Views and experiences of migrants and stakeholders involved in social and health care for migrants in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic in six European countries and Australia - Differences by prior mental disorders and migration status.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about changes of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in potentially disadvantaged groups. We investigated changes in anxiety and depression symptoms during the first year of the pandemic in six European countries and Australia by prior mental disorders and migration status. METHODS: Overall, 4674 adults answered a web-based survey in May-June 2020 and were followed by three repeated surveys up to February 2021. Information on psychosocial, financial and demographic, living conditions, prior mental disorders, depression and anxiety symptoms during the pandemic and migration status was collected. Weighted general estimation equations modelling was used to investigate the association between prior mental disorders, migration status, and symptoms over time. RESULTS: Most participants were <40 years old (48%), women (78%) and highly educated (62%). The baseline prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms ranged between 19%-45% and 13%-35%, respectively. In most countries, prevalence rates remained unchanged throughout the pandemic and were higher among people with prior mental disorders than without even after adjustment for several factors. We observed interactions between previous mental disorders and symptoms of anxiety or depression over time in two countries. No difference by migration status was noted. LIMITATIONS: Convenience sampling limits generalizability. Self-assessed symptoms of depression and anxiety might involve some misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety symptoms were worse among individuals with prior mental disorders than without, but there was no clear trend of worsening mental health in the observed groups during the observed period.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial

Introduction Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire—Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Videoconferencing-delivered psychological intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 related psychological distress in University students: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in India.

BACKGROUND: The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been profound. This paper outlines the study protocol for a trial that tests the efficacy of a brief group-based psychological intervention (Coping with COVID; CWC), relative to Supportive Counselling, to reduce distress associated with COVID-19 in a young adult population in Bangalore, India. METHODS: A single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial will be carried out via video conferencing in a small group format. Following informed consent, adults that screen positive for levels of psychological distress (Kessler 10 (K-10 score ≥ 20) and have access to a videoconferencing platform will be randomised to an adapted version of CWC (n = 90) or Supportive Counselling (SC) (n = 90). The primary outcome will be reduction in psychological distress including anxiety and depression at 2-months post treatment. Secondary outcomes include worry, positive wellbeing, and stress in relation to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: This treatment trial will assess whether CWC will result in reduced distress relative to Supportive Counselling in a young adult population in Bangalore, India. This study will yield important insights into the role of nonspecific factors versus the intervention's components in impacting COVID-19 related distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001064897). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the participating institution, CHRIST University in Bangalore. Results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer reviewed journals and findings presented at scientific conferences and to key service providers and policy makers.

Sustained Negative Mental Health Outcomes Among Healthcare Workers Over the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To characterize the evolution of healthcare workers' mental health status over the 1-year period following the initial COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and to examine baseline characteristics associated with resolution or persistence of mental health problems over time. Methods: We conducted an 8-month follow-up cohort study. Eligible participants were healthcare workers working in Spain. Baseline data were collected during the initial pandemic outbreak. Survey-based self-reported measures included COVID-19-related exposures, sociodemographic characteristics, and three mental health outcomes (psychological distress, depression symptoms, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms). We examined three longitudinal trajectories in mental health outcomes between baseline and follow-up assessments (namely asymptomatic/stable, recovering, and persistently symptomatic/worsening). Results: We recruited 1,807 participants. Between baseline and follow-up assessments, the proportion of respondents screening positive for psychological distress and probable depression decreased, respectively, from 74% to 56% and from 28% to 21%. Two-thirds remained asymptomatic/stable in terms of depression symptoms and 56% remained symptomatic or worsened over time in terms of psychological distress. Conclusion: Poor mental health outcomes among healthcare workers persisted over time. Occupational programs and mental health strategies should be put in place.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial.

