IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic may bear serious consequences for mental health, such as the increase in psychopathological symptoms.ObjectivesAnalysis of changes in depressive suicidal ideation symptoms and during the COVID-19. Depressive symptoms and suicidality were considered separately.MethodsInternet survey 22.03.20–22.06.20 (908 responses), included SCL-90R, COPE, question about suicidal ideation.ResultsThe analysis showed a positive correlation between suicidal thoughts and depression (Spearman .45; p<.001), a growing trend in the depressive symptoms (Std.J-T=2.51, p=.012), and the increase in severity of suicidal thoughts (Fisher’s Exact Test, 5.92, p=.046). Severity of depression positively correlates with the emergence of the virus in the city, contraction of disease among friends (Spearman .165; p<.001), sick and die fears, an also is linked to more expressed seeking «emotional, social and instrumental help» (COPE). The intensity of suicidal ideation was not associated with these factors, but negatively correlated with «acceptance» and «planning».ConclusionsThe increase in depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts is determined by different factors. Depressive symptoms is associated with various fears and mediated by non-constructive ways of coping, but there are also constructive coping-strategies as the search for help. The intensity of suicidal thoughts is associated with higher levels of stress, which cannot be explained by the «objective» threat of contagion and fears, but is experienced as an «indefinite» anxiety, supposedly linked to the measures to counter the pandemic, such as restrictions on social interactions, loneliness and uncertainty. The increase in depressive symptoms is linked with an orientation to another person, but the suicidal ideation is not.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Relevance. One of the negative consequences of the pandemic may be an increase in somatization. The analysis of statements about the pandemic makes it possible to identify peculiarities of attitude to the situation by people with different psychological problems. The aim of the study was the identification of implicit characteristics of texts indicating the peculiarities of the opinion about the situation by people with a high level of somatization. Materials and methods. The material was obtained in the online survey (03/23/2020 — 01/29/2021, 1188 people). The survey included an assessment of respondents’ condition, it was offered to express an opinion about what was happening in a free form. Used: SCL-90-R, COPE, Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI). The statements about the pandemic were divided into the two text arrays — “high somatization” and “low somatization”. The frequency of occurrence of vocabulary in these text arrays was estimated. Results. The analysis showed an increase in somatization as the pandemic developed. The relationship between somatization and anxiety, sleep disturbances, and depression was revealed. Higher rates of somatization are associated with a decrease in emotional coping, an increase in categorical thinking and personal superstitious thinking. The connection between somatization and a number of non-constructive copings is shown. Lexical analysis showed a number of features of texts associated with high somatization, among them the number of pronouns of the first person, a decrease in the tonality of words, a vocabulary of suffering, negative, a decrease in the vocabulary of motivation and resistance, a decrease in vocabulary associated with the body. Conclusions. The lexical features of statements, typical for respondents with a high level of somatization, were revealed. The connection between somatization and high emotional distress, which manifests itself in negative emotional vocabulary and is associated with a low level of emotional coping, is shown. In the group with high somatization, a contradiction was revealed in the needs and methods of their implementation — the need for help from others is combined with concentration on the self. The “representation” of the pandemic, presented in the text, is “divorced” from somatic manifestations, fear of illness and death. With this “splitting” of mental and somatic functioning, the somatization can perform the function of emotional coping.

