Search

The literature on the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of investigating its impact on mental health during this sensitive period, also in relation to the female menstrual cycle. To this end, interceptive sensibility has emerged as a fundamental construct for studying the mind-body interaction among psychosomatic and pain symptoms, particularly through the distinction between two attentional styles (namely, a "mindful" and a "non-mindful" sensibility). The aim of the following study is to verify the role of mental health and interoceptive sensibility on menstrual symptoms in women of childbearing age, during the pandemic, as well as to identify the specific contribution of the existing dimensions of interoceptive sensibility in the prediction of symptoms' severity. Data were collected through an online survey, for which 5294 women responded on demographic information, menstrual history, symptoms' disturbance, and completed the Italian versions of the GHQ-12 and the MAIA. The analyses showed that symptoms were strongly correlated to either the GHQ-12 and the MAIA subscales Noticing, Emotional Awareness, Trusting and Not-Worrying. This result was further verified via a hierarchical regression, which revealed that the same interoceptive dimensions and mental health strongly predicted the intensity of menstrual symptoms (R 2  = 0.177, ΔR 2  = 0.143) compared to other considered dimensions (R 2  = 0.180, ΔR 2  = 0.002). Results are partially in line with the premises but suggest that mental health has a strong impact on the experience of the menstrual cycle and that only a few interoceptive dimensions may be relevant in explaining the severity of menstrual symptoms. It is here suggested that noticing internal bodily signals and being aware of emotional states might become dysfunctional if not reconciled with a good ability to self-regulate internal states, but may rather contribute to the perpetuation of the 'vicious cycle' of heightened affective and attentional reactions to interoceptive sensations., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: The first wave of the COVID-19-pandemic hit different countries with varying degrees of severity, so that differences in the type and level of emergency measures were also necessary. It can be assumed that the psychological burden was higher in countries subjected to a more severe course of the pandemic (Italy) than in countries subjected to a less severe one (Germany, Austria)., Objective: To investigate and contrast the wellbeing of the population in Italy, Austria, and Germany in the early phase of the first lockdown., Method: Online survey on N = 4289 individuals. The questionnaire comprised a self-administered section, exploring the dimensions: perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived risk of disease, concerns related to COVID-19, emergency measure acceptance and emotional distress due to emergency measures; and standardized scales to record emotional state and coping: Stress-Coping-Style Questionnaire, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory., Results: The three countries displayed significant differences in all investigated dimensions (p < .001). Italian participants assessed the COVID-19 virus as much more dangerous (p < .001), but despite the prevalence of the virus, the subjective risk of disease was perceived to be lower in Italy (p < .001). This could be a positive effect of the restrictive curfews set by the government in Italy. The emergency measures were generally perceived to be very effective in all three countries, but due to the duration and the severity of the measures, the fear and stress-reaction were the strongest among Italian participants (p < .001)., Conclusion: The stricter measures in Italy prevented an application of many positive stress processing strategies, which, in turn, fostered the perpetuation of stresses and fear., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aim: To explore the association between metacognitive beliefs, rumination and shyness in a non-clinical sample of adults., Methods: One hundred and three healthy subjects from the general population were enrolled in the study. Shyness was evaluated using the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, rumination was assessed using the Ruminative Response Scale, metacognition was evaluated using the Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire 30, and anxiety levels were measured using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory form Y. Correlation analyses, mediation models and 95% bias-corrected and accelerated (BCaCI) bootstrapped analyses were performed. Mediation analyses were adjusted for sex and anxiety., Results: Shyness, rumination and metacognition were significantly correlated ( P < 0.05). The relationship between metacognition and shyness was fully mediated by rumination (Indirect effect: 0.20; 95% BCaCI: 0.08-0.33)., Conclusion: These findings suggest an association between metacognition and shyness. Rumination mediated the relationship between metacognition and shyness, suggesting that rumination could be a cognitive strategy for shy people. Future research should explore the relationship between these constructs in more depth., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors of this study have no conflict of interests to disclose.