Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry ; 2022 Feb 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326401

ABSTRACT

Relatively little research has focused on children and young people (CYP) whose mental health and wellbeing improved during Covid-19 lockdown measures. We aimed to (1) determine the proportion of CYP who self-reported improvement in their mental wellbeing during the first Covid-19 lockdown and (2) describe the characteristics of this group in relation to their peers. We conducted a descriptive analysis of data from the 2020 OxWell Student Survey, a self-report, cross-sectional survey of English CYP. A total of 16,940 CYP primarily aged 8-18 years reported on change in mental wellbeing during lockdown. We characterised these CYP in terms of school, home, relational, and lifestyle factors as well as feelings about returning to school. One-third (33%) of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during the first UK national lockdown. Compared with peers who reported no change or deterioration, a higher proportion of CYP with improved mental wellbeing reported improved relationships with friends and family, less loneliness and exclusion, reduced bullying, better management of school tasks, and more sleep and exercise during lockdown. In conclusion, a sizeable minority of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during lockdown. Determining the reasons why these CYP felt they fared better during lockdown and considering how these beneficial experiences can be maintained beyond the pandemic might provide insights into how to promote the future mental health and wellbeing of school-aged CYP. All those working with CYP now have an opportunity to consider whether a systemic shift is needed in order to understand and realise any learnings from experiences during the pandemic.

2.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 16659, 2022 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2050553

ABSTRACT

Few studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 on mental health include prospective markers of risk and resilience necessary to understand and mitigate the combined impacts of the pandemic, lockdowns, and other societal responses. This population-based study of young adults includes individuals from the Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network (n = 2403) recruited from English primary care services and schools in 2012-2013 when aged 14-24. Participants were followed up three times thereafter, most recently during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 outbreak when they were aged between 19 and 34. Repeated measures of psychological distress (K6) and mental wellbeing (SWEMWBS) were supplemented at the latest assessment by clinical measures of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7). A total of 1000 participants, 42% of the original cohort, returned to take part in the COVID-19 follow-up; 737 completed all four assessments [mean age (SD), 25.6 (3.2) years; 65.4% female; 79.1% White]. Our findings show that the pandemic led to pronounced deviations from existing mental health-related trajectories compared to expected levels over approximately seven years. About three-in-ten young adults reported clinically significant depression (28.8%) or anxiety (27.6%) under current NHS guidelines; two-in-ten met clinical cut-offs for both. About 9% reported levels of psychological distress likely to be associated with serious functional impairments that substantially interfere with major life activities; an increase by 3% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Deviations from personal trajectories were not necessarily restricted to conventional risk factors; however, individuals with pre-existing health conditions suffered disproportionately during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Resilience factors known to support mental health, particularly in response to adverse events, were at best mildly protective of individual psychological responses to the pandemic. Our findings underline the importance of monitoring the long-term effects of the ongoing pandemic on young adults' mental health, an age group at particular risk for the emergence of psychopathologies. Our findings further suggest that maintaining access to mental health care services during future waves, or potential new pandemics, is particularly crucial for those with pre-existing health conditions. Even though resilience factors known to support mental health were only mildly protective during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains to be seen whether these factors facilitate mental health in the long term.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Depression/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Mental Health , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
3.
Arch Suicide Res ; : 1-17, 2022 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890637

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) appears to be more common among women than men, though the underlying reasons for this remain unclear. In a community sample of young adults (N = 996, aged 18-33) assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated alternative explanation for the NSSI prevalence gap: are women more likely to experience the feelings which lead to NSSI as a coping strategy, or does this prevalence gap result from differences in how men and women respond to distress? METHODS: Cross-sectional mediation and moderation analyses tested how self-reported psychological distress (K10), emotion dysregulation (DERS), and impulsivity (UPPS-P) may contribute to a higher prevalence of NSSI among women. RESULTS: Women were twice as likely as men to report past-year NSSI (14.47% versus 7.78%, OR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.29, 3.13]). Women reported significantly higher psychological distress and significantly lower sensation seeking and positive urgency than men. Psychological distress partially statistically mediated the relationship between gender and past-year NSSI. Gender did not significantly moderate associations between psychological distress, emotion dysregulation, or impulsivity and past-year NSSI. Past-year NSSI prevalence did not significantly decrease with age and we found no significant age by gender interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Greater levels of NSSI in young women are partly explained by their greater levels of psychological distress, but not by differences in how men and women respond to this distress. Given similar levels of psychological distress, emotion dysregulation, and impulsivity, women and men are similarly likely to experience NSSI. HighlightsWomen aged 18-33 were significantly more likely to report past-year NSSI than menWomen's greater psychological distress contributed to their higher NSSI prevalenceVariables investigated here were similarly associated with NSSI in men and women.

