Struggling, Forgotten, and Under Pressure: A Scoping Review of Experiences of Sex Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected physical, mental, and economic well-being across the globe and has disproportionately affected certain vulnerable groups. This paper provides a scoping review of literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sex workers, published between December 2019 and December 2022. Six databases were systematically searched, identifying 1009 citations; 63 studies were included in the review. Thematic analysis revealed eight main themes: financial issues; exposure to harm; alternate ways of working; COVID-19 knowledge, protective behaviors, fear, and risk; well-being, mental health, and coping; access to support; access to health care; and the impact of COVID-19 on research with sex workers. COVID-associated restrictions led to reduced work and income, leaving many sex workers struggling to cover basic needs; additionally, government protections excluded those working in the informal economy. Fearing the loss of their already reduced number of clients, many felt compelled to compromise both prices and protective measures. Although some engaged in online sex work, this raised concerns about visibility and was impossible for those without technological access or skills. Many feared COVID-19, but felt pressure to continue working, often with clients who refused to wear masks or share exposure history. Other negative impacts on well-being related to the pandemic included reduced access to financial support or health care. Marginalized populations (and especially those in professions which require close contact like sex workers) need further support and capacity-building within the community to recover from the impact of COVID-19.

Moral injury and psychological wellbeing in UK healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: Potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) can negatively impact mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic may have placed healthcare staff at risk of moral injury. AIM: To examine the impact of PMIE on healthcare staff wellbeing. METHODS: Twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty-five healthcare staff (clinical and non-clinical) were recruited from 18 NHS-England trusts into a survey of PMIE exposure and wellbeing. RESULTS: PMIEs were significantly associated with adverse mental health symptoms across healthcare staff. Specific work factors were significantly associated with experiences of moral injury, including being redeployed, lack of PPE, and having a colleague die of COVID-19. Nurses who reported symptoms of mental disorders were more likely to report all forms of PMIEs than those without symptoms (AOR 2.7; 95% CI 2.2, 3.3). Doctors who reported symptoms were only more likely to report betrayal events, such as breach of trust by colleagues (AOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5, 4.9). CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of NHS healthcare staff in both clinical and non-clinical roles report exposure to PMIEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective research is needed to identify the direction of causation between moral injury and mental disorder as well as continuing to monitor the longer term outcomes of exposure to PMIEs.

Multicentre, England-wide randomised controlled trial of the 'Foundations' smartphone application in improving mental health and well-being in a healthcare worker population.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated. AIMS: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the 'Foundations' application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity. METHOD: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD). RESULTS: Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34-53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = -1.39, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

'You get looked at like you're failing': A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff.

Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) are under considerable strain, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. We interviewed 48 healthcare workers from 18 NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking, such as manager training and peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours, but this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. METHODS: We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. FINDINGS: The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL.

'It hurts your heart': frontline healthcare worker experiences of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someone's moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) [Nash et al., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646-652] at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement. HIGHLIGHTS Clinical frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) have been exposed to an accumulation of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling betrayed by both government and NHS leaders as well as feeling unable to provide duty of care to patients.HCWs described the significant adverse impact of this exposure on their mental health, including increased anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep disturbance.Most HCWs interviewed believed that organisational change within the NHS was necessary to prevent excess PMIE exposure and promote resolution of moral distress.

