What helps the helpers? Resilience and risk factors for general and profession-specific mental health problems in psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected wellbeing of at-risk groups, most research on resilience employed convenience samples. We investigated psychosocial resilience and risk factors (RFs) for the wellbeing of psychotherapists and other mental health practitioners, an under-researched population that provides essential support for other at-risk groups and was uniquely burdened by the pandemic. Method: We examined 18 psychosocial factors for their association with resilience, of which four were chosen due to their likely relevance specifically for therapists, in a cross-sectional multi-national sample (N=569) surveyed between June and September 2020. Resilience was operationalized dimensionally and outcome-based as lower stressor reactivity (SR), meaning fewer mental health problems than predicted given a participant’s levels of stressor exposure. General SR (SRG) scores expressed reactivity in terms of general internalizing problems, while profession-specific SR (SRS) scores expressed reactivity in terms of burnout and secondary trauma, typical problems of mental health practitioners. Results: Factors previously identified as RFs in other populations, including perceived social support, optimism and self-compassion, were almost all significant in the study population (SRG: 18/18 RFs, absolute βs=.16-.40; SRS: 15/18 RFs, absolute βs=.19-.39 all Ps <.001). Compassion satisfaction emerged as uniquely relevant for mental health practitioners in regularized regression. Discussion: Our work identifies psychosocial RFs for mental health practitioners’ wellbeing during crisis. Most identified factors are general, in that they are associated with resilience to a wider range of mental health problems, and global, in that they have also been observed in other populations and stressor constellations

What helps the helpers? Resilience and risk factors for general and profession-specific mental health problems in psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionAlthough the COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected wellbeing of at-risk groups, most research on resilience employed convenience samples. We investigated psychosocial resilience and risk factors (RFs) for the wellbeing of psychotherapists and other mental health practitioners, an under-researched population that provides essential support for other at-risk groups and was uniquely burdened by the pandemic.MethodWe examined 18 psychosocial factors for their association with resilience, of which four were chosen due to their likely relevance specifically for therapists, in a cross-sectional multi-national sample (N = 569) surveyed between June and September 2020. Resilience was operationalized dimensionally and outcome-based as lower stressor reactivity (SR), meaning fewer mental health problems than predicted given a participant’s levels of stressor exposure. General SR (SRG) scores expressed reactivity in terms of general internalizing problems, while profession-specific SR (SRS) scores expressed reactivity in terms of burnout and secondary trauma, typical problems of mental health practitioners.ResultsFactors previously identified as RFs in other populations, including perceived social support, optimism and self-compassion, were almost all significant in the study population (SRG: 18/18 RFs, absolute βs = 0.16–0.40; SRS: 15/18 RFs, absolute βs = 0.19–0.39 all Ps &lt; 0.001). Compassion satisfaction emerged as uniquely relevant for mental health practitioners in regularized regression.DiscussionOur work identifies psychosocial RFs for mental health practitioners’ wellbeing during crisis. Most identified factors are general, in that they are associated with resilience to a wider range of mental health problems, and global, in that they have also been observed in other populations and stressor constellations

The mindful trajectory: Developmental changes in mentalizing throughout adolescence and young adulthood

Background Mentalizing and psychological mindedness are two key, partially overlapping facets of social cognition. While mentalizing refers to the ability to reflect on one’s own mental states and the mental states of others, psychological mindedness describes the ability for self-reflection and the inclination to communicate with others about one’s own mental states. Purpose This study examined the development of mentalizing and psychological mindedness throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, and the interplay between the two with gender and the Big Five Personality Traits. Methods 432 adolescents and young adults (ages 14–30) were recruited from two independent schools and two universities. Participants completed a set of self-report measures. Results A curvilinear trend in both mentalizing and psychological mindedness indicated a gradual development of these capacities with age, peaking in young adulthood. Across all age groups, females had consistently higher mentalizing scores than males. For females, scores only changed significantly between age bands 17–18 to 20+ (pConclusions The discussion is focused on the interpretation of the findings in light of social cognition and brain development research

A short version of the reflective functioning questionnaire: Validation in a greek sample.

