Introduction:During stressful events, we are all trying to cope. We may not be equal depending on our emotional, psychological, and mental states. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we could try to avoid negative information processing and anxiogenics content to prevent unhealthy thinking processes. One of the processes we can observe regarding our way of thinking and its impact on our psychological well-being is Metacognition. Methods:We recruited 104 outpatients in 2018. In 2020, during the pandemic, we recruited 216 outpatients and 176 healthy controls. We assessed their level of metacognition with the MCQ30 scale together with Suicidal risk and Hopelessness.Results: All three groups showed significant differences, with the nonclinical sample having higher scores in MCQ30. Regression revealed the different profiles where Hopelessness was the only predictor for the clinical sample, whereas metacognition was an adjunctive predictor of suicidal risk for the nonclinical sample. Conclusion:Our results showed that the COVID-19 crisis influenced metacognitive levels for the nonclinical sample but not for the clinical population. Moreover, Hopelessness predicted suicide risk for both populations, but Metacognition was also a predictive factor for the nonclinical sample. We conclude with the possible impact of preventive measures based on Metacognitive work that can be created out of these results.

The creation of specialized Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) models of treatment has been shown to have clinical and economic benefits. In 2013, a program based on the McLean Hospital model was created at University Hospital Centre of São João, becoming the first BPD specialized program created in Portugal. It is focused on residential and intensive outpatient treatment and provides a more rigorous level of structure, treatment and support, that was previously unavailable.

No abstract

Objectives In March 2020, France faced a health crisis due to the COVID-19 outbreak that, like previous infectious disease crises, involved high psychological and emotional stress, a series of factors that influenced the ongoing mental health crisis. Methods We recruited 384 respondents to complete an online questionnaire during the second month of isolation: 176 psychotherapy recipients (68 were currently attending psychiatric care) and 208 healthy controls. We measured demographic characteristics, impulsivity, aggression, hopelessness, suicidal risk, and the global level of anxiety and depression in order to estimate potential discrepancies in clinical measures across these populations. Results Our results indicate that the group currently undergoing psychiatric care was prone to loneliness and social isolation. Regarding clinical and nonclinical population, there were differences in suicidal risk, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness but mainly in aggression. Regression analysis also demonstrated that aggression surprisingly influenced anxiety levels. Patients undergoing therapy compared with patients who were not displayed differences only in suicidal risk, anxiety, and hopelessness, with those undergoing therapy having higher scores. The outpatient group undergoing therapy had a significantly lower level of impulsivity. Moreover, the regression to predict anxiety and depression levels from correlated factors highlighted the potentially heightened role of aggression in predicting anxiety in the clinical group. Conclusion New research into stress reactions should assess other clinical signals, such as aggression, and examine preventive mental health interventions in times of crisis.