Antecedentes: El daño moral se define como las fuertes reacciones emocionales y cognitivas que siguen a los eventos que chocan con el código moral de una persona, sus valores o expectativas. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19, el aumento de la exposición a Eventos Potencialmente Dañinos para la Moral (PMIEs, por su sigla en inglés) ha puesto a los trabajadores de la salud (HCWs, por su sigla en inglés) en riesgo de daño moral. Aún se conoce poco sobre la experiencia vivida de la exposición acumulada a PMIE y cómo el personal del Servicio Nacional de Salud de Inglaterra (NHS en su sigla en inglés) responde a esto.Objetivo: Buscamos rectificar esta brecha de conocimiento a través de la exploración cualitativa de las experiencias vividas y perspectivas del personal clínico de primera línea de NHS que respondió al COVID-19.Métodos: Reclutamos una muestra diversa de 30 HCWs clínicos de primera línea de la cohorte del estudio CHECK del NHS, para entrevistas cualitativas de una sola vez. Todos los participantes aprobaron al menos un ítem de los 9 de la Escala de Eventos de Daño Moral (MIES) [Nash y cols., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646­652] en el seguimiento a los 6 meses. Las entrevistas siguieron una guía semi-estructurada y fueron analizadas utilizando análisis temático reflexivo.Resultados: Los HCWs describieron estar expuestos de forma rutinaria a conflictos éticos, creados por exacerbación de problemas sistémicos pre-existentes que incluían falta de personal y de recursos. Encontramos que los HCWs experimentaron un rango de síntomas de salud mental primariamente relacionados a percepciones de traición institucional y al sentirse incapaces de cumplir con su deber de cuidado hacia los pacientes.Conclusión: Estos resultados sugieren que se requiere una estrategia organizacional multifacética para preparar para la exposición a PMIE fomentar oportunidades de resolución de los síntomas asociados al daño moral y prevenir la separación organizacional.

‘It hurts your heart’: frontline healthcare worker experiences of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic ‘Duele tu corazón’: experiencias de daño moral durante la pandemia de COVID-19 en trabajadores de la salud de primera línea ‘它伤了你的心’：在 COVID-19 疫情期间一线医护人员的道德伤害经历

Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someone’s moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) [Nash et al., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646–652] at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement. HIGHLIGHTS Clinical frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) have been exposed to an accumulation of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling betrayed by both government and NHS leaders as well as feeling unable to provide duty of care to patients. HCWs described the significant adverse impact of this exposure on their mental health, including increased anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep disturbance. Most HCWs interviewed believed that organisational change within the NHS was necessary to prevent excess PMIE exposure and promote resolution of moral distress.

Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic. METHODS: In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, "Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?". We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts. RESULTS: We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK. DISCUSSION: Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.

Mental health and wellbeing of seafaring personnel during COVID-19: Scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesize published literature on seafarers' mental health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This scoping review searched four electronic databases for literature on the mental health and wellbeing of seafarers during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Few reported on the prevalence of mental health conditions. Only one compared mental health data gathered during the pandemic to pre-pandemic matched samples, suggesting symptoms of depression and anxiety were greater during the pandemic. There was some evidence that mental health worsened with longer stays on board during the pandemic and being on board longer than expected. Crew exchange difficulties forced many participants to extend their contracts or delay repatriation, often with little information as to when they might get to go home, leading them to feel they had no control over their lives and causing concern about fatigue and the potential for accidents and injuries. Participants described other challenges such as denial of shore leave; concerns about finances and future employment; loneliness and isolation; fears of COVID-19 infection; limited access to essential supplies; and feeling unsupported by management. CONCLUSIONS: Maritime organizations must understand how best to support their staff in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and in any other prolonged crises that may arise in the future. Recommendations include ensuring that staff feel valued by their organization; enhancing work-related autonomy; ensuring that communication is accurate, consistent, and timely; and using lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to inform emergency preparedness policies.

Depression in healthcare workers: Results from the nationwide AMADEUS survey.

BACKGROUND: There is now a wealth of evidence showing that work is a major determinant of physical and mental health. Recent studies have suggested increased rates of depression in healthcare workers (HCWs) in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, with direct impact on care quality and productivity. AIM: To determine the rate of clinical depression in a national sample of HCWs in France during the post-Covid-19 area and to identify related factors (professional, individual and health-related risk behaviors) using a structural equation modeling analysis. METHOD: A survey comprising a number of standardized scales was sent to public and private national healthcare facilities through the mail or disseminated through emails from professional associations and social networks. RESULTS: 10,325 participants were recruited; 3122 (30.2%, 95% confidence interval [29.4-31.1]) met likely diagnostic criteria for clinical depression. Professional factors had the largest total effect (ß = 0.57) (burn-out: ß = 0.74, sustained bullying at the workplace ß = 0.48 and decision-making latitude ß = -0.47), followed by individual factors (ß = 0.30) (the main individual factor was recurrent major depression, path coefficient = 0.67). Professional factors had both a direct (path coefficient = 0.38) and indirect (through health risk behaviors, path coefficient = 0.19) effect on depression. Individual factors had a direct (path coefficient 0.21) and indirect (through health risk behaviors (path coefficient = 0.09) effect on depression. Health risk behaviors had a direct effect on depression (path coefficient = 0.31). INTERPRETATION: These results provide potential explanations for the likely causes of poor psychological health among HCWs. We propose several potential interventions related to professional factors and health risk behaviors. Our results suggest that improving organizational issues, reducing exposure to potentially morally injurious events, promoting brief naps at work and provision of evidence-based prevention approaches have been reported to be helpful in supporting the mental health of hospital staff (not only relaxation or stress management but training in leadership aspects, increasing the knowledge and practice of giving efficient performance feedback, reducing conflicting demands and peer support programs such as Trauma Risk Management. Our data suggest that developing caregivers reported experience and outcome measures (CREMs/CROMs) would be helpful to monitor work environment and its effect on depression in healthcare workers.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: five lessons from the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Lidiando con la pandemia COVID-19 en Europa: Cinco lecciones de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios del Estrés Traumático 应对欧洲 COVID-19 疫情：欧洲创伤应激研究学会的五个经验教训