This study aims to validate the Greek version of the 54-item Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ), a measure designed to assess an individual's capacity for understanding themselves and others based on internal mental states. This capacity, also known as Reflective Functioning (RF) or mentalizing, is believed to play a significant role in both typical and atypical development. The validation process examined the factor structure of the RFQ and its relationship with a variety of psychosocial and clinical constructs that have theoretical and empirical links to RF. Additionally, this research investigated the factor structure's invariance across gender and age groups to determine the robustness of the instrument. A unique contribution of this work lies in examining the application of the RFQ to attachment classifications through the use of cluster analysis. The sample consisted of 875 Greek adults from the general community with a mean age of 28.5 and a median age of 22. Participants completed the Greek RFQ along with a series of self-report questionnaires assessing psychosocial constructs, including attachment, epistemic trust, emotion regulation, and psychological mindedness, as well as clinical variables such as anxiety, depression, and borderline personality traits. Our findings suggest that a shorter, 31-item version of the questionnaire provides a robust three-factor structure across a non-clinical Greek adult population. The three identified subscales are (a) excessive certainty, (b) interest/curiosity, and (c) uncertainty/confusion, all demonstrating satisfactory reliability and construct validity. The uncertainty subscale was found to be associated with insecure attachment styles, epistemic mistrust and credulity, emotional suppression, and low psychological mindedness. In contrast, the certainty and curiosity subscales were linked to secure attachment, epistemic trust, emotion reappraisal, and psychological mindedness. Uncertainty was further shown to differ significantly across probable clinical and non-clinical groups, as distinguished by cut-off scores for anxiety, depression, and borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, the certainty and interest/curiosity subscales only varied between the two BPD groups. Our results provide the first evidence supporting the use of a 31-item version of the RFQ with three validated subscales to reliably assess reflective functioning in the Greek population, demonstrating stronger psychometric properties compared to other RFQ versions reported in previous studies. Findings suggest that impaired mentalizing capacity, as measured by the RFQ, is linked to insecure attachment, epistemic mistrust and credulity, poor emotion regulation, and low psychological mindedness, and potentially plays a role in adult mental health symptoms

Intercorrelations among examined variables.

BackgroundMentalizing and psychological mindedness are two key, partially overlapping facets of social cognition. While mentalizing refers to the ability to reflect on one’s own mental states and the mental states of others, psychological mindedness describes the ability for self-reflection and the inclination to communicate with others about one’s own mental states.PurposeThis study examined the development of mentalizing and psychological mindedness throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, and the interplay between the two with gender and the Big Five Personality Traits.Methods432 adolescents and young adults (ages 14–30) were recruited from two independent schools and two universities. Participants completed a set of self-report measures.ResultsA curvilinear trend in both mentalizing and psychological mindedness indicated a gradual development of these capacities with age, peaking in young adulthood.Across all age groups, females had consistently higher mentalizing scores than males. For females, scores only changed significantly between age bands 17–18 to 20+ (pThe change in psychological mindedness scores differed, and females did not have consistently higher scores than males. Females’ scores were only significantly higher for ages 14 (pA significant positive association was found between mentalizing and psychological mindedness and the personality traits of Agreeableness, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness (pConclusionsThe discussion is focused on the interpretation of the findings in light of social cognition and brain development research.</div

Mean, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis statistics for the study measures.

Mean, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis statistics for the study measures.</p

What helps the helpers? Resilience and risk factors for general and profession-specific mental health problems in psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected wellbeing of at-risk groups, most research on resilience employed convenience samples. We investigated psychosocial resilience and risk factors (RFs) for the wellbeing of psychotherapists and other mental health practitioners, an under-researched population that provides essential support for other at-risk groups and was uniquely burdened by the pandemic. METHOD: We examined 18 psychosocial factors for their association with resilience, of which four were chosen due to their likely relevance specifically for therapists, in a cross-sectional multi-national sample (N = 569) surveyed between June and September 2020. Resilience was operationalized dimensionally and outcome-based as lower stressor reactivity (SR), meaning fewer mental health problems than predicted given a participant’s levels of stressor exposure. General SR (SRG) scores expressed reactivity in terms of general internalizing problems, while profession-specific SR (SRS) scores expressed reactivity in terms of burnout and secondary trauma, typical problems of mental health practitioners. RESULTS: Factors previously identified as RFs in other populations, including perceived social support, optimism and self-compassion, were almost all significant in the study population (SRG: 18/18 RFs, absolute βs = 0.16–0.40; SRS: 15/18 RFs, absolute βs = 0.19–0.39 all Ps &lt; 0.001). Compassion satisfaction emerged as uniquely relevant for mental health practitioners in regularized regression. DISCUSSION: Our work identifies psychosocial RFs for mental health practitioners’ wellbeing during crisis. Most identified factors are general, in that they are associated with resilience to a wider range of mental health problems, and global, in that they have also been observed in other populations and stressor constellations

Resilience and Mentalizing in psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated network analysis

Objective: This study examines whether resilience and mentalizing capacities affect the network constellation of various protective and risk factors among psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: A multinational sample of N = 536 psychotherapists completed surveys regarding their mentalizing capacity, general resilience, and therapist-specific resilience, as well as several other protective and risk factors. Network models of the latter factors were constructed, and global as well as local moderation analyses were conducted to examine their connectivity patterns. Results: At a global level, general and therapist-specific resilience, but not mentalizing certainty, increased absolute levels of network connectivity. At the local level, the two types of resilience specifically moderated the connections among protective factors by rendering them more positive; whereas mentalizing capacity moderated the connections between protective and risk factors by rendering them more negative. Conclusion: These findings suggest that (therapist-specific) resilience might be characterized by reinforcing links among protective factors, whereas mentalizing might be typified by weakening effects of risk factors––patterns which could prove useful for enhancing psychotherapists’ wellbeing during times of global but also personal crises