10.51±4.53 weeks postpartum). All the participants completed the European/Brazilian Portuguese versions of PDSS-21, which was composed of the same items and included the seven items of PDSS-7. Participants also filled in the validated versions of Perinatal Anxiety Screening Scale and Profile of Mood States.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed that the unidimensional model of PDSS-7 presented acceptable/good fit indexes in both samples (Portuguese/Brazilian: χ2/d.f.=2.6598/1.7897; RMSEA=.0740/.0807, CFI=.8289/.7934, TLI=.7901/.8434, GFI=.9298/.9496; p<.001). The PDSS-7 Cronbach’s alphas were of .841/.856 and all the items contributed to the internal consistency. Pearson correlations with postpartum anxiety (.646/.763) and negative affect (.666/.676) were significantly (p<.01) high. PDSS-7 mean scores were higher in the Brazilian sample (16.06±7.39 versus 11.37±4.37, p<.01).

PDSS-7 presented validity (construct and convergent), reliability and utility in clinical and research settings, including in transcultural studies, in Portugal and Brazil, namely in the postpartum.

No significant relationships.

During a public health crisis, preventive measures are essential. However, to make them effective, all citizens must be engaged.

To analyse the differential role of individual and contextual variables in the adherence to public health recommendations.

1376 adults (70.5% female; mean age=35.55±14.27) completed a survey between September/2020 and May/2021 with: Adherence Scale to the Recommendations during COVID-19 (ASR-COVID19; evaluates three dimensions of adherence), Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FC19S) and Toronto and Coimbra Prosocial Behaviour Questionnaire (ProBeQ; assesses empathy and altruism).

Adherence did not differ between individuals with or without personal or family history of COVID-19 infection. ASR-COVID19 and all dimensions were positively correlated to ProBeQ’s altruism and empathy (from r=.32 to r=.54); FCV19S correlated positively to total adherence score and house sanitation (from r=.18 to r=.26; all p<.01). Linear regressions revealed that altruism and empathy (first model), as well as fear of Covid-19 (second model), were significant predictors of adherence; however, while the first model explained ≅28% of its variance, the second (FCV19S as independent variable) only explained ≅3%. Regression models performed in a subsample of participants with personal or family history of COVID-19 revealed that only empathy, but not altruism, was a significant predictor of adherence; in this subsample, fear was no longer a significant predictor of adherence, except for lockdown and use of teleservices.

Based on our results, we suggest health care providers and public health campaigns should take into consideration social solidarity and altruism, as well as previous experiences, when appealing to public’s engagement in health behaviour.

No significant relationships.

The Portuguese version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S; Cabaços et al. 2021), composed of seven items, presented good validity and reliability to be used in general population. To be used within perinatal context, specifically in the postpartum period, we have added an item related to the baby (item 8 – “I’m afraid my baby will be infected with coronavirus-19”).

To analyze the psychometric properties of Portuguese adapted version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale for the postpartum period (FCV-19SP), namely construct validity, internal consistency, and convergent validity.

207 women (mean age= 33.51 ± 5.23 years) recruited in the postpartum period (9,06 ± 8,52 months after delivery) fill in a set of self-reported validated questionnaires: Perinatal Depression Screening Scale (PDSS), Perinatal Anxiety Screening Scale (PASS) and Coronavirus-19 Fear Scale for the postpartum period (FCV-19SP).

CFA revealed that the unifactorial model composed of eight items presented good fit indexes (X2/df=1.508; CFI=.991; GFI=.974; TLI=.983; p[RMSEA≤.01] = .049), better than those of the seven items version (X2/df=3.963; CFI=.957; GFI=.909; TLI=.905; p[RMSEA≤.01] =.219). Cronbach alpha for the FCV-19SPP was α=.880. The total score significantly (p<.01) and moderately correlated with PDSS (r=.262) and PASS (r=.371).

The FCV-19SP is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess fear of COVID-19 in women in the postpartum period.

