Significant differences in IBD care and education across Europe: results of the pan-European VIPER survey.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care and education might differ around Europe. Therefore, we conducted this European Variation In IBD PracticE suRvey (VIPER) to investigate potential differences between countries. METHODS: This trainee-initiated survey, run through SurveyMonkey®, consisted of 47 questions inquiring basic demographics, IBD training, and clinical care. Results were compared according to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, for which countries were divided into 2 groups (low/high income, according to the World Bank). RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 1285 participants from 40 European countries, with a majority of specialists (65.3%) working in academic institutions (50.4%). Significant differences in IBD-specific training (55.9% vs. 38.4%), as well as availability of IBD units (58.4% vs. 39.7%) and multidisciplinary meetings (73.2% vs. 40.1%) were observed between respondees from high and low GDP countries (p<0.0001). In high GDP countries, IBD nurses are more common (85.9% vs. 36.0%), also mirrored by more nurse-led IBD clinics (40.6% vs. 13.7%; p<0.0001). IBD dieticians (33.4% vs. 16.5%) and psychologists (16.8% vs. 7.5%) are mainly present in high GDP countries (p<0.0001). In the current COVID era, telemedicine is available in 73.2% vs. 54.1% of the high/low GDP countries respectively (p<0.0001). Treat-to-target approaches are implemented everywhere (85.0%), though access to biologicals and small molecules differs significantly. CONCLUSION: Much variability in IBD practice exists across Europe, with marked differences between high vs. low GDP countries. Further work is required to help address some of these inequalities, aiming to improve and standardize IBD care and training across Europe.

Changes in Clinical Management of Patients with Schizophrenia Treated with Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics (LAIs), Including Telepsychiatry Use, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic substantially impacted care of patients with schizophrenia treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs). This study (OASIS-MAPS) examined how clinical sites adapted operations and used telepsychiatry to maintain standard of care for these patients during the pandemic. Methods: Two online surveys (initial: October-November 2020, N = 35; follow-up: July-September 2021, N = 21) were completed by a principal investigator (PI) or PI-appointed designee at sites participating in the OASIS study (NCT03919994). Survey responses were analyzed descriptively. Results: At the time of the initial survey, all 35 participating sites were using variants of telepsychiatry, with 20 sites adopting it after the pandemic started. Most sites reported no negative impacts of the pandemic on medication adherence, although approximately 20% of sites reported decreased adherence for LAIs. Twelve sites (34%) reported switching patients with schizophrenia from LAIs to oral antipsychotic medications, while 11 sites (31%) reported switching patients from shorter to longer injection interval LAIs during the pandemic. Most sites did not experience difficulties in implementing or expanding telepsychiatry services, although lower reimbursement rate for telepsychiatry and patients' lack of access to and training on relevant technologies were the most frequently reported barriers. Conclusion: Changes made by sites after the pandemic onset were viewed by almost all participants as satisfactory for maintaining standard of care. Almost all participants thought that the use of telepsychiatry services would continue after the pandemic in a hybrid manner combining telepsychiatry and office visits. Ensuring that patients have equitable access to telepsychiatry will be important in the post-pandemic future.

UK-wide study of the opinions of gastroenterology trainees: COVID-19, Shape of Training and the future workforce

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted training. Gastroenterology higher specialty training is soon to be reduced from 5 years to 4. The British Society of Gastroenterology Trainees Section biennial survey aims to delineate the impact of COVID-19 on training and the opinions on changes to training. Methods An electronic survey allowing for anonymised responses at the point of completion was distributed to all gastroenterology trainees from September to November 2020. Results During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, 71.0% of the respondents stated that more than 50% of their clinical time was mostly within general internal medicine. Trainees reported a significant impact on all aspects of their gastroenterology training due to lost training opportunities and increasing service commitments. During the first wave, 88.5% of the respondents reported no access to endoscopy training lists. Since this time, 66.2% of the respondents stated that their endoscopy training lists had restarted. This has resulted in fewer respondents achieving endoscopy accreditation. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused 42.2% of the respondents to consider extending their training to obtain the skills required to complete training. Furthermore, 10.0% of the respondents reported concerns of a delay to completion of training. The majority of respondents (84.2%) reported that they would not feel ready to be a consultant after 4 years of training. Conclusions Reductions in all aspects of gastroenterology training were reported. This is mirrored in anticipated concerns about completion of training in a shorter training programme as proposed in the new curriculum. Work is now required to ensure training is restored following the pandemic.