The paper provides insights into the mental health consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the Central, Eastern, Nordic, Southern, and Western subregions of Europe, represented by five member countries of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). On the basis of the existing national research and experiences in these countries, we propose five lessons learned. (1) There is no evidence of a mental health pandemic so far in the countries in focus. No increase in severe mental disorders but some increase in the symptoms of common mental health disorders are observable. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the mental health burden of the pandemic. (2) The pandemic affects countries (including the mental health situation) differently, depending on the level of the exposure, management policies, pre-pandemic structural characteristics, and healthcare resources. (3) The pandemic affects people differently: the exposure severity to pandemic-related stressors differs between individuals, as well as individual resources to cope with these stressors. There are winners and losers as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. (4) Besides the negative consequences, the pandemic has had a positive impact. The rapidly applied innovations within the system of healthcare responses provide a window of opportunity for positive changes in mental healthcare policies, strategies, and practices. The increased focus on mental health during the pandemic may contribute to the prioritization of mental health issues at policy-making and organizational levels and may reduce stigma. (5) A stress- and trauma-informed response to COVID-19 is required. The European community of psychotraumatologists under the leadership of ESTSS plays an important role in promoting stress- and trauma-informed healthcare and policies of pandemic management. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a stepped-care public mental health model for the prevention of adverse mental health outcomes during pandemics. HIGHLIGHTS Population mental health is affected differently in the COVID-19 pandemic: there are winners and losers, as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. A stress- and trauma-informed public mental health stepped-care model can address pandemic-related mental health burden in a systematic way.

The mental health of staff working on intensive care units over the COVID-19 winter surge of 2020 in England: a cross sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic generated a surge of critically ill patients greater than the capacity of the UK National Health Service (NHS). There have been multiple well-documented impacts associated with the national COVID-19 pandemic surge on ICU staff, including an increased prevalence of mental health disorders on a scale potentially sufficient to impair high-quality care delivery. We investigated the prevalence of five mental health outcomes; explored demographic and professional predictors of poor mental health outcomes; and describe the prevalence of functional impairment; and explore demographic and professional predictors of functional impairment in ICU staff over the 2020/2021 winter COVID-19 surge in England. METHODS: English ICU staff were surveyed before, during, and after the winter 2020/2021 surge using a survey which comprised validated measures of mental health. RESULTS: A total of 6080 surveys were completed, by ICU nurses (57.5%), doctors (27.9%), and other healthcare staff (14.5%). Reporting probable mental health disorders increased from 51% (before) to 64% (during), and then decreased to 46% (after). Younger, less experienced nursing staff were most likely to report probable mental health disorders. During and after the winter, >50% of participants met threshold criteria for functional impairment. Staff who reported probable post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or depression were more likely to meet threshold criteria for functional impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The winter of 2020/2021 was associated with an increase in poor mental health outcomes and functional impairment amongst ICU staff during a period of peak caseload. These effects are likely to impact on patient care outcomes and the longer-term resilience of the healthcare workforce.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: five lessons from the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

The paper provides insights into the mental health consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the Central, Eastern, Nordic, Southern, and Western subregions of Europe, represented by five member countries of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). On the basis of the existing national research and experiences in these countries, we propose five lessons learned. (1) There is no evidence of a mental health pandemic so far in the countries in focus. No increase in severe mental disorders but some increase in the symptoms of common mental health disorders are observable. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the mental health burden of the pandemic. (2) The pandemic affects countries (including the mental health situation) differently, depending on the level of the exposure, management policies, pre-pandemic structural characteristics, and healthcare resources. (3) The pandemic affects people differently: the exposure severity to pandemic-related stressors differs between individuals, as well as individual resources to cope with these stressors. There are winners and losers as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention. (4) Besides the negative consequences, the pandemic has had a positive impact. The rapidly applied innovations within the system of healthcare responses provide a window of opportunity for positive changes in mental healthcare policies, strategies, and practices. The increased focus on mental health during the pandemic may contribute to the prioritization of mental health issues at policy-making and organizational levels and may reduce stigma. (5) A stress- and trauma-informed response to COVID-19 is required. The European community of psychotraumatologists under the leadership of ESTSS plays an important role in promoting stress- and trauma-informed healthcare and policies of pandemic management. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a stepped-care public mental health model for the prevention of adverse mental health outcomes during pandemics. HIGHLIGHTS: Population mental health is affected differently in the COVID-19 pandemic: there are winners and losers, as well as identifiable at-risk groups that need particular attention.A stress- and trauma-informed public mental health stepped-care model can address pandemic-related mental health burden in a systematic way.

Este articulo proporciona información sobre las consecuencias para la salud mental de la pandemia por la COVID-19 en las subregiones Central, Oriental, Nórdica, Meridional y Occidental de Europa, representadas por cinco países miembros de la Sociedad Europea de Estudios del Estrés Traumático (ESTSS). Sobre la base de las investigaciones y experiencias nacionales existentes en estos países, proponemos cinco lecciones aprendidas: 1. No hay evidencia de una pandemia de salud mental hasta el momento en los países en estudio. No se observa un aumento de los trastornos mentales severos, pero sí un aumento de los síntomas de los trastornos de salud mental comunes. Se necesitan más estudios longitudinales de alta calidad para entender la carga de salud mental de la pandemia; 2. La pandemia afecta a los países (incluida la situación de salud mental) en forma diferente según el nivel de exposición, las políticas de gestión, las características estructurales previas a la pandemia y los recursos de atención en salud; 3. La pandemia afecta a las personas de distintas maneras: la severidad de exposición a los estresores relacionados con la pandemia difiere entre las personas, así como los recursos individuales para hacer frente a estos factores estresantes. Hay ganadores y perdedores así como grupos de riesgo identificables que necesitan atención especial; 4. Además de las consecuencias negativas, la pandemia ha tenido un impacto positivo. Las innovaciones aplicadas rápidamente dentro del sistema de respuestas de atención de la salud son una ventana de oportunidad para cambios positivos en las políticas, estrategias y prácticas de atención de la salud mental. El aumento del enfoque en la salud mental durante la pandemia puede contribuir a la priorización de problemas de salud mental en los niveles organizacionales y de formulación de políticas y podría reducir el estigma; 5. Se requieren respuestas frente a la COVID-19 informadas en estrés y en trauma. La comunidad europea de psicotraumatólogos, bajo el liderazgo de la ESTSS, juega un papel importante en la promoción de la atención en salud informada en estrés y trauma y las políticas de gestión de pandemias. Basados en las lecciones aprendidas, proponemos un modelo de salud mental pública de atención escalonada para la prevención de las consecuencias adversas de salud mental durante las pandemias.

Lessons from the pandemic: why having a good understanding of occupational psychiatry is more important now than ever before.

The COVID-19 pandemic has once again highlighted the need for all psychiatrists to have a good understanding of the bi-directional relationship between mental health and a person's ability to function well at work. Ensuring patients are able to work should be a key treatment outcome for all psychiatrists.