4.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e058976, 2022 04 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784836

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: With mental ill health listed as a top cause of global disease burden, there is an urgent need to prioritise mental health promotion programmes. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress in non-clinical settings. In a recent aggregate-level meta-analysis we found that, compared with no intervention, these MBPs reduce average psychological distress. However, heterogeneity between studies impedes generalisation of effects across every setting. Study-level effect modifiers were insufficient to reduce heterogeneity; studying individual-level effect modifiers is warranted. This requires individual participant data (IPD) and larger samples than those found in existing individual trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose an IPD meta-analysis. Our primary aim is to see if, and how, baseline psychological distress, gender, age, education and dispositional mindfulness moderate the effect of MBPs on distress. We will search 13 databases for good-quality randomised controlled trials comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs in non-clinical settings with passive controls. Two researchers will independently select, extract and appraise trials using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Anonymised IPD of eligible trials will be sought from authors, who will be invited to collaborate.The primary outcome will be psychological distress measured using psychometrically validated questionnaires at 1-6 months after programme completion. Pairwise random-effects two-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted. Moderator analyses will follow a 'deft' approach. We will estimate subgroup-specific intervention effects. Secondary outcomes and sensitivity analyses are prespecified. Multiple imputation strategies will be applied to missing data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings will refine our knowledge on the effectiveness of MBPs and help improve the targeting of MBPs in non-clinical settings. They will be shared in accessible formats with a range of stakeholders. Public and professional stakeholders are being involved in the planning, conduct and dissemination of this project. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200117.


Subject(s)
Mindfulness , Adult , Data Analysis , Health Promotion , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
5.
Compr Psychiatry ; 115: 152304, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1734297

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern about how people with eating disorders are impacted by the widespread societal restructuring during the COVID-19 crisis. AIMS: We aimed to examine how factors relating to the impact of the pandemic associate with eating disorders and quantify this relationship while adjusting for concurrent and longitudinal parameters of risk. METHODS: We gathered demographic, behavioral and clinical data pre- and mid-pandemic as well as childhood trauma history from a longitudinal online survey of 489 adults (mean age 23.4 years) recruited from the Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network (NSPN). Using pre-pandemic (T1) and concurrent (T2) data we aimed to predict eating disorders at mid-pandemic (T2). We deployed hierarchical generalized logistic regression to ascertain the strength of longitudinal and concurrent associations. RESULTS: Pre-pandemic eating disorder scores strongly associated with concurrent eating disorder (z = 5.93). More conflict at home mid-pandemic (z = 2.03), pre- (lower sensation seeking z = -2.58) and mid-pandemic (higher lack of perseverance z = 2.33) impulsivity traits also associated with mid-pandemic eating disorder. CONCLUSION: Conflict at home mid-pandemic and specific aspects of impulsiveness significantly associated with concurrent eating disorder when adjusted for pre-pandemic eating disorder symptoms, baseline demographics, behavioral traits, history of traumatic experiences and concurrent psychopathology. These results provide insight into the struggles of those suffering with eating disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight the importance of impulsiveness traits and the immediate family environment in their experience of illness during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anorexia Nervosa , COVID-19 , Feeding and Eating Disorders , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Feeding and Eating Disorders/diagnosis , Feeding and Eating Disorders/epidemiology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
Soc Sci Med ; 296: 114711, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683612

ABSTRACT

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Social science & medicine (1982) ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1615236

ABSTRACT

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open, required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

8.
BJPsych Open ; 7(6): e201, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496258

ABSTRACT

Persisting symptoms and dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection have frequently been observed. However, information on the aftermath of COVID-19 is inadequate. We followed up people with severe mental illness (SMI) infected with SARS-CoV-2, and evaluated their longer-term mortality, using data from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, UK. We examined the time course and duration of mortality risk from the point of diagnosis. After SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with SMI had a substantially higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 5.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-17.03; P = 0.007) during the first 28 days and during the following 28-60 days (HR = 2.96, 95% CI 1.21-7.26; P = 0.018) than those without infection, but after 60 days the additional risk of death was no longer significant (HR = 2.33, 95% CI 0.83-6.53; P = 0.107).