COVID-19-related psychological distress and engagement in preventative behaviors among individuals with severe mental illnesses.

Individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) may be disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and psychological distress. This study investigated the prevalence of engagement in COVID-19 preventative behaviors, predictors of these behaviors, and COVID-19-related psychological distress. One hundred and sixty-three individuals with SMIs (94 with schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and 69 with affective disorders) and 27 psychiatrically healthy comparison participants were recruited from ongoing studies across 3 sites, to complete a phone survey querying implementation of 8 specific COVID-19 preventative behaviors that participants engaged in at least once in the past month as well as standard assessments of depression, anxiety, perceived stress, loneliness, and coping. Data were collected between 3 April 2020 and 4 June 2020. The large majority of our SMI sample, which consisted of outpatients with relatively mild symptom severity, endorsed engaging in multiple preventative behaviors. Relatively few differences were found between groups; however, individuals with SMI were less likely to work remotely than healthy individuals and individuals with schizophrenia spectrum illness were less likely to stay home as a preventative measure, wear face masks, and work remotely than individuals with affective disorders. Differences in staying home remained after controlling for potential confounds. Although individuals with SMI reported more psychological distress related to COVID-19, this distress was largely unrelated to engagement in preventative behaviors. The large majority of individuals with SMI in this outpatient sample, regardless of broad diagnostic category, reported performing multiple behaviors intended to prevent COVID-19 infection at least once a month and reported distress associated with the pandemic. These findings suggest a good level of awareness of COVID-19 among stable outpatients with SMI. The degree to which more acutely ill persons with SMI engage in such preventative behaviors, however, remains to be examined.

A Longitudinal Investigation of the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health of Individuals with Pre-existing Severe Mental Illnesses.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and affective disorders, may be at increased risk for negative mental health outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compared the severity of pre-pandemic symptoms and affective experiences to current symptoms to evaluate this possibility. METHODS: 148 individuals with SMI (92 with schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and 56 with affective disorders) were recruited from ongoing ecological momentary assessment studies that sampled day-to-day experiences and symptom severity prior to the pandemic. Participants completed a one-time phone survey that queried these same experiences/symptoms between April and June of 2020. RESULTS: Severity of affective experiences and psychotic symptoms remained stable across time, as did sleep duration. Well-being and the number of substances used increased during the early months of the pandemic. Increases in well-being were associated with being female and spending less time alone pre-pandemic. Patterns of stability/change did not differ according to diagnostic category. CONCLUSIONS: At this relatively early stage, individuals with SMI are not reporting a worsening of symptoms or affective experiences and instead appear to be resilient in the face of the pandemic. Continued assessment is needed to determine whether this resilience will persist as the pandemic progresses.

Assessing the Real-Time Mental Health Challenges of COVID-19 in Individuals With Serious Mental Illnesses: Protocol for a Quantitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant stress and mental health problems among the general public. However, persons at greatest risk for poor mental health outcomes, such as people with serious mental illness, have been largely overlooked. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to examine the mental health impact of COVID-19 and social distancing behaviors in people with serious mental illness and the behaviors undertaken to prevent COVID-19 infection in this group. METHODS: Participants will include individuals with serious mental illness (eg, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) and nonpsychiatric control participants who are currently participating in or have previously participated in several ongoing parent observational studies. Data will be collected from April 2020 through August 2020. Participants will complete phone interviews at 2 time points to assess their current emotional functioning and discuss the measures they have taken to prevent COVID-19 infection. Baseline (pre-COVID-19) mental health, sampled by ecological momentary assessment over an extended period, will be compared with current mental health, also sampled by ecological momentary assessment over an extended period. Demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial factors at baseline will be used to examine risk and resilience to current mental health and coping. RESULTS: The inclusion of participants for the first round of telephone assessments started on April 3, 2020 and will be completed by May 31, 2020. As of April 30, 2020, 101 individuals had completed these first-round assessments. The second round of telephone assessments will likely occur between June 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will have broad implications for understanding the psychological consequences of COVID-19 among vulnerable persons with serious mental illness and will provide the opportunity to identify targets to reduce negative outcomes in the future. We also hope our efforts will provide a roadmap and resources for other researchers who would like to implement a similar approach. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19203.