Adherence to protective measures among healthcare workers in the UK: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are frontline responders to emergency infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. To avoid the rapid spread of disease, adherence to protective measures is paramount. We investigated rates of correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and physical distancing in UK HCWs who had been to their workplace at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and factors associated with adherence. METHODS: We used an online cross-sectional survey of 1035 UK healthcare professionals (data collected 12-16 June 2020). We excluded those who had not been to their workplace in the previous 6 weeks, leaving us with a sample size of 831. Respondents were asked about their use of PPE, hand hygiene and physical distancing in the workplace. Frequency of uptake was reported descriptively; adjusted logistic regressions were used to separately investigate factors associated with adherence to use of PPE, maintaining good hand hygiene and physical distancing from colleagues. RESULTS: Adherence to personal protective measures was suboptimal (PPE use: 80.0%, 95% CI 77.3 to 82.8; hand hygiene: 67.8%, 95% CI 64.6 to 71.0; coming into close contact with colleagues: 74.7%, 95% CI 71.7 to 77.7). Adherence to PPE use was associated with having received training about health and safety in the workplace for COVID-19, greater perceived social pressure to adopt the behaviour and availability of PPE. Non-adherence was associated with fatalism about COVID-19 and greater perceived difficulty of adopting protective measures. Workplace design using markings to facilitate distancing was associated with adherence to physical distancing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of personal protective behaviours among UK HCWs at the start of the pandemic was variable. Factors associated with adherence provide insight into ways to support HCWs to adopt personal protective behaviours, such as ensuring that adequate PPE is available and designing workplaces to facilitate physical distancing.

What are the mental health impacts of epidemics on relatives of people affected, and relatives of healthcare workers: What interventions are available to support them? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has mainly focused on the impacts of epidemics on those people who are directly affected by the epidemic infection, or of healthcare workers caring for them. Less is known about the impact on mental health of their relatives, and potential interventions to support them. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. OUTCOMES: 28 studies were identified, sixteen quantitative and twelve qualitative. One involved health workers' relatives, and the rest covered relatives of directly affected individuals. We found considerable burden of mental ill-health in both groups. Among relatives of healthcare workers, 29.4% reported symptoms consistent with probable anxiety disorder and 33.7% with probable depression. Prevalence rates for probable anxiety disorder ranged from 24-42% and probable depression 17-51% for the relatives of affected people. One study found a 2% prevalence of PTSD and another found odds of PTSS were significantly higher among relatives of affected individuals compared with the general population. Only two intervention studies were identified and both were descriptive in nature. INTERPRETATION: Available evidence suggests relatives of people affected by infective outbreaks report mental ill-health. Having a relative who died particularly increased risk. Good outcomes for relatives of affected individuals were promoted by practical and social support, public health guidance that recognises the caring role of relatives, and being supported to see the positives as well as negatives in their situation. Good outcomes for relatives of health workers were promoted by perceived effectiveness of protective equipment. High quality evidence on potential interventions to support relatives is lacking. FUNDING: No external funding sought.

Experiences of supported isolation in returning travellers during the early COVID-19 response: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To understand the experiences and perceptions of those who underwent supported isolation, particularly in relation to factors that were associated with improved compliance and well-being; (2) to inform recommendations for the management of similar supported isolation procedures. DESIGN: We carried out a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to capture participants' experiences and perceptions of supported isolation. Data were analysed using the framework approach, a type of thematic analysis that is commonly used in research that has implications for policy. SETTING: Telephone interviews carried out within approximately 1 month of an individual leaving supported isolation. PARTICIPANTS: 26 people who underwent supported isolation at either Arrowe Park Hospital (n=18) or Kents Hill Park Conference Centre (n=8) after being repatriated from Wuhan in January to February 2020. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified: factors affecting compliance with supported isolation; risk perceptions around catching COVID-19; management of supported isolation; communication with those outside supported isolation; relationship with others in supported isolation; and feelings on leaving supported isolation. Participants were willing to undergo supported isolation because they understood that it would protect themselves and others. Positive treatment by staff was fundamental to participants' willingness to comply with isolation procedures. Despite the high level of compliance, participants expressed some uncertainty about what the process would involve. CONCLUSIONS: As hotel quarantine is introduced across the UK for international arrivals, our findings suggest that those in charge should: communicate effectively before, during and after quarantine, emphasising why quarantine is important and how it will protect others; avoid coercion if possible and focus on supporting and promoting voluntary compliance; facilitate shared social experiences for those in quarantine; and ensure all necessary supplies are provided. Doing so is likely to increase adherence and reduce any negative effects on well-being.