Digital mental health: challenges and next steps.

Digital innovations in mental health offer great potential, but present unique challenges. Using a consensus development panel approach, an expert, international, cross-disciplinary panel met to provide a framework to conceptualise digital mental health innovations, research into mechanisms and effectiveness and approaches for clinical implementation. Key questions and outputs from the group were agreed by consensus, and are presented and discussed in the text and supported by case examples in an accompanying appendix. A number of key themes emerged. (1) Digital approaches may work best across traditional diagnostic systems: we do not have effective ontologies of mental illness and transdiagnostic/symptom-based approaches may be more fruitful. (2) Approaches in clinical implementation of digital tools/interventions need to be creative and require organisational change: not only do clinicians and patients need training and education to be more confident and skilled in using digital technologies to support shared care decision-making, but traditional roles need to be extended, with clinicians working alongside digital navigators and non-clinicians who are delivering protocolised treatments. (3) Designing appropriate studies to measure the effectiveness of implementation is also key: including digital data raises unique ethical issues, and measurement of potential harms is only just beginning. (4) Accessibility and codesign are needed to ensure innovations are long lasting. (5) Standardised guidelines for reporting would ensure effective synthesis of the evidence to inform clinical implementation. COVID-19 and the transition to virtual consultations have shown us the potential for digital innovations to improve access and quality of care in mental health: now is the ideal time to act.

OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 2: changes in primary care clinical activity in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. AIM: To describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice across six clinical areas: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, female and reproductive health, screening and related procedures, and processes related to medication. DESIGN AND SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in situ using OpenSAFELY. METHOD: Common primary care activities were analysed using Clinical Terms Version 3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 to December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month. RESULTS: Substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care were identified since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health (for example, for 'Depression interim review' the median occurrences across practices in December 2020 was down by 41.6% compared with December 2019). CONCLUSION: Granular NHS general practice data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for the key measures identified in this study, as well as further studies using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Implementation of a Web-Based Resilience Enhancement Training for Nurses: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Global workforce challenges faced by health care providers are linked to low levels of job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and well-being, with detrimental impacts on patient care outcomes. Resilience-building programs can provide support for staff who endure highly stressful environments, enhance resilience, and support recruitment and retention, with web-based formats being key to increasing accessibility. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine participants' engagement with a newly developed Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN), explore its acceptability, and compare levels of resilience and psychological well-being in nurses who completed REsOluTioN with those who did not. METHODS: We carried out a pilot randomized trial (1:1), conducted at a single site (mental health and community trust in South England) between August 2021 and May 2022. Local research ethics approvals were obtained. Nurses were invited to participate and were randomly assigned to a waitlist group or REsOluTioN group. Training lasted for 4 weeks, consisting of prereading, web-based facilitated sessions, and mentorship support. We evaluated trial engagement, acceptability of training, and pre-post changes in resilience, measured by the Brief Resilience Scale, and psychological well-being, measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Qualitative participant feedback was collected. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 extension guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility trials were used. RESULTS: Of 108 participants recruited, 93 completed the study. Participants' mean age was 44 (SD 10.85) years. Most participants were female (n=95, 88.8%), White (n=95, 88.8%), and worked in community settings (n=91, 85.0%). Sixteen facilitated and 150 mentoring sessions took place. Most REsOluTioN program participants reported the sessions helped improve their resilience (n=24, 72.8%), self-confidence (n=24, 72.7%), ability to provide good patient care (n=25, 75.8%), relationships with colleagues (n=24, 72.7%), and communication skills (n=25, 75.8%). No statistically significant differences between training and control groups and time on well-being (F1,91=1.44, P=.23, partial η2=0.02) and resilience scores (F1,91=0.33, P=.57, partial η2=0.004) were revealed; however, there were positive trends toward improvement in both. Nurse participants engaged with the REsOluTioN program and found it acceptable. Most found web-based training and mentoring useful and enjoyed learning, reflection, networking, and participatory sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The REsOluTioN program was acceptable, engaging, perceived as useful, and nurses were keen for it to be implemented to optimize resilience, psychological health, communication, and workplace environments. The study has evidenced that it is acceptable to implement web-based resilience programs with similar design features within busy health care settings, indicating a need for similar programs to be carefully evaluated. Mentorship support may also be a key in optimizing resilience. Trial limitations include small sample size and reduced statistical power; a multicenter randomized controlled trial could test effectiveness of the training on a larger scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074563; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074563. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37015.

Perinatal mental health and COVID-19: Navigating a way forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have increased pre-existing inequalities and risk factors for mental disorders in general, but perinatal mental disorders are of particular concern. They are already underdiagnosed and undertreated, and this has been magnified by the pandemic. Access to services (both psychiatric and obstetric) has been reduced, and in-person contact has been restricted because of the increased risks. Rates of perinatal anxiety and depressive symptoms have increased. In the face of these challenges, clear guidance in perinatal mental health is needed for patients and clinicians. However, a systematic search of the available resources showed only a small amount of guidance from a few countries, with a focus on the acute phase of the pandemic rather than the challenges of new variants and variable rates of infection. Telepsychiatry offers advantages during times of restricted social contact and also as an additional route for accessing a wide range of digital technologies. While there is a strong evidence base for general telepsychiatry, the particular issues in perinatal mental health need further examination. Clinicians will need expertise and training to navigate a hybrid model, flexibly combining in person and remote assessments according to risk, clinical need and individual patient preferences. There are also wider issues of care planning in the context of varying infection rates, restrictions and vaccination access in different countries. Clinicians will need to focus on prevention, treatment, risk assessment and symptom monitoring, but there will also need to be an urgent and coordinated focus on guidance and planning across all organisations involved in perinatal mental health care.

Examining the Effectiveness of Web-Based Interventions to Enhance Resilience in Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, the impact of continued exposure to workplace environmental and psychological stressors on health care professionals' mental health is associated with increased depression, substance misuse, sleep disorders, and posttraumatic stress. This can lead to staff burnout, poor quality health care, and reduced patient safety outcomes. Strategies to improve the psychological health and well-being of health care staff have been highlighted as a critical priority worldwide. The concept of resilience for health care professionals as a tool for negotiating workplace adversity has gained increasing prominence. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the effectiveness of web-based interventions to enhance resilience in health care professionals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Ovid SP databases for relevant records published after 1990 until July 2021. We included studies that focused on internet-delivered interventions aiming at enhancing resilience. Study quality was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trial designs and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for other study designs. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42021253190). PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies, conducted between 2014 and 2020 and involving 1573 health care workers, were included in the review. In total, 4 randomized controlled trial designs and 4 pre- and postdesign studies were conducted across a range of international settings and health care disciplines. All of these studies aimed to evaluate the impact of web-based interventions on resilience or related symptoms in health care professionals involved in patient-facing care. Interventions included various web-based formats and therapeutic approaches over variable time frames. One randomized controlled trial directly measured resilience, whereas the remaining 3 used proxy measures to measure psychological concepts linked to resilience. Three pretest and posttest studies directly measured resilience, whereas the fourth study used a proxy resilience measure. Owing to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and intervention designs, meta-analysis was not possible, and qualitative data synthesis was undertaken. All studies found that resilience or proxy resilience levels were enhanced in health care workers following the implementation of web-based interventions. The overall risk of bias of all 8 studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that web-based interventions designed to enhance resilience may be effective in clinical practice settings and have the potential to provide support to frontline staff experiencing prolonged workplace stress across a range of health care professional groups. However, the heterogeneity of included studies means that findings should be interpreted with caution; more web-based interventions need rigorous testing to further develop the evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021253190; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253190.

Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN): Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, nurses are facing increased pressure to provide high-quality complex patient care within environments with scarce resources in terms of staffing, infrastructure, or financial reward. The strain and demand on the psychological health and well-being of nurses during COVID-19 has been substantial, with many experiencing burnout; as such, interventions to enhance resilience within the workplace are required. A face-to-face resilience enhancement training program for nurses that was effective in improving resilience levels was translated into a 4-week online training program, Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN), to enable greater accessibility for nurses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare levels of resilience, psychological health, and well-being in nurses before and after the online resilience training compared to a wait list control group. It will also explore participants' engagement with the trial and their acceptability of the online training. METHODS: This is a two-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial with a 6-week follow-up period. Up to 100 registered nonagency nurses working at a National Health Service hospital trust in South England will be recruited. Four cohorts will run, and participants will be randomized into a wait list control group or to REsOluTioN. Pre- and postonline surveys will collect study outcome measure data. In the REsOluTioN arm, data will be collected on the perceived usefulness of the online training via an online survey. Institutional and health research authority approvals have been obtained. RESULTS: REsOluTioN will aim to empower nurses to maintain and enhance their resilience while working under challenging clinical conditions. The online training will be interactive with input from mentors, health care leaders, and peers to promote engagement and enhanced communication, and will create a forum where nurses can express their views and concerns, without hierarchical infrastructures inhibiting them. This can increase self-knowledge and learning around workplace resilience coping strategies and provide a safe space to validate feelings through mentorship and peer support. Findings will be reported in accordance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. The trial is now finished and was conducted between August 2021 and May 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The REsOluTioN trial will enable preliminary data to be gathered to indicate the online training's effectiveness in enhancing nurses' resilience in the workplace, with the potential for larger scale follow-up studies to identify its value to nurses working across a range of health care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074563; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074563. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37015.

It's What We Do: Experiences of UK Nurses Working during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Practice, Identity and Resilience.

The COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure on a nursing workforce already facing high levels of stress, burnout, and fatigue in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally. The contribution of nurses to keeping the public safe was widely recognised as they met the challenges of delivering complex patient care during the healthcare crisis. However, the psychological impact of this on nurses' health and wellbeing has been substantial, and the number of nurses leaving the profession in the UK is rising. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of nurses working during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of this on their psychological health, wellbeing and resilience. The study is part of a wider project to develop and pilot an online resilience intervention for nurses during COVID-19. Five focus groups with 22 nurses were carried out online. Data was analysed thematically using the Framework Method. Four key themes relating to positive and negative impacts of working during the pandemic were identified: Rapid changes and contexts in flux; loss and disruption; finding opportunities and positive transformation; and reinforcing and strengthening identity. Implications for coping and resilience in nursing, nursing identities and workforce development are discussed.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Delivery of Mental Health Services and Telemental Health: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country's COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government's response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time. RESULTS: Of the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries' face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients' preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

COVID-19 and substance use disorders: a review of international guidelines for frontline healthcare workers of addiction services.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders may be at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 infection and developing medical complications. Several institutional and governmental health agencies across the world developed ad hoc guidance for substance use disorder services and care of individuals misusing substances. We aimed to synthesise the best available recommendations on management and care of people with or at risk of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic from existing guidelines published in UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore. METHODS: We systematically searched existing guidelines and websites from 28 international institutions and governmental bodies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 4th 2021). We summarized the extracted data as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS: We organised the available recommendations from 19 sources in three sections. First, we focused on general advice and recommendations for people who misuse alcohol or drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design of contingency plans, safeguarding issues for children and families of service users and advice to the public, patients, and carers. Then, we summarised specific guidelines for people who use illicit drugs and related services, such as opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes. Finally, we provided a synthesis on specific recommendations for services supporting people who misuse alcohol and key topics in the field, such as management of alcohol detoxification and safe transition between supervised and unsupervised consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Available guidance reflected different approaches, ranging from being extremely cautious in providing recommendations other than generic statements to proposing adaptation of previously available guidelines to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the early phase, guidance focused on reduction of infection transmission and service delivery. Guidance did not provide advice on infection prevention via vaccination programmes and service access strategies tailored to individuals with substance use disorders.

Teaching Telepsychiatry Skills: Building on the Lessons of the COVID-19 Pandemic to Enhance Mental Health Care in the Future.

COVID-19 has accelerated the use of telehealth and technology in mental health care, creating new avenues to increase both access to and quality of care. As video visits and synchronous telehealth become more routine, the field is now on the verge of embracing asynchronous telehealth, with the potential to radically transform mental health. However, sustaining the use of basic synchronous telehealth, let alone embracing asynchronous telehealth, requires new and immediate effort. Programs to increase digital literacy and competencies among both clinicians and patients are now critical to ensure all parties have the knowledge, confidence, and ability to equitably benefit from emerging innovations. This editorial outlines the immediate potential as well as concrete steps toward realizing the potential of a new, more personalized, scalable mental health system.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with ADHD: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear how pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions compare with each other in terms of efficacy and tolerability for core symptoms and additional problems in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aim to conduct the first network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (or their combinations) in adults with ADHD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for NMAs. We will search a broad set of electronic databases/registries and contact drug companies and experts in the field to retrieve published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel or cross-over) of medications (either licensed or unlicensed) and any non-pharmacological intervention in adults (≥18 years) with ADHD. Primary outcomes will be: (1) change in severity of ADHD core symptoms, and (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes will include tolerability (drop-out due to side effects) and change in the severity of emotional dysregulation, executive dysfunctions and quality of life. The risk of bias in each individual RCT included in the NMA will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2. We will evaluate the transitivity assumption comparing the distribution of possible effect modifiers across treatment comparisons. We will perform Bayesian NMA for each outcome with random-effects model in OpenBUGS. Pooled estimates of NMA will be obtained using the Markov Chains Monte Carlo method. We will judge the credibility in the evidence derived from the NMA using the CINeMA tool (which includes assessment of publication bias). We will conduct a series of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is the protocol for an aggregate-data level NMA, ethical approval will not be required. Results will be disseminated at national/international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021265576.

