Buchanandavenport4396

OBJECTIVE Understanding factors that promote and hinder the recovery process for people living with serious mental illness remains of critical importance. We examine factors, including limited literacy, associated with mental health recovery among public mental health service users. METHOD This study uses data from a mixed-methods, service-user informed project focused on the impact of limited literacy in the lives of people with serious mental illness. Data from structured interviews evaluate perceptions of recovery as assessed with the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS). Regression models examine factors related to recovery controlling for sociodemographic factors, literacy, neurocognition, mental health status, perceived social support, and stigma. RESULTS Despite bivariate relationships between RAS and limited literacy, the full models suggest that other factors account for this relationship. These include mental health status, higher social support, higher self-reported community status, and higher stigma consciousness, as well as race for some models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Our findings that social support and perceptions of community status are associated with higher scores on the RAS echo prior work demonstrating the importance of social connection and context in mental health recovery. Though literacy was not a predictor of recovery, further research should examine the relationship between literacy and recovery given the deep literature on literacy on health outcomes. In order to better support people in the recovery process it is important that more research is done to examine the complex relationship between stigma consciousness and recovery as well as understand the racial disparities that exist within the recovery subscales. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to identify subgroups of people with schizophrenia on the basis of self-assessment accuracy (metacognition) and examine group differences in rehabilitation potential. METHOD Participants were 51 individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders recruited from community mental health centers. Data from a self-report measure of cognition and a neuropsychological battery were compared and utilized to place participants in 3 accuracy groups overestimators, accurate estimators, and underestimators. A multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare performance between accuracy groups on an index of rehabilitation potential. RESULTS Three distinct profiles of metacognitive ability were identified. The analysis found that participants who underestimated their cognitive functioning had the highest scores on an index of rehabilitation potential (learning potential), and those who overestimated their functioning had the lowest. No significant differences in diagnostic or sociodemographic variables were found among accuracy groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Results suggest that there are differences in the way people with schizophrenia evaluate their cognition and, further, these metacognitive profiles are associated with differences in the ability to learn new tasks quickly. Thus, identifying subgroups of individuals based on metacognitive processing may help identify those most likely to benefit from cognitive remediation and other rehabilitative therapies. Future research should explore the link between metacognitive ability and rehabilitation potential in greater detail. Future investigations should also clarify the implications that underestimation of ability has for overall recovery and quality of life in people with schizophrenia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).THE ISSUE Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) is transforming every aspect of our lives. Identified in late 2019, COVID-19 quickly became characterized as a global pandemic by March of 2020. Given the rapid acceleration of transmission, and the lack of preparedness to prevent and treat this virus, the negative impacts of COVID-19 are rippling through every facet of society. Although large numbers of people throughout the world will show resilience to the profound loss, stress, and fear associated with COVID-19, the virus will likely exacerbate existing mental health disorders and contribute to the onset of new stress-related disorders for many. BMS 826476 HCl RECOMMENDATIONS The field of traumatic stress should address the serious needs that will emerge now and well into the future. However, we propose that these efforts may be limited, in part, by ongoing gaps that exist within our research and clinical care. In particular, we suggest that COVID-19 requires us to prioritize and mobilize as a research and clinical community around several key areas (a) diagnostics, (b) prevention, (c) public outreach and communication, (d) working with medical staff and mainstreaming into nonmental health services, and (e) COVID-19-specific trauma research. As members of our community begin to rapidly develop and test interventions for COVID-19-related distress, we hope that those in positions of leadership in the field of traumatic stress consider limits of our current approaches, and invest the intellectual and financial resources urgently needed in order to innovate, forge partnerships, and develop the technologies to support those in greatest need. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Emotional approach coping involves active attempts at emotional expression and processing in response to stressful circumstances. This study tested whether dispositional emotional approach coping processes predict changes in physical and mental health in community-dwelling older adults, particularly within the context of higher perceived stress. To test this, older adults (N = 150) completed assessments of emotional expression and emotional processing at study entry. They also completed measures of perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and ill-health (a composite of subjective and objective physical health indicators, which included blood draw for collection of biomarkers), every 6 months over 4.5 years. Emotional processing and emotional expression were not related significantly to ill-health at study entry. However, emotional processing (but not emotional expression) significantly predicted changes in ill-health. At higher levels of emotional processing, ill-health remained low and stable; at lower levels of emotional processing, ill-health increased over time.