9.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry ; 36(12): 1899-1907, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353448

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors contributing to excess deaths of older patients during the initial 2020 lockdown beyond those attributable to confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comparing patients treated between 23 March 2020 and 14 June 2020, deemed exposed to the pandemic/lockdown, to patients treated between 18 December 2019 and 10 March 2020, deemed to be unexposed. Data came from electronic clinical records from secondary care mental health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), UK (catchment area population ∼0.86 million). Eligible patients were aged 65 years or over at baseline with at least 14 days' follow-up, excluding patients diagnosed with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. FINDINGS: In the two cohorts, 3,073 subjects were exposed to lockdown and 4,372 subjects were unexposed; the cohorts were followed up for an average of 74 and 78 days, respectively. After controlling for confounding by sociodemographic factors, smoking status, mental comorbidities, and physical comorbidities, patients with dementia suffered an additional 53% risk of death (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.02-2.31), and patients with severe mental illness suffered an additional 123% risk of death (HR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.42-3.49). No significant additional mortality risks were identified from physical comorbidities, potentially due to low statistical power in that respect. CONCLUSION: During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of death without confirmed COVID-19. These data could inform future health service responses and policymaking to help prevent avoidable excess death during future outbreaks of this or a similar infectious disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Secondary Care
10.
BMC Psychiatry ; 21(1): 250, 2021 05 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225762

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , England/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine
11.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 17(24)2020 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-993546

ABSTRACT

The increasing prevalence of mental health disorders and psychosocial distress among young people exceeds the capacity of mental health services. Social and systemic factors determine mental health as much as individual factors. To determine how best to address multi-level risk factors, we must first understand the distribution of risk. Previously, we have used psychometric methods applied to two epidemiologically-principled samples of people aged 14-24 to establish a robust, latent common mental distress (CMD) factor of depression and anxiety normally distributed across the population. This was linearly associated with suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm such that effective interventions to reduce CMD across the whole population could have a greater total benefit than those that focus on the minority with the most severe scores. In a randomised trial of mindfulness interventions in university students (the Mindful Student Study), we demonstrated a population-shift effect whereby the intervention group appeared resilient to a universal stressor. Given these findings, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we argue that population-based interventions to reduce CMD are urgently required. To target all types of mental health determinants, these interventions must be multi-level. Careful design and evaluation, interdisciplinary work, and extensive local stakeholder involvement are crucial for these interventions to be effective.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/prevention & control , Primary Prevention , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/prevention & control , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Self-Injurious Behavior/prevention & control , Suicidal Ideation , Young Adult
12.
J Psychiatr Res ; 131: 244-254, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-779326

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected social interaction and healthcare worldwide. METHODS: We examined changes in presentations and referrals to the primary provider of mental health and community health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK (population ~0·86 million), plus service activity and deaths. We conducted interrupted time series analyses with respect to the time of UK "lockdown", which was shortly before the peak of COVID-19 infections in this area. We examined changes in standardized mortality ratio for those with and without severe mental illness (SMI). RESULTS: Referrals and presentations to nearly all mental and physical health services dropped at lockdown, with evidence for changes in both supply (service provision) and demand (help-seeking). This was followed by an increase in demand for some services. This pattern was seen for all major forms of presentation to liaison psychiatry services, except for eating disorders, for which there was no evidence of change. Inpatient numbers fell, but new detentions under the Mental Health Act were unchanged. Many services shifted from face-to-face to remote contacts. Excess mortality was primarily in the over-70s. There was a much greater increase in mortality for patients with SMI, which was not explained by ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has been associated with a system-wide drop in the use of mental health services, with some subsequent return in activity. "Supply" changes may have reduced access to mental health services for some. "Demand" changes may reflect a genuine reduction of need or a lack of help-seeking with pent-up demand. There has been a disproportionate increase in death among those with SMI during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Community Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/mortality , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Community Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL