Low availability, long wait times, and high geographic disparity of psychiatric outpatient care in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential barriers to care, this study examined the general psychiatry outpatient new appointment availability in the US, including in-person and telepsychiatry appointments, comparing results between insurance types (Medicaid vs. private insurance), states, and urbanization levels. METHOD: This mystery shopper study investigated 5 US states selected according to Mental Health America Adult Ranking and geography to represent the US mental health care system. Clinics across five selected states were stratified sampled by county urbanization levels. Calls were made during 05/2022-07/2022. Collected data included contact information accuracy, appointment availability, wait time (days), and related information. RESULTS: Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled in New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Overall contact information accuracy averaged 85.3%. Altogether, 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients with a significantly longer wait time for in-person than telepsychiatry appointments (median = 67.0 days vs median = 43.0 days, p < 0.01). The most frequent reason for unavailability was provider not taking new patients (53.9%). Mental health resources were unevenly distributed, favoring urban areas. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric care has been severely restricted in the US with low accessibility and long wait times. Transitioning to telepsychiatry represents a potential solution for rural disparities in access.

Commentary: The impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and young people worldwide - reflections on Newlove-Delgado et al. (2023).

In the past 3 years, since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been an impressive flourishing body of publications on the impact of the pandemic and related restrictions on the mental health of children and young people. It was about time for a rigorous quantitative evidence synthesis of this large body of research. Newlove-Delgado et al. (J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2022) took on this challenge by completing a systematic review with meta-analysis of epidemiological studies on the impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and adolescents, featured in the 2023 Annual Research Review series of the Journal. Overall, this meta-analysis shows that the relationship between mental health and Covid-19 pandemic in children and adolescents is complex and, as such, it ought to be addressed by studies using rigorous methods and advanced analytic strategies. Collectively, as a field, we should and could do better with regards to the scope and quality of the studies in this area.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 hospital mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

It remains unknown to what degree resource prioritization toward SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) coronavirus (COVID-19) cases had disrupted usual acute care for non-COVID-19 patients, especially in the most vulnerable populations such as patients with schizophrenia. The objective was to establish whether the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 hospital mortality and access to hospital care differed between patients with schizophrenia versus without severe mental disorder. We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study of all non-COVID-19 acute hospitalizations in the pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) and COVID-19 (March 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020) periods in France. We divided the population into patients with schizophrenia and age/sex-matched patients without severe mental disorder (1:10). Using a difference-in-differences approach, we performed multivariate patient-level logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio, aOR) with adjustment for complementary health insurance, smoking, alcohol and substance addiction, Charlson comorbidity score, origin of the patient, category of care, intensive care unit (ICU) care, major diagnosis groups and hospital characteristics. A total of 198,186 patients with schizophrenia were matched with 1,981,860 controls. The 90-day hospital mortality in patients with schizophrenia increased significantly more versus controls (aOR = 1.18; p < 0.001). This increased mortality was found for poisoning and injury (aOR = 1.26; p = 0.033), respiratory diseases (aOR = 1.19; p = 0.008) and for both surgery (aOR = 1.26; p = 0.008) and medical care settings (aOR = 1.16; p = 0.001). Significant changes in the case mix were noted with reduced admission in the ICU and for several somatic diseases including cancer, circulatory and digestive diseases and stroke for patients with schizophrenia compared to controls. These results suggest a greater deterioration in access to, effectiveness and safety of non-COVID-19 acute care in patients with schizophrenia compared to patients without severe mental disorders. These findings question hospitals' resilience pertaining to patient safety and underline the importance of developing specific strategies for vulnerable patients in anticipation of future public health emergencies.