No significant relationships.

Public health authorities around the world have been disseminating messages to support mental health and psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the Portuguese guidelines, we have developed the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic (ASR-MH-COVID19) to better understand this health behaviour.

To analyse the relationship between sociodemographics, personality traits, Adherence (to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic) and psychological distress.

413 individuals (69.2% female; mean age=31.02±14,272) completed an on-line survey, in September-December 2020, including sociodemographic questions, ASR-MH-COVID19, NEO-FFI-20 and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) and Health Perception Scale.

Adherence scores did not significantly differ by gender, age and years of education. Women presented higher DASS and Neuroticism scores (p<.01). Adherence were negatively correlated with Neuroticism (r=-.247) and with Depression/Anxiety/Stress (all r».-200), positively with Openness to Experience (r=.174), Conscientiousness (r=.194) and Perceived Health (Physical, r=.173 and Psychological, r=.215) (all p<.01). Mediation analysis (Hays’ Macro Process - Model 4) revealed that Adherence is a partial mediator between Openness and DASS and Conscientiousness and DASS; when considering Neuroticism, only the direct effect was significant. The effect of Perceived Health (both Physical and Psychological) on DASS was also mediated by Adherence.

The Health Behaviour Model proposes a pathway linking personality and health that applies to these results about adherence and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and perceived health (also a trait) influence both adherence to mental health behaviours and psychological distress. Understanding personality is vital for health care providers.

No significant relationships.

The COVID-19 crisis has generated an increasing stress throughout the population.

To develop and validate the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 pandemic from the Portuguese General Directorate of Health (GDH) (ASR-MH-COVID19).

The items content was based on the GDH guides for the prevention of mental health and psychosocial well-being of the general population during the COVID-19 outbreak. After content and facial validity analysis, the preliminary version of the ASR-MH-COVID19 (8 items to be answered on a Likert scale) was completed by 413 individuals (69.2% female; mean age=31.02±14,272), in September-December 2020 (Sample1) and then by 967 (70.9% female; mean age=34.02±14,272), in February-May 2021 (Sample2). Sample1 was randomly divided in two sub-samples. Sample1A was used for exploratory factor analysis/EFA and Sample1B for confirmatory factor analysis/CFA; CFA was then replicated with Sample2. The online surveys also included the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations of Portuguese GDH to minimize the impact of COVID-19 (ASR-COVID-19; Pereira et al. 2020).

CFAs were informed by EFA and showed that the unidimensional model presented acceptable-good fit indexes (Sample1B: χ2/df=2.747; RMSEA=.0980, p<.001; CFI=.973; TLI=.918, GFI=.972; Sample2: χ2/df=3.327; RMSEA=.0490, p<.001; CFI=.993; TLI=.983, GFI=.990). Cronbach’s alfas were α<.850. Pearson correlations between ASR-MH-COVID19 and ASR-COVID19 were significant (p<.01) and moderate-high for the total (r=.753) and dimensional scores (Distance and respiratory hygiene, r=.739; House and personal hygiene, r=.584; Use of remote services and isolation r=.425).

The new ASR-MH-COVID19 has shown validity and reliability, allowing the investigation of this (mental) health behaviour.

No significant relationships.

Public health authorities around the world have been disseminating messages to support mental health and psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the Portuguese guidelines, we have developed the Adherence Scale to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic (ASR-MH-COVID19) to better understand this health behaviour.

To analyse the relationship between sociodemographics, personality traits, Adherence (to the Recommendations for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic) and psychological distress.

413 individuals (69.2% female; mean age=31.02±14,272) completed an on-line survey, in September-December 2020, including sociodemographic questions, ASR-MH-COVID19, NEO-FFI-20 and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) and Health Perception Scale.