Study protocol: the OxWell school survey investigating social, emotional and behavioural factors associated with mental health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION: Improving our understanding of the broad range of social, emotional and behavioural factors that contribute to mental health outcomes in adolescents will be greatly enhanced with diverse, representative population samples. We present a protocol for a repeated self-report survey assessing risk and protective factors for mental health and well-being in school pupils aged 8-18 years with different socioeconomic backgrounds in England. The survey will provide a comprehensive picture of mental health and associated risks at the community level to inform the development of primary and secondary prevention and treatment strategies in schools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is for a large-scale online repeated self-report survey, representative of children and adolescents aged 8-18 years attending schools or further education colleges in participating counties in England. The survey consists of around 300 questions, including validated measures of mental health and well-being, risk and protective factors, and care-seeking behaviour and preferences. Additional questions each year vary to address current events and novel hypotheses, developed by the research team, collaborators and stakeholders. Primary analyses will investigate current and changing risk and protective factors, care-seeking behaviour and attitudes to allowing linkage of their sensitive data to other databases for research, and will compare measures of mental health to measures of well-being. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Oxford Research Ethics Committee (Reference: R62366). Tailored data summaries will be provided to participating schools and stakeholders within 3 months of data collection. The main findings will be presented at scientific meetings, published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via digital and social media channels. At the end of the study, other researchers will be able to apply for access to anonymous data extracts.

Use of online cultural content for mental health and well-being during COVID-19 restrictions: cross-sectional survey.

AIMS AND METHOD: To gain a deeper understanding of the use of online culture and its potential benefits to mental health and well-being, sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported data on usage, perceived mental health benefits and health status were collected in an online cross-sectional survey during COVID-19 restrictions in the UK in June-July 2020. RESULTS: In total, 1056 people completed the survey. A high proportion of participants reported finding online culture helpful for mental health; all but one of the benefits were associated with regular use and some with age. Reported benefits were wide-ranging and interconnected. Those aged under 25 years were less likely to be regular users of online culture or to have increased their use during lockdown. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There may be benefits in targeting cultural resources for mental health to vulnerable groups such as young adults.

Impact of COVID-19 on telepsychiatry at the service and individual patient level across two UK NHS mental health Trusts.

BACKGROUND: The effects of COVID-19 on the shift to remote consultations remain to be properly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent, nature and clinical impact of the use of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it with the data in the same period of the 2 years before the outbreak. METHODS: We used deidentified electronic health records routinely collected from two UK mental health Foundation Trusts (Oxford Health (OHFT) and Southern Health (SHFT)) between January and September in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We considered three outcomes: (1) service activity, (2) in-person versus remote modalities of consultation and (3) clinical outcomes using Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) data. HoNOS data were collected from two cohorts of patients (cohort 1: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2018, 2019 and 2020; cohort 2: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2019 and 2020), and analysed in clusters using superclasses (namely, psychotic, non-psychotic and organic), which are used to assess overall healthcare complexity in the National Health Service. All statistical analyses were done in Python. FINDINGS: Mental health service activity in 2020 increased in all scheduled community appointments (by 15.4% and 5.6% in OHFT and SHFT, respectively). Remote consultations registered a 3.5-fold to 6-fold increase from February to June 2020 (from 4685 to a peak of 26 245 appointments in OHFT and from 7117 to 24 987 appointments in SHFT), with post-lockdown monthly averages of 23 030 and 22 977 remote appointments/month in OHFT and SHFT, respectively. Video consultations comprised up to one-third of total telepsychiatric services per month from April to September 2020. For patients with dementia, non-attendance rates at in-person appointments were higher than remote appointments (17.2% vs 3.9%). The overall HoNOS cluster value increased only in the organic superclass (clusters 18-21, n=174; p<0.001) from 2019 to 2020, suggesting a specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population of patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The rapid shift to remote service delivery has not reached some groups of patients who may require more tailored management with telepsychiatry.

Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in Spring 2020. DESIGN: A regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites. RESULTS: Pooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect. CONCLUSIONS: MH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy and mental health

Factors involved include confidence (trusting or not the vaccine or provider), complacency (seeing the need or value of a vaccine) and convenience (easy, convenient access to the vaccine).3 4 Importantly, attitudes to vaccination can change and people who are initially hesitant can still come to see a vaccine’s safety, efficacy and necessity.5 Developing strategies to address hesitancy is key.6 The expedited development and relative novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines have led to public uncertainty.4 In addition, efforts to explain the mode of action of these vaccines involve a degree of complexity (eg, immune response and genetic mechanisms), which is difficult to communicate quickly and simply. Suggestions for change include offering specific discussions from mental health professionals and peer workers, vaccine education and awareness focused for those with SMI, vaccination programmes within mental health services (with coexistent organisational change to facilitate this), alignment with other preventative health strategies (such as influenza vaccination, smoking cessation, metabolic monitoring), focused outreach and monitoring uptake.13 Monitoring of vulnerable groups vaccine uptake itself presents problems. In the case of mental illness, multiple long-term conditions across mental and physical health domains as well as socio-economic factors means that both vulnerability and inequality are likely to be additive.11 However, vaccine impact may be greater among the most vulnerable despite lower vaccine uptake because the baseline absolute risk is so high.15 Therefore, in the context of a COVID-19 vaccine programme, even if vaccine uptake falls short in some high-risk groups, even small increases in vaccine uptake will still have significant health benefits.14 Uptake of vaccination is crucial both for the individual and protection of others.