Johanna S. W. Kruger

Background and Objectives: Converging evidence hints at neurodevelopmental effects in genetic frontotemporal degeneration (FTD). In cross-sectional studies, for some genes, young adult FTD variant carriers show differences in brain volumes and cognition compared to familial non-carriers. However, longitudinal trajectories may more sensitively capture FTD-related neurodevelopmental vs. neurodegenerative changes than cross-sectional approaches. This study examined longitudinal trajectories of brain volumes, executive function, and plasma biomarkers in young adult carriers compared to familial non-carriers, as measures of neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative outcomes of FTD-causing variants. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study comprised participants, aged 18-30 years, from the FTD Prevention Initiative across Europe, Canada, and the USA. Genetic groups included C9orf72 (47%), MAPT (30%), and GRN (23%). Linear mixed-effects models were computed to assess longitudinal outcomes across age between groups, controlling for sex, scanner (for brain volumes), and education (for executive function); random effects accounted for between-subject variability nested within family membership. Results: Variant carriers ( n =147) and familial non-carriers ( n =113) did not differ in age (mean±SD, 25.9±3.2 years), sex (53% female), or number of visits (2.1±1.7). Young adult C9orf72 repeat expansion carriers exhibited smaller thalamic volumes than non-carriers at the reference age of 26 years ( b =-982.8mm ³ , SE=317.0, p= 0.0046, f ² =0.32), with relatively stable trajectories across ages 18-30 (i.e., no change over time). Trajectories of rostral anterior cingulate volumes differed in C9orf72 carriers and non-carriers across age, where carriers showed relatively stable trajectories and non-carriers showed age-appropriate declines ( b =64.4mm ³ , SE=29.9, p= 0.035, f ² =0.07). For MAPT and GRN , there were little to no differences in total brain, cortical, or subcortical volumes between groups and over time. No longitudinal differences were observed between carriers and non-carriers in executive function, or plasma NfL or GFAP for any genetic group. Discussion: C9orf72 repeat expansions were linked to smaller average thalamic volumes and stable trajectories between ages 18 to 30, supporting potential neurodevelopmental origins. The modest evidence supporting an absence of difference in neurodegenerative biomarkers and executive function suggests minimal early neurodegeneration and functional preservation in young adulthood.

This research applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus nonessential negatively affected the professional identity of those categorized as nonessential workers. We hypothesized that nonessential workers would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; explored whether this was partially due to mandatory shifts to working from home and working fewer hours; whether gender differences would emerge in the impact of (non)essential categorization on PI; and if lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID‐19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) confirmed nonessential workers' lower PI relative to essential workers. During the first peak wave (Study 1), nonessential workers' lower PI was partially explained by being home‐bound by reduced work hours. As the pandemic continued (second peak wave; Studies 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified as nonessential for women than men. Nonessential workers' lower PI levels were associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss the sociopsychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine the professional identity of over half a working population in society.

This study applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government’s classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus non-essential imposed a professional identity threat to those categorized as non-essential. Specifically, we hypothesized (1) that non-essential workers in the Netherlands would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; (2) that non-essential workers’ mandatory shift to working from home and working fewer hours would (partially) explain their lower PI relative to essential workers; (3) that gender differences would emerge in the impact of categorization as (non-)essential worker on PI levels; and (4) that lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three cross-sectional datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID-19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) all confirmed that non-essential workers reported lower PI relative to essential workers. The explanation for this outcome varied at different stages in the pandemic. Study 1 results showed that lower PI among those declared non-essential was partially explained by non-essential workers’ work location (home-bound) and reduced work hours, but only during the 1st peak wave. As the pandemic continued (2nd peak wave; Study 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified non-essential for women than men. Non-essential workers’ lower PI levels were also associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss socio-psychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine the professional identity of over half a working population in society.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the circumstances for parents to combine work and care. We examined work-family guilt among working parents in the Netherlands during the first year of the COVID-19-pandemic (2020). In a cross-sectional survey study with two time points (March and December 2020) in a sample of working parents (N = 574) in the Netherlands, we revealed three key findings. (1) On average, mothers experienced more guilt towards their family for time and energy invested in work instead of family (work-family guilt) than fathers. (2) Parents with essential occupations (regardless of gender) reported significantly stronger experiences of work-family guilt during the first year of the pandemic compared to parents with non-essential occupations. (3) Parents who experienced stronger work-family guilt were more likely to compensate for their guilt by prioritizing family over work and self (by foregoing their leisure time or intending to reduce workhours in order to be with their family). Together these findings show that in terms of combining work and family, the situation is clearly harder on some more than others, namely mothers and essential workers. These findings demonstrate the gendered experience of work-family guilt and the asymmetrical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work-family experiences of parents.