Adherence scores did not significantly differ by gender, age and years of education. Women presented higher DASS and Neuroticism scores (p<.01). Adherence were negatively correlated with Neuroticism (r=-.247) and with Depression/Anxiety/Stress (all r».-200), positively with Openness to Experience (r=.174), Conscientiousness (r=.194) and Perceived Health (Physical, r=.173 and Psychological, r=.215) (all p<.01). Mediation analysis (Hays’ Macro Process - Model 4) revealed that Adherence is a partial mediator between Openness and DASS and Conscientiousness and DASS; when considering Neuroticism, only the direct effect was significant. The effect of Perceived Health (both Physical and Psychological) on DASS was also mediated by Adherence.

The Health Behaviour Model proposes a pathway linking personality and health that applies to these results about adherence and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and perceived health (also a trait) influence both adherence to mental health behaviours and psychological distress. Understanding personality is vital for health care providers.

No significant relationships.

ADHD is a risk factor for impulsive/compulsive eating problems (EP). In, bulimia nervosa and compulsive eating disorder, EP are frequently preceded by negative affect and experienced as loss of control. Clarifying the underlying causes (eg., ADHD symptoms and/or psychological distress) of EP in ADHD would allow the development of targeted interventions.

To a) compare levels of EP between ADHD patients and a community sample, and b) test if ADHD symptoms and psychological distress predict EP, in ADHD patients.

Adults with ADHD (n=32; age=23.78+/-6.12; 69% males) from the Neurodevelopmental Outpatient Unit of Coimbra and healthy participants (n=30; age=36.90+/-13.23; 57% males) answered an online survey including the Portuguese versions of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist, the Parkinson’s Disease Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders Questionnaire-Current Short and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale.

The ADHD group reported experiencing more EP than healthy individuals (18/32 vs. 4/30; χ2=12.458, p<.001). ADHD patients with EP suffered from severer ADHD inattentive, hyperactive, and global symptoms and higher levels of psychological distress (p<.001 to p=.027). Logistic regression model testing if ADHD and psychological distress symptoms predicted EP, in ADHD, explained 38.8% of the variance and showed that the only significant predictor was ADHD symptoms (B=.121, SE=.051, p=.017).

Our results indicate that EP are associated with severer ADHD clinical pictures. EP arose secondarily to ADHD symptoms, instead of serving as means to alleviate psychological distress. Clinicians should be mindful that, in ADHD patients, EP follow specific motivations, i.e., impulsivity and inattention, and may respond to combined cognitive-behavioural/executive training strategy.

No significant relationships.

The COVID-19 pandemic has completely changed the experience of higher education with potentially negative consequences for students’ wellbeing.

To compare medicine/dentistry students’ depression/anxiety/stress levels before versus during the pandemic and to analyse the role of COVID-19-related stressors in their psychological distress.

Students from the Faculty of Medicine University of Coimbra answered socio-demographic and personality questionnaires and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale/DASS before (academic years 2016-2017-2018-2019 - SAMPLE1; n=1000) and during (September-December 2020 and January-March 2021 - SAMPLE2; n=650) the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean age (21.12±3.75), personality traits scores, and gender proportions (»75% girls) did not significantly differ between samples. SAMPLE2 also filled in the Fear of COVID-19 Scale and a new version of the Inventory of Sources of Stress During Medical Education/ISSDME, containing a COVID-19 -related dimension (restrictions on training and on socializing with friends/colleagues).

SAMPLE2 presented significantly higher mean scores of depression (3.89±3.55vs.3.33±3.34), anxiety (3.27±4.08vs.2.86±3.29), stress (7.07±5.72vs.6.18±4.59) and total DASS (12.28±10.55vs.13.65±11.13) than SAMPLE1 (all p<.05). Fear of COVID-19 was a significant predictor of DASS score (adjusted R2=2.9%, p<.001). COVID-19-related stressors continued explaining significant increments of DASS variance after controlling for each of the ISSDME dimensions: Course demands (R2 Change=1.8%), Human demands (2.5%), Lifestyle (2.3%), Academic competition (5.5%), and Academic adjustment (5.2%) (all p<.001).