A large-scale meta-analytic atlas of mental health problems prevalence during the COVID-19 early pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions can impact mental health. To quantify the mental health burden of COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching World Health Organization COVID-19/PsycInfo/PubMed databases (09/29/2020), including observational studies reporting on mental health outcomes in any population affected by COVID-19. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, sleep problems, posttraumatic symptoms. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on severe mental health problems, in high-quality studies, and in representative samples. Subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by age, sex, country income level, and COVID-19 infection status. One-hundred-seventy-three studies from February to July 2020 were included (n = 502,261, median sample = 948, age = 34.4 years, females = 63%). Ninety-one percent were cross-sectional studies, and 18.5%/57.2% were of high/moderate quality. The highest prevalence emerged for posttraumatic symptoms in COVID-19 infected people (94%), followed by behavioral problems in those with prior mental disorders (77%), fear in healthcare workers (71%), anxiety in caregivers/family members of people with COVID-19 (42%), general health/social contact/passive coping style in the general population (38%), depression in those with prior somatic disorders (37%), and fear in other-than-healthcare workers (29%). Females and people with COVID-19 infection had higher rates of almost all outcomes; college students/young adults of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, suicidal ideation; adults of fear and posttraumatic symptoms. Anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms were more prevalent in low-/middle-income countries, sleep problems in high-income countries. The COVID-19 pandemic adversely impacts mental health in a unique manner across population subgroups. Our results inform tailored preventive strategies and interventions to mitigate current, future, and transgenerational adverse mental health of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safety of Psychotropic Medications in People With COVID-19: Evidence Review and Practical Recommendations.

(Reprinted with permission from the BMC Medicine (2020) 18:215).

Outcomes associated with different vaccines in individuals with bipolar disorder and impact on the current COVID-19 pandemic- a systematic review.

Bipolar disorder (BD) might be associated with higher infection rates of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) which in turn could result in worsening the clinical course and outcome. This may be due to a high prevalence of somatic comorbidities and an increased risk of delays in and poorer treatment of somatic disease in patients with severe mental illness in general. Vaccination is the most important public health intervention to tackle the ongoing pandemic. We undertook a systematic review regarding the data on vaccinations in individuals with BD. Proportion of prevalence rates, efficacy and specific side effects of vaccinations and in individuals with BD were searched. Results show that only five studies have investigated vaccinations in individuals with BD, which substantially limits the interpretation of overall findings. Studies on antibody production after vaccinations in BD are very limited and results are inconsistent. Also, the evidence-based science on side effects of vaccinations in individuals with BD so far is poor.

Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Definition, Predictors, and Therapy Options.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) represents a major clinical challenge. The broad definition of TRS requires nonresponse to at least 2 sequential antipsychotic trials of sufficient dose, duration, and adherence. Several demographic, clinical, and neurologic predictors are associated with TRS. Primary (or early) TRS is present from the beginning of therapy, while patients with secondary (or later-onset) TRS initially respond to antipsychotics but become resistant over time, often after relapses. Guidelines worldwide recognize clozapine as the most effective treatment option for TRS, but clozapine is underused due to various barriers. Importantly, studies indicate that response rates are higher when clozapine is initiated earlier in the treatment course. Side effects are common with clozapine, particularly in the first few weeks, but can mostly be managed without discontinuation; they do require proactive assessment, intervention, and reassurance for patients. Furthermore, plasma leucocyte and granulocyte levels must be monitored weekly during the first 18-26 weeks of treatment, and regularly thereafter, according to country regulations. Therapeutic drug monitoring of clozapine trough plasma levels is helpful to guide dosing, with greatest efficacy at plasma clozapine levels ≥350 µg/L, although this level is not universal. Notably, plasma clozapine levels are generally greater at lower doses in nonsmokers, patients with heavy caffeine consumption, in women, in obese people, in those with inflammation (including COVID-19 infection), and in older individuals. Earlier and broader use of clozapine in patients with TRS is an important measure to improve outcomes of patients with this most severe form of the illness.

