Introduction:The current study aims to evaluate if and to what extent mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) could promote an incremental effectiveness compared to interventions usually provided in clinical practice to treat Alcohol and Drugs Use Disorders. In line with this aim, we accomplished a meta-analytic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, considering primary and secondary outcomes that comprehensively operationalize treatment efficacy. Methods: We conducted the online research up to August 31st 2017. Adequate procedures for Cohen's d computation were applied. Heterogeneity indexes, moderators, bias of publication, and Orwin's fail-safe number were also estimated. Results: Thirty-seven studies were included (n = 3,531 patients). We observed null effect sizes for attrition rate and overall mental health. Small effect sizes were detected in abstinence, levels of perceived stress, and avoidance coping strategies. Moderate effect sizes were revealed in anxiety and depressive symptoms. Large effect sizes were associated to levels of perceived craving, negative affectivity, and post-traumatic symptoms. Conclusion: MBIs seemed to show clinically significant advantages compared to other clinical approaches in relation to specific primary and secondary outcomes. Conversely, treatment retention was independent of the therapeutic approach.

Several authors have studied dissociation within the borderline personality disorder (BPD) population and postulated 3 dissociative subgroups. Conversely, other authors suggest that dissociation may play a central role in the development of trauma-related disorders and specifically in BPD. Nevertheless, the role of dissociation in BPD seems to be controversial. Our aim is to perform a meta-analytic review of the literature to evaluate the extent of dissociation in BPD compared to other psychopathological disorders to clarify its role in this specific condition. Ten eligible studies resulted in a total of 2,035 subjects. Results show that levels of dissociation are higher in BPD than in other psychiatric disorders in general, although this difference is moderate and the heterogeneity of effect sizes is large. In particular, individuals with BPD seem to show higher levels of dissociation than those with several psychiatric and personality disorders but not dissociative disorders or posttraumatic stress disorder. These findings support the fact that dissociation is not specifically a core feature of BPD and, in addition, sustain the existence of a continuum of severity within the psychiatric population. Nevertheless, the current work has several limitations related to the paucity of studies included, the heterogeneity of control groups, their clear definition, and the statistical robustness of the results. In addition, our conclusions require future research in order to explain the role of different forms of dissociation and their etiological factors among the psychiatric population. Eventually, we invite clinicians and researchers to systematically evaluate dissociation in order to reach a better diagnosis for a more specific treatment indication.

Background: The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and related syndrome (COVID-19) has led to worldwide measures with severe consequences for millions of people. In the light of the psychopathological consequences of restrictive measures detected during previous outbreaks, a systematic review was carried out to provide an evidence-based assessment of possible effects of the current COVID-19 quarantine on mental health. Methods: This review included studies that assessed mental health indexes (e.g., overall psychological distress, depressive and PTSD symptoms) during and after quarantine periods adopted to management different outbreaks (e.g., COVID-19, SARS, MERS). Results: Twenty-one independent studies were included for a total of 82,312 subjects. At least 20% of people exposed to restrictive measures for the management of pandemic infections reported clinically significant levels of psychological distress, especially PTSD (21%) and depressive (22.69%) symptoms. Overall, original studies highlighted relevant methodological limitations. Conclusions: Nowadays, almost one out of every five people is at risk of development of clinically significant psychological distress. Further research on mental health after the current COVID-19 quarantine measures is warranted.

No abstract

symptoms (d w = .66 (.46-.85); p <.001) than ones who were not directly exposed. Similarly, the direct involvement significantly affected the severity of PTSD symptoms (d w = .30 (.21-.39); p <.001). Conclusion: Health care professionals in general and most of all frontline workers showed an association with a likely risk of developing psychiatric disorders following outbreaks and for at least three years later. Mental health interventions for professionals exposed to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented. Further studies are warranted to investigate long-term consequences carefully, and to look for mediating and buffering factors as well. The role of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in delivering adequate interventions is critically important.