A service evaluation of phased- and stepped-care psychological support for health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected the mental health of health and social care workers (HSCWs), with many experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological interventions have been offered via mental health services and in-house psychology teams, but their effectiveness in this context is not well documented. AIMS: To evaluate a stepped-care psychological support pathway for HSCWs from Homerton Healthcare Foundation Trust in London, which offered psychological first aid, evidence-based psychological therapies and group-based well-being workshops. METHOD: The service evaluation used a pre-post approach to assess depression, anxiety, functional impairment and post-traumatic stress disorder symptom change for those who attended sessions of psychological first aid, low- or high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy or a combination of these. In addition, the acceptability of the psychological first aid sessions and well-being workshops was explored via feedback data. RESULTS: Across all interventions, statistically significant reductions of depression (d = 1.33), anxiety (d = 1.37) and functional impairment (d = 0.93) were observed, and these reductions were equivalent between the interventions, as well as the demographic and occupational differences between the HSCWs (ethnicity, staff group and redeployment status). HSCWs were highly satisfied with the psychological first aid and well-being workshops. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation supports the utility of evidence-based interventions delivered as part of a stepped-care pathway for HSCWs with common mental health problems in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the novel integration of psychological first aid within the stepped-care model as a step one intervention, replication and further testing in larger-scale studies is warranted.

Understanding the psychological therapy treatment outcomes for young adults who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), moderators of outcomes, and what might be done to improve them.

BACKGROUND: To determine: whether young adults (aged 18-24) not in education, employment or training (NEET) have different psychological treatment outcomes to other young adults; any socio-demographic or treatment-related moderators of differential outcomes; and whether service-level changes are associated with better outcomes for those who are NEET. METHODS: A cohort was formed of 20 293 young adults treated with psychological therapies in eight Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services. Pre-treatment characteristics, outcomes, and moderators of differential outcomes were compared for those who were and were not NEET. Associations between outcomes and the following were assessed for those that were NEET: missing fewer sessions, attending more sessions, having a recorded diagnosis, and waiting fewer days between referral and starting treatment. RESULTS: Those who were NEET had worse outcomes: odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for reliable recovery = 0.68 (0.63-0.74), for deterioration = 1.41 (1.25-1.60), and for attrition = 1.31 (1.19-1.43). Ethnic minority participants that were NEET had better outcomes than those that were White and NEET. Living in deprived areas was associated with worse outcomes. The intensity of treatment (high or low) did not moderate outcomes, but having more sessions was associated with improved outcomes for those that were NEET: odds (per one-session increase) of reliable recovery = 1.10 (1.08-1.12), deterioration = 0.94 (0.91-0.98), and attrition = 0.68 (0.66-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier treatment, supporting those that are NEET to attend sessions, and in particular, offering them more sessions before ending treatment might be effective in improving clinical outcomes. Additional support when working with White young adults that are NEET and those in more deprived areas may also be important.

Understanding different trajectories of mental health across the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and nationally mandated restrictions to control the virus have been associated with increased mental health issues. However, the differential impact of the pandemic and lockdown on groups of individuals, and the personal characteristics associated with poorer outcomes are unknown. METHOD: Data from 21 938 adults in England who participated in a stratified cohort study were analysed. Trajectories of depression and anxiety symptoms were identified using growth mixture modelling. Multinomial and logistic regression models were constructed to identify sociodemographic and personality-related risk factors associated with trajectory class membership. RESULTS: Four trajectories of depression and five for anxiety were identified. The most common group presented with low symptom severity throughout, other classes were identified that showed: severe levels of symptoms which increased; moderate symptoms throughout; worsening mental health during lockdown but improvements after lockdown ended; and for anxiety only, severe initial anxiety that decreased quickly during lockdown. Age, gender, ethnicity, income, previous diagnoses, living situation, personality factors and sociability were associated with different trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 30% of participants experienced trajectories with symptoms in the clinical range during lockdown, and did not follow the average curve or majority group, highlighting the importance of differential trajectories. Young, female, outgoing and sociable people and essential workers experienced severe anxiety around the announcement of lockdown which rapidly decreased. Younger individuals with lower incomes and previous mental health diagnoses experienced higher and increasing levels of symptoms. Recognising the likely symptom trajectories for such groups may allow for targeted care or interventions.

The barriers, benefits and training needs of clinicians delivering psychological therapy via video.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health services have had to offer psychological therapy via video with little time to prepare or mitigate potential problems. Identifying the barriers, benefits and training needs highlighted by clinicians may support the effective delivery of care. METHOD: Changes in the mode therapy sessions were delivered in during 2020 were assessed in two high-volume psychological therapies services. Sixty-six therapists completed a survey about their experiences of delivering therapy via video. RESULTS: The lockdown in March 2020 precipitated a dramatic shift from face-to-face to telephone and video-delivered sessions. Most clinicians (89%) found video-based sessions acceptable. Barriers to effective delivery included technological issues, problems with online platforms, and feeling more tired after sessions. Benefits included generalised learning from behavioural work, improvements in efficiency and in the therapeutic relationship, particularly in comparison with telephone-based sessions. Tutorials and support guides were recommended to maximise use of sessions via video. CONCLUSIONS: Video-delivered therapy was liked by clinicians and preferred to telephone-based sessions. Issues with platforms, internet connections and access for patients need addressing, local troubleshooting guides, video-based tutorials and greater support for low-intensity therapists to maximise uptake of video sessions where appropriate, may be beneficial.

Trends in depression & anxiety symptom severity among mental health service attendees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: General population surveys have shown that some groups, particularly young women, experienced increased distress during nationally mandated restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19. However, there has been limited research on such trends among people with pre-existing mental health conditions, leaving mental health services ill equipped to plan for current and future lockdowns. METHODS: Mean weekly scores on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 between 01/01/2020-22/06/2020 (n=9,538 individuals) for all patients of two psychological treatment services (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) in London, were compared to mean weekly scores from the same time periods in 2017-2019 (n=37,849). The proportion of scores which were above the clinical thresholds for 'caseness' each week were compared, and scores between groups based on gender, age group, and ethnicity, were also compared. RESULTS: Confirmed community transmission in the UK (26/02/2020-03/03/2020) and the announcement of the national 'lockdown' (23/03/2020) were associated with significant increases in anxiety symptom scores. 'Lockdown' was associated with a decrease in depression scores. These changes were not maintained during lockdown. Significant increases in depression and anxiety were observed at week 23, as restrictions were eased. LIMITATIONS: This was an exploratory analysis in two services only. Residual confounding and selection biases cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the weekly average symptom scores were short-term; they did not continue throughout 'lockdown' as might have been expected, except among older people. Replication of this study in other settings and investigating the potential benefits of more regular reviews or more intensive treatments for at-risk groups, are warranted.