"How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic": Correction

Reports an error in "How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic" by Carmen Moreno, Til Wykes, Silvana Galderisi, Merete Nordentoft, Nicolas Crossley, Nev Jones, Mary Cannon, Christoph U. Correll, Louise Byrne, Sarah Carr, Eric Y. H. Chen, Philip Gorwood, Sonia Johnson, Hilkka Karkkainen, John H. Krystal, Jimmy Lee, Jeffrey Lieberman, Carlos Lopez-Jaramillo, Miia Mannikko, Michael R. Phillips, Hiroyuki Uchida, Eduard Vieta, Antonio Vita and Celso Arango (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2020[Sep], Vol 7[9], 813-824). In the original article, the word Scandinavia has been corrected to Switzerland in relation to service users becoming more common in guiding mental health services. This correction has been made to the online version. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-64057-025). The unpredictability and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic;the associated lockdowns, physical distancing, and other containment strategies;and the resulting economic breakdown could increase the risk of mental health problems and exacerbate health inequalities. Preliminary findings suggest adverse mental health effects in previously healthy people and especially in people with pre-existing mental health disorders. Despite the heterogeneity of worldwide health systems, efforts have been made to adapt the delivery of mental health care to the demands of COVID-19. Mental health concerns have been addressed via the public mental health response and by adapting mental health services, mostly focusing on infection control, modifying access to diagnosis and treatment, ensuring continuity of care for mental health service users, and paying attention to new cases of mental ill health and populations at high risk of mental health problems. Sustainable adaptations of delivery systems for mental health care should be developed by experts, clinicians, and service users, and should be specifically designed to mitigate disparities in health-care provision. Thorough and continuous assessment of health and service-use outcomes in mental health clinical practice will be crucial for defining which practices should be further developed and which discontinued. For this Position Paper, an international group of clinicians, mental health experts, and users of mental health services has come together to reflect on the challenges for mental health that COVID-19 poses. The interconnectedness of the world made society vulnerable to this infection, but it also provides the infrastructure to address previous system failings by disseminating good practices that can result in sustained, efficient, and equitable delivery of mental health-care delivery. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic could be an opportunity to improve mental health services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Editorial Perspective: Challenges of research focusing on child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 era: what studies are needed?

This editorial perspective focuses on the challenges of research on child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Common limitations of published/ongoing studies are (i) being conducted in one or few countries, (ii) the survey being available in one or few languages, (iii) targeting selected samples (e.g., clinical populations and health workers) rather than the general population, (iv) only recruiting/reporting on non-representative samples, (v) focusing often on a restricted set of mental health outcomes, missing the broader picture of mental and physical health, quality of life and functioning, (vi) failing to use a longitudinal design and (vii) collecting only parental ratings or self-rated questionnaires from children and adolescents, but not both. We discuss how the Collaborative Outcomes Study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times (COH-FIT) was designed to address some of these challenges, also highlighting its limitations.

The need for holistic, longitudinal and comparable, real-time assessment of the emotional, behavioral and societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across nations.

As of the end of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 82 million verified infections and almost 1.8 million COVID-19-related deaths worldwide,1 resulting to an unprecedented public health response around the globe. The COVID-19 pandemic, together with the applied multi-level restrictive measures, has generated a unique combination of an unpredictable and stressful biomedical and socioeconomic environment (i.e., syndemic),2 introducing real-life threat, involuntary and drastic every-day life-style changes with uncertain financial and future prospects, alongside with minimized coping and stress management possibilities.3 This combination of so many different and vital stressors may lead to acute as well as long-term, direct, indirect and even transgenerational unfavourable effects on physical and mental health and functioning, which might even represent the most precarious and still unpredictable public-health-related part of the pandemic.4 Thereby, specific population groups could be at particular risk of poor health outcomes in relation to applied public health measures.4, 5 However, not every individual will experience the same level of negative impact on health and well-being during the pandemic, as several additional national, socioeconomic, environmental, behavioural, emotional and cognitive factors can moderate individual resilience and coping.6 Pandemic-related research should, thus, assess as many multidimensional risk and protective factors as possible in a longitudinal, large-scale and multi-national manner, enabling a profound and comprehensive understanding of the complex health and societal impact of the pandemic worldwide.7 Nevertheless, to date, most research findings are cross-sectional, report on small and non- representative samples from individual countries, or on specific population groups (e.g., health care workers, students, clinical populations) and usually assess only a very restricted set of outcomes and time-points. Thereby, only few studies assess coping strategies, medical history or detailed socioeconomic, demographic and environmental data. In addition, most studies leave behind linguistic differences, being available in one or at best two different languages. Such investigations of small outcome subsets within a narrow framework preclude a broader and clear understanding of the multifaceted pandemic impact on the general population and specific subgroups. Acknowledging these gaps in the existing literature, large- scale, collaborative research prospectively collecting and monitoring a broad range of real- time, multi-dimensional health-related, societal and behavioural outcome data from countries across the globe is currently explicitly needed. The Collaborative Outcomes study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times (COH- FIT) envisions to fill this gap. Based on an easy-to-access webpage (www.coh-fit.com), COH- FIT is the currently largest-scale known international collaborative study of over 200 researchers around the globe, prospectively collecting the biggest set of multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary data from 150 high, middle, and low-income countries in over 30 languages and in three different age groups (adults, adolescents, children) of the general population, focusing also on relevant at-risk subgroups. Albeit being a cross-sectional anonymous survey on an individual level, it is a longitudinal study on a population level, as data are collected continuously since April 2020 and until the WHO declares the end of the pandemic. In addition to snowball recruitment, this project also collects information from nationally representative samples. Furthermore, COH-FIT is the first study of this scale investigating pandemic effects on health and functioning measures between family members, while it also specifically assesses a large list of behavioral and coping factors (e.g., screen time, social media usage, physical activity, social interaction, religious practices, etc.) on outcomes of interest. COH-FIT also monitors changes in public health restrictive measures to enhance data harmonization across nations and time, and to better investigate their impact on physical and mental health, while it also collects information on changes in healthcare systems functioning. The COH-FIT project was worldwide first initiated in Greece after the ethics committee approval of the School of Medicine of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and is officially supported by the Hellenic Psychiatric Association, European Psychiatric Association, World Association of Social Psychiatry, ECNP Network on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Mental Health Promotion, among many other national and international scientific associations. To date, COH-FIT has already collected >115,000 participations worldwide (>8,000 in Greece), but more participants are still needed, both during the second and third wave of the pandemic, as in the future, after the pandemic has ended. Currently, the COH-FIT survey actively collects the largest sample on multifactorial data on the impact of the COVD-19 pandemic on health and functioning not only in Greece, but around the globe. The elaborated design of COH-FIT and similar studies may allow a better identification of key parameters and population groups at increased risk during the pandemic, as well as potential targets for acute and long-term prevention or intervention strategies in the current as in possible future pandemics. A profound understanding of the health and societal impact of the pandemic could facilitate an optimized governmental, social and individual health preparedness during infection times8 and the bridging of individuals', societal and systemic needs and actions through multi-level guideline development with the aim to improve mental health outcomes globally.