This study adds to the evidence of the negative impact of COVID-19 on students and emphasizes its pernicious role on medical students’ psychological distress, which is already higher due to the individual and academic stressors to which they are more exposed.

No significant relationships.

Perceived vulnerability to disease/PVD may influence psychological reactions to COVID-19 pandemic.

To analyse the role of PVD in psychological distress/PD during the COVID-19 pandemic, testing whether it is mediated by perceived risk of COVID-19, fear of COVID-19 and repetitive negative thinking/RNT.

Participants (N=413 adults; 69.2% women) were recruited from September until December 2020, via social networks. They completed the following self-report validated questionnaires: Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire/PVDQ; Perceived Risk of COVID-19 Scale, Fear of COVID-19 Scale; Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale. As women had significantly higher levels of PVD, COVID-19 perceived risk and fear, RNT, and psychological distress/PD, gender was controlled in mediation analysis (using PROCESS macro for SPSS; Hayes 2018).

All the variables significantly (p<.01), moderately (r>.20) and positively correlated. The serial mediation model 6 with the three sequential mediators resulted in significant total effect (c=.326, se=.0791, p<.001, CI:.1702-.4814), non-significant direct effect (c’=.111, se=.065, p=.087, CI:-.0162 to .2380), significant total indirect effect (.2149, se=.065, CI:.1079-.3278); most indirect effects were significant, including the indirect 7 (.0144, se=.0077, CI=.0017-.0320), that goes through all mediators (PVD->COVID19 perceived risk->COVID19 fear->RNT->PD), meaning full mediation.

The effect of PVD on psychological distress operates by increasing the perception of risk and the fear of COVID-19, which intensify related worries and ruminations in times of pandemic. People with high perceived threat, aversion and discomfort in situations associated with increased risk of infection should be helped to decrease dysfunctional cognitive contents and processes in times of pandemic.

No significant relationships.

Evidence suggests that besides having stigmatizing misconceptions towards people with mental illness, medical students and doctors often resist seeking help for their own mental issues. This is a vulnerable group for stress and other mental health problems, due not only to professional burden but also high perfectionism and low self-compassion.

To analyse the relationship between mental health stigma (MHS) and other variables related to personality and emotional states in a sample of medical students.

634 medicine and dentistry students (mean age = 21.6±6.9;81.4% female) answered to a survey including sociodemographic data, self-perception of psychological health/SPPH and the Portuguese validated versions of: Link’s Perceived Discrimination and Devaluation (PDD) scale to assess MHS and its two dimensions - social stigma/SocS and self-stigma/SelS; Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21); Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale (SCS); and Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS). Correlations, t-student tests and linear regressions were performed with SPSS 27.0.

Stigma correlated negatively to SPPH and positively to DASS, the negative poles of SCS (self-judgement, isolation and over-identification) and BTPS second-order factors (all from p<.05 to p<.01). No gender differences in MHS were observed. Participants with higher mean levels of total and SelS had significantly higher scores in all DASS dimensions and lower SPPH; participants with higher SocS also scored higher in DASS, but didn’t reveal lower SPPH. Isolation was a significant predictor of SocS (R2=2.8%;p<.05); isolation and narcissistic perfectionism were significant predictors of SelS (R2=11%;p<.01).

Our results highlight the importance of including MHS as a main need in the curricula of future doctors.

No significant relationships.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought additional worries and challenges to people’s lives, with potential implications for psychological well-being.

To understand which worries and life changes have affected most the Portuguese general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyse which contents are associated with higher levels of repetitive negative thinking/RNT and psychological distress/PD.

In September-December 2020, 413 Portuguese adults (69.2% female; Mean age= 31.02±14.272) were asked one open questions, with reference to the COVID-19 pandemic period: “what was your biggest worry?”; the answers were independently categorized by two researchers. Participants also filled the validated Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale and the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire.