Self-harming is one of the most acute problems that mental health professionals face in their work. This explains the relevance of developing the most effective ways to work with it. The aim of the work is a study of subjective meaning of self-harm behavior in the sample of internet users. The methods. The materials for the study were the responses of 156 people above 18 years of age received during an online survey. The methods were the questions about subjective meaning of self-harm behavior. The data were processed by the method of calculation of a percentage each of meaning of self-harm behavior in the total sample. The results show heterogeneity of meaning of self-harm behavior. 8.5% of the responses (meaning an alternative to suicide) demonstrate the actual suicidal risk. 25.4% of the responses (meaning confirmation of reality of myself, stop panic attack, episode of anxiety, hysteric, obsession thoughts, filling inner emptiness) show to psychopathological symptoms among respondents. 61.5% of the responses (meanings relief of emotional pain, rest, sedation, stress reduction, cope with aggression, mental strain) demonstrate low tolerance for emotional tension and negative feelings. 5.3% of the responses (meanings revenge, raise awareness to themselves) could be explained by poverty of the communicative skills. Etiology of some meanings is a need to be examined in each specific case The findings indicate an importance of studying the subjective meaning of self-harm behavior. Its allow us to highlight several areas of work. (1) Psychiatric treatment of psychopathological symptoms. (2) Prevention of suicidal risk. (3) Training in emotional self-regulation skills. (4) Depending on the meaning of self-harm behavior, optimal psychotherapeutic approaches will vary.

Relevance. The COVID-19 pandemic reveals the problem of moral choices for a large number of people: who should be treated first; who can be considered as a subject for urgent vaccines and drugs testing; choice between personal convenience and observation of restrictions for the sake of the “common good.” The objective of the study was to evaluate whether the stress experienced by people during the COVID-19 pandemic can change moral decision making. Materials and methods. The data of an online survey conducted from March 30 to May 31 (311 people) were analyzed. The survey included sociodemographic questions, questions about assessing one’s current condition, the Simptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), and the Moral Dilemmas Test, consisting of 30 dilemmas. The relationship of a number of utilitarian choices in personal moral dilemmas with sociodemographic characteristics, respondents’ assessments of their state and psychopathological characteristics was analyzed. Solving personal moral dilemmas was considered within subgroups of respondents with a high level of somatization and a high level of psychopathological symptoms and it was reviewed separately. Results. The results showed a high level of distress throughout the survey and an increase of utilitarian choices in personal moral dilemmas by the end of the survey. The number of choices in personal dilemmas was lower among older respondents, higher among men, and positively correlated with psychopathological symptoms. In the subgroup with a high level of somatization, personal choices slightly decreased by the end of the survey. On the contrary, in the subgroup with high levels of psychopathological symptoms, the number of personal choices significantly increased. Conclusions. Against the background of quarantine, assessments of moral standards change. The level of stress ambiguously affects moral decisions. A high level of somatization leads to a decrease in utilitarian personal choices, and a higher level of psychopathological symptoms leads to an increase in utilitarianш choices. Utilitarian personal choices are more often made by men and younger people

Introduction Vaccination is an effective way to control the infection. COVID-19 is a new disease, and so is the vaccine against it. Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate psychological characteristics associated with attitude towards vaccination. Methods An online survey was used (N=1336) (31.03.2020–9.02.2021). Respondents completed COPE, «Moral dilemmas» (30 Green’s Dilemmas, 10 of each type) and decided which strategy to stop the pandemic they found the effective (vaccination, herb immunity, innovative treatment or simply waiting until it fades away on its own). The study analyzed groups of those who see the benefits of vaccination and those who do not consider vaccination as a way to solve the problem of coronavirus. Results «Vaccination» attitude is more typical for men, for younger people and is also associated with assessment of COVID-19 as a dangerous disease (61% versus 21% for «vaccination» and «no vaccination» groups respectively), more diligent compliance with anti-epidemic rules (3,7 and 2,9 mean number of protection methods used), at the same time, the “vaccination” group responds about the less inconvenience associated with restrictions during the pandemic. This social attitude is associated with «need for creativity» and constructive coping: «planning», «concentration on emotions», the use of instrumental and emotional social support. There is a difference in personal moral choices (3,6 versus 2,9 for «vaccination» and «no vaccination» groups respectively), that demonstrated that positive attitude towards vaccination signifies an active personal position. Conclusions Positive attitude towards vaccination is associated with a proactive personal position and involvement in social interaction using interpersonal coping strategies. Disclosure No significant relationships.