Background and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Effectiveness of a Videoconferencing-Delivered Psychological Intervention for Mental Health Problems during COVID-19: A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety and depression have increased markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a lack of evidence-based strategies to address these mental health needs during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aim to conduct a proof-of-concept trial of the efficacy of a brief group-based psychological intervention delivered via videoconferencing for adults in Australia distressed by the pandemic. METHODS: In this single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial, adults who screened positive for COVID-related psychological distress across Australia were randomly allocated to either a 6-session group-based program based on behavioural principles (n = 120) or enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 120). Primary outcome was total score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HADS) anxiety and depression subscales assessed at baseline, 1 week posttreatment, 2 months (primary outcome time point), and 6 months after treatment, as well as secondary outcome measures of worry, sleep impairment, anhedonia, mood, and COVID-19-related stress. RESULTS: Between May 20, 2020, and October 20, 2020, 240 patients were enrolled into the trial. Relative to EUC, at 2 months participants receiving intervention showed greater reduction on anxiety (mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.6], p = 0.01; effect size, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7]) and depression (mean difference, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.4 to 2.8], p = 0.009; effect size, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.7]) scales. These effects were maintained at 6 months. There were also greater reductions of worry, anhedonia, COVID-19-related fears, and contamination fears. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides initial evidence that brief group-based behavioural intervention delivered via videoconferencing results in moderate reductions in common psychological problems arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. This program may offer a viable and scalable means to mitigate the rising mental health problems during the pandemic.

A longitudinal study of mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Syrian refugees.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased anxiety and depression around the world. Refugees may be particularly vulnerable to the mental health effects of the pandemic because of their higher rates of mental health disorders, trauma histories, and daily stressors. Objectives: This study used data from a controlled trial of a brief behavioural intervention for psychological distress in Syrian refugees living in Azraq Camp in Jordan to examine the psychological effects of the pandemic on refugee mental health. Method: A total of 410 participants were randomized to either the intervention or control arms of the trial and were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Half the sample (199; 48.5%) completed their 3-month follow-up assessment after the pandemic restrictions began in Jordan and 211 (51.5%) completed the assessment prior to the pandemic. Refugees were independently assessed for symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression at baseline and follow-up, and pandemic-related worries were assessed at follow-up for those who completed their assessment during the pandemic. Results: The most commonly reported worries were economic difficulties (82.4%), shortage of essential supplies (71.3%), and infecting others (59.7%) or themselves (51.9%). Refugees who were assessed during the pandemic had less severe PTSD symptoms than those assessed prior to the pandemic. Significant predictors of pandemic-related worries were lower levels of depression prior to the pandemic and greater anxiety during the pandemic. Conclusion: These findings highlight the specific needs of refugees during the pandemic and suggest that pre-existing mental health issues may not necessarily be the key risk factors for who will experience major mental health issues or worries during the pandemic.

Antecedentes: La ansiedad y la depresión alrededor del mundo se han incrementado como consecuencia de la pandemia por la COVID-19. Los refugiados pueden ser particularmente vulnerables a los efectos de la pandemia sobre la salud mental a sus tasas más altas de trastornos de salud mental, de antecedentes de trauma y de estresores diarios.Objetivos: Este estudio empleó los datos del ensayo controlado de una intervención conductual breve para la angustia psicológica en refugiados sirios que vivían en el campo Azraq en Jordania. Se buscó evaluar los efectos psicológicos de la pandemia sobre la salud mental de los refugiados.Método: Un total de 410 participantes fueron asignados aleatoriamente, bien al grupo de intervención o bien al grupo de control del ensayo, y fueron evaluados al inicio y a los 3 meses de seguimiento. La mitad de la muestra (199; 48,5%) completó la evaluación a los 3 meses de seguimiento después de que comenzaran las restricciones de la pandemia en Jordania, mientras que 211 (51,5%) completaron esta evaluación antes de la pandemia. Los refugiados fueron evaluados de forma independiente para detectar síntomas del TEPT, de la ansiedad y de la depresión al inicio y en el seguimiento. Las preocupaciones relacionadas a la pandemia se evaluaron durante el seguimiento en aquellos que completaron su evaluación durante la pandemia.Resultados: Las preocupaciones más comúnmente reportadas fueron las dificultades económicas (82,4%), la escasez de suministros esenciales (71,3%) y la infección de otros (59,7%) o de ellos mismos (51,9%). Los refugiados que fueron evaluados durante la pandemia tenían síntomas de TEPT menos severos que aquellos que fueron evaluados antes de la pandemia. Los predictores significativos de las preocupaciones relacionados con la pandemia fueron niveles más bajos de depresión antes de la pandemia y mayor ansiedad durante la pandemia.Conclusiones: Estos hallazgos destacan las necesidades especificas de los refugiados durante la pandemia y sugieren que los problemas de salud mental preexistentes no necesariamente pueden ser los factores de riesgo clave para aquellos que experimentarán los principales problemas de salud mental o preocupaciones durante la pandemia.