The most prevalent worries were about: 1) fear of contamination (oneself and others-48.7%; 2) physical and mental health and well-being (self and others)-27.2%; 3) studies and profession-13.3%; 4) uncertainty about the future-7.7%; 5) economic-financial issues-6.5%; 6) miscellaneous-3.3%; 7) no worries-0.7%. Participants who had worries of the theme 4 had the highest RNT and PD mean scores, followed by themes 3 and 5, and then themes 2 and 1. These thematic groups significantly (p<.01) differ between each other (except 3-5) and from the other groups. RNT was a significant predictor of PD (R2=37.0%, β=.609, p<.001).

People who worry about the future uncertainties, occupational activities and finances should be systematically assessed with regard to their levels of anxiety, depression and stress and they can learn to deal with the RNT as a way to reduce their psychological suffering in times of pandemic.

No significant relationships.

Self-Generated Stress might be defined as stress that is created by oneself by engaging in behavior or making decisions that ultimately add strain to pre-existing personal stress. The Self-Generated Stress Scale (SGSS; Flett et al. 2020) is a seven-item self-report measure built to assess this tendency to make one’s own life more stressful.

To analyze the psychometric properties of the Portuguese Version of the SGSS.

Participants (127 medicine and dentistry students; 78.0% female) answered an online survey including the preliminary Portuguese version of the SGSS and other validated questionnaires: Maslach Burnout Inventory – Students Survey, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, HEXACO-60 and Big Three Perfectionism Scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that the unidimensional model presented good fit indexes (χ2/df=1.546; RMSEA=.0666, p<.001; CFI=.982 TLI=.972, GFI=.960). The Cronbach’s alfa was .868. Pearson correlations between SGSS and the other measures were significant (p<.01) and moderate/high: Burnout, .412; Stress/Anxiety/Depression, >.550; Perfectionism, .600; Emotionality, .315; Extroversion, -.411. After controlling for the effect of Emotionality and Extroversion, SGSS explained significant additional increments of 19.9% and 14.0% of the DASS and MBI variance; controlling for Perfectionism, the increments were respectively of 27.9% and 2.0%. SGSS mean score (22.96±5.90 was not significantly different by gender.

As observed with the original English-language scale, the Portuguese version of SGSS showed good validity (construct and convergent-divergent) and internal consistency. As such, the SGSS might be useful in further investigation, particularly to explore the different pathways between personality traits, emotional regulation processes and psychological distress.

No significant relationships.

Generalized problematic internet use/GPIU has recently been associated with the impulsive-compulsive spectrum/ICS, but its mapping onto these behaviour dimensions is relatively unexplored.

To compare patterns of internet use and scores of BIG-5 personality traits, perfectionism and psychological distress between groups with low/high levels of GPIU.

475 university students (78.9% girls; mean age 20.22±1.695) answered the Portuguese versions of: GPIU Scale, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-13, NEO-FFI-20, Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales and other questions about internet use. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were performed using SPSS.

Individuals with high levels of GPIU (median+2SD; n=18; 3.8%) spent significantly more time/day in online activities, exceeding what they have planned; had no other hobbies and used social networks to meet friends; reported that GPIU interfered with affective/work relationships and academic performance (all p<.05). There were no significant differences in the purposes of the internet use (e-mail, social networks, shopping, videogames, multimedia, sexual, work…), unless for general information searching and betting games (both p<.05). High-PGIU group also presented significant higher levels of neuroticism, negative (but not positive) perfectionism, depression, anxiety, and stress (all p<.001).

Our results indicate that unlike the purposes of internet use, personality, perceived interference and the associated cognitive-emotional processes and symptoms (psychological distress) may help distinguishing between functional vs. dysfunctional internet use. Considering the preponderance of processes over contents and the presence of certain dimensions, such as perception of uncontrollability, interference and social isolation we add more evidence to consider PGIU as falling within the spectrum of impulsive-compulsive disorders.

No significant relationships.