Changes in telepsychiatry regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic: 17 countries and regions' approaches to an evolving healthcare landscape.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Correction to: Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Pharmacological treatment of hyperactive delirium in people with COVID-19: rethinking conventional approaches.

People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) might have several risk factors for delirium, which could in turn notably worsen the prognosis. Although pharmacological approaches for delirium are debated, haloperidol and other first-generation antipsychotics are frequently employed, particularly for hyperactive presentations. However, the use of these conventional treatments could be limited in people with COVID-19, due to the underlying medical condition and the risk of drug-drug interactions with anti-COVID treatments. On these premises, we carried out a rapid review in order to identify possible alternative medications for this particular population. By searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library, we selected the most updated systematic reviews of randomised trials on the pharmacological treatment of delirium in both intensive and non-intensive care settings, and on the treatment of agitation related to acute psychosis or dementia. We identified medications performing significantly better than placebo or haloperidol as the reference treatment in each population considered, and assessed the strength of association according to validated criteria. In addition, we collected data on other relevant clinical elements (i.e. common adverse events, drug-drug interactions with COVID-19 medications, daily doses) and regulatory elements (i.e. therapeutic indications, contra-indications, available formulations). A total of 10 systematic reviews were included. Overall, relatively few medications showed benefits over placebo in the four selected populations. As compared with placebo, significant benefits emerged for quetiapine and dexmedetomidine in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, and for none of the medications in non-ICU settings. Considering also data from indirect populations (agitation related to acute psychosis or dementia), aripiprazole, quetiapine and risperidone showed a potential benefit in two or three different populations. Despite limitations related to the rapid review methodology and the use of data from indirect populations, the evidence retrieved can pragmatically support treatment choices of frontline practitioners involved in the COVID-19 outbreak, and indicate future research directions for the treatment of delirium in particularly vulnerable populations.

Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic calls for a rapid adaptation of conventional medical practices to meet the evolving needs of such vulnerable patients. People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but are at the same time at higher risk for safety issues because of the complex underlying medical condition and the potential interaction with medical treatments. METHODS: In order to produce evidence-based practical recommendations on the optimal management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, an international, multi-disciplinary working group was established. The methodology of the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines in the context of a public health emergency and the principles of the AGREE statement were followed. Available evidence informing on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications, and drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19, was reviewed and discussed by the working group. RESULTS: All classes of psychotropic medications showed potentially relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. A set of practical recommendations was drawn in order to inform frontline clinicians on the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavorable events, and the possible actions to take in order to effectively manage this risk, such as when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.