The association between COVID-19 related stressors and mental health in refugees living in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Refugees may be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health due to their traumatic pasts and the challenges of the postmigration environment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 related stressors and their relationship to key mental health and functioning outcomes in a resettled refugee sample. METHOD: N = 656 refugees and asylum seekers living in Australia completed a survey in June 2020 to index their mental health (posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, health anxiety and disability) and COVID-19 experiences. The relationship between COVID-19 stressors and mental health was examined using a series of hierarchical linear regression models while controlling for other key demographic factors. RESULTS: Refugees' most prevalent stressors related to worries of being infected by COVID-19 or the risk COVID-19 posed to others, which predicted health anxiety and PTSD. Social-related difficulties predicted depression and disability symptoms. Accessing and trusting information from authorities were the least prevalent stressors and were not significantly associated with mental health outcomes; neither was accessing basic supplies and financial support. Fears relating to the future such as concerns about visa application processes predicted health anxiety and disability. Crucially, the strongest predictor of all mental health outcomes was COVID-19 serving as a reminder of difficult past events. CONCLUSIONS: Refugees may be uniquely affected by COVID-19 because the pandemic serves as a reminder of their past conflict and persecution trauma. It is critical that mental health strategies accommodate the specific needs of refugees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Antecedentes: Los refugiados pueden ser particularmente vulnerables a los efectos adversos de la pandemia del COVID-19 en la salud mental a consecuencia de sus pasados traumáticos y los desafíos del ambiente post migración.Objetivo: Evaluar la prevalencia de los estresores relacionados al COVID-19 y su relación a resultados claves funcionamiento y salud mental claves en una muestra de refugiados reubicados.Método: N = 656 refugiados y personas en búsqueda de asilo que viven en Australia completaron una encuesta en junio de 2020 para identificar su salud mental (trastorno de estrés postraumático (TEPT), depresión, ansiedad de salud y discapacidad) y las experiencias de COVID-19. Fueron examinadas la relación entre los estresores de COVID-19 y la salud mental usando una serie de modelos de regresión lineal jerárquica mientras se controlaron otros factores demográficos claves.Resultados: Los estresores más prevalentes de los refugiados se relacionaban con la preocupación de infectarse de COVID-19 o el riesgo del COVID-19 hacia otros, lo cual predijo la ansiedad de salud y TEPT. Las dificultades sociales predijeron los síntomas de depresión y discapacidad. Acceder y confiar en la información proporcionada por las autoridades fueron los estresores menos prevalentes y no se asociaron significativamente a los resultados de salud mental; tampoco lo fue el acceder a insumos básicos y apoyo financiero. Los temores asociados al futuro tales como preocupaciones sobre los procesos de aplicación a la visa predijeron la ansiedad de salud y discapacidad. De manera crucial, el predictor más fuerte de todos los resultados de salud mental fue el COVID-19 sirviendo como un recordatorio de los eventos pasados difíciles.Conclusiones: Los refugiados pueden estar afectados de forma única por el COVID-19 porque la pandemia sirve como un recordatorio de sus conflictos pasados y trauma de persecución. Es crítico que las estrategias de salud mental se acomoden a las necesidades específicas de los refugiados durante la pandemia del COVID-19.

Effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus, a brief psychological intervention for adults affected by humanitarian disasters in Nepal: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 235 million people are impacted by humanitarian emergencies worldwide, presenting increased risk of experiencing a mental disorder. Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a brief group psychological treatment delivered by trained facilitators without prior professional mental health training in a disaster-prone setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) from November 25, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Participants in both arms were assessed at baseline, midline (7 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 1 week after treatment in the experimental arm), and endline (20 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 3 months posttreatment). The intervention was Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a psychological treatment of 5 weekly sessions, which was compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) consisting of a family psychoeducation meeting with a referral option to primary care providers trained in mental healthcare. The setting was 72 wards (geographic unit of clustering) in eastern Nepal, with 1 PM+ group per ward in the treatment arm. Wards were eligible if they were in disaster-prone regions and residents spoke Nepali. Wards were assigned to study arms based on covariate constrained randomization. Eligible participants were adult women and men 18 years of age and older who met screening criteria for psychological distress and functional impairment. Outcomes were measured at the participant level, with assessors blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was psychological distress assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes included depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, "heart-mind" problems, social support, somatic symptoms, and functional impairment. The hypothesized mediator was skill use aligned with the treatment's mechanisms of action. A total of 324 participants were enrolled in the control arm (36 wards) and 319 in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). The overall sample (N = 611) had a median age of 45 years (range 18-91 years), 82% of participants were female, 50% had recently experienced a natural disaster, and 31% had a chronic physical illness. Endline assessments were completed by 302 participants in the control arm (36 wards) and 303 participants in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). At the midline assessment (immediately after Group PM+ in the experimental arm), mean GHQ-12 total score was 2.7 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 1.7, 3.7, p < 0.001), with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.4 (95% CI: -0.5, -0.2). At 3 months posttreatment (primary endpoint), mean GHQ-12 total score was 1.4 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 0.3, 2.5, p = 0.014), with SMD of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.4, 0.0). Among the secondary outcomes, Group PM+ was associated with endline with a larger proportion attaining more than 50% reduction in depression symptoms (29.9% of Group PM+ arm versus 17.3% of control arm, risk ratio = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4, p = 0.002). Fewer participants in the Group PM+ arm continued to have "heart-mind" problems at endline (58.8%) compared to the control arm (69.4%), risk ratio = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7, 1.0, p = 0.042). Group PM+ was not associated with lower PTSD symptoms or functional impairment. Use of psychosocial skills at midline was estimated to explain 31% of the PM+ effect on endline GHQ-12 scores. Adverse events in the control arm included 1 suicide death and 1 reportable incidence of domestic violence; in the Group PM+ arm, there was 1 death due to physical illness. Study limitations include lack of power to evaluate gender-specific effects, lack of long-term outcomes (e.g., 12 months posttreatment), and lack of cost-effectiveness information. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a 5-session group psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists modestly reduced psychological distress and depression symptoms in a setting prone to humanitarian emergencies. Benefits were partly explained by the degree of psychosocial skill use in daily life. To improve the treatment benefit, future implementation should focus on approaches to enhance skill use by PM+ participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03747055.

Brief videoconferencing psychological intervention for reducing COVID-19 related distress: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally COVID-19 has had a profound impact on the psychological wellbeing of millions of people, and there is an urgent imperative to address elevated levels of distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed Problem Management Plus (PM+), a low intensity psychological intervention for adults experiencing psychological distress. This paper outlines the study protocol for a trial that tests the effectiveness of an adapted version of PM+ to reduce distress associated with COVID-19. METHODS: A single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial will be carried out for distressed people across Australia. via video conferencing on a small group basis. Following informed consent, adults that screen positive for levels of psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12 score ≥ 3) and have access to videoconferencing platform will be randomised to an adapted version of gPM+ (n = 120) or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) (n = 120). The primary outcome will be reduction in psychological distress including anxiety and depression at 2-months post treatment. Secondary outcomes include worry, sleep problems, anhedonia, social support, and stress in relation to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: The trial aims assess whether an adapted version of videoconferencing PM+ that is specifically designed to target COVI-19 related distress will result in reduced distress relative to enhanced usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on the ANZCTR on 14/4/20 ( ACTRN12620000468921 ).

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder after infectious disease pandemics in the twenty-first century, including COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Pandemics have become more frequent and more complex during the twenty-first century. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following pandemics is a significant public health concern. We sought to provide a reliable estimate of the worldwide prevalence of PTSD after large-scale pandemics as well as associated risk factors, by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched the MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, medRxiv, and bioRxiv databases to identify studies that were published from the inception up to August 23, 2020, and reported the prevalence of PTSD after pandemics including sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, Poliomyelitis, Ebola, Zika, Nipah, Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), H5N1, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A total of 88 studies were included in the analysis, with 77 having prevalence information and 70 having risk factors information. The overall pooled prevalence of post-pandemic PTSD across all populations was 22.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 19.9-25.4%, I2: 99.7%). Healthcare workers had the highest prevalence of PTSD (26.9%; 95% CI: 20.3-33.6%), followed by infected cases (23.8%: 16.6-31.0%), and the general public (19.3%: 15.3-23.2%). However, the heterogeneity of study findings indicates that results should be interpreted cautiously. Risk factors including individual, family, and societal factors, pandemic-related factors, and specific factors in healthcare workers and patients for post-pandemic PTSD were summarized and discussed in this systematic review. Long-term monitoring and early interventions should be implemented to improve post-pandemic mental health and long-term recovery.