Development of a protocol for videoconferencing-based exposure and response prevention treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The existing literature indicates that psychotherapeutic treatment, especially exposure and response prevention (ERP) is efficacious in treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic adversely impacted many patients with OCD and disrupted their usual treatment. Moreover, the pandemic forced a global switch to telemental health (TMH) services to maintain the standards and continuity of care. Consequently, clinicians are increasingly using TMH-based psychotherapeutic treatments to treat OCD. However, several challenges have made it difficult for them to implement these treatments in the changed circumstances imposed by the pandemic. AIM: To describe the formulation, implementation, feasibility, and usefulness of videoconferencing-based ERP (VC-ERP) treatment for OCD during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in the psychiatric unit of a multi-specialty hospital in north India over 12 mo (July 2020-June 2021). All patients with OCD were assessed using the home-based TMH services of the department. The VC-ERP protocol for OCD was the outcome of weekly Zoom meetings with a group of clinicians involved in administering the treatment. After a systematic evaluation of the available treatment options, an initial protocol for delivering VC-ERP was developed. Guidelines for clinicians and educational materials for patients and their families were prepared. The protocol was implemented among patients with OCD attending the TMH services, and their progress was monitored. The weekly meetings were used to upgrade the protocol to meet the needs of all stakeholders. Feasibility and efficacy outcomes were examined. RESULTS: All patients were diagnosed with OCD as a primary or a comorbid condition according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th version criteria. Out of 115 patients who attended the services during the study period, 37 were excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining 78 patients, VC-ERP was initiated in 43 patients. Six patients dropped out, and three were hospitalized for inpatient ERP. Eleven patients have completed the full VC-ERP treatment. One patient completed the psychoeducation part of the protocol. VC-ERP is ongoing in 22 patients. The protocol for VC-ERP treatment was developed and upgraded online. A large proportion of the eligible patients (n = 34/43; 79%) actively engaged in the VC-ERP treatment. Drop-out rates were low (n = 6/43; 14%). Satisfaction with the treatment was adequate among patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Apart from hospitalization in 3 patients, there were no other adverse events. Hybrid care and stepped care approaches could be incorporated into the VC-ERP protocol. Therefore, the feasibility of VC-ERP treatment in terms of operational viability, service utilization, service engagement, need for additional in-person services, frequency of adverse events, and user satisfaction was adequate. The VC-ERP treatment was found to be efficacious in the 11 patients who had completed the full treatment. Significant reductions in symptoms and maintenance of treatment gains on follow-up were observed. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary evidence for the feasibility and usefulness of VC-ERP in the treatment of OCD. The results suggest that VC-ERP can be a useful option in resource-constrained settings.

Physicians' Reactions to COVID-19: The Results of a Preliminary International Internet Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians across the world have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed and conducted to assess the emotional and behavioural reactions of physicians to the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An online survey questionnaire using the google forms platform was constructed by the authors. The items in the questionnaire were based on clinical experience, relevant literature review and discussion with peers. A list of issues that were deemed as essential components of the experience of the pandemic relevant to physicians was arrived at. Thereafter these issues were operationalized into question form and hosted on the google forms platform. The link to this questionnaire was circulated by the authors among their peer groups in the month of April 2020. RESULTS: We received 295 responses and 3 were unusable. Most of the responses were from India, the United States of America, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. About 60% of the respondents identified themselves as frontline and had a decade of clinical experience. Most respondents reported being anxious due to the pandemic and also observed the same in their peers and families. A majority also observed changes in behaviour in self and others and advanced a variety of reasons and concerns. A sense of duty was the most commonly employed coping mechanism. CONCLUSION: Physicians are not immune from information and misinformation, or cues in the environment. Behavioural choices are not always predicted by knowledge but by a combination of knowledge, emotional state, personality and environment. Healthcare settings need to be ready for emergencies and should focus on reducing uncertainty in physicians. These factors may also be gainfully used in the mental health promotion of physicians in COVID-19 care roles.

A study of emotional states in candidates undergoing the diagnostic process for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Waiting for results is often associated with a state of anxiety and restlessness. The current study is intended to study the emotional state of people waiting for their results after undergoing COVID-19 testing. METHODS: A descriptive study was done among 140 participants enrolled by simple random technique over a period of 1 month in May 2020. The participants who gave sample for COVID-19 were assessed for their emotional state at two stages - after giving sample and during the waiting period before telling results to them. A self-designed questionnaire focusing on the demographics and emotional state was submitted by the participants distributed to them as Google Forms. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar test were used to compare the statistical change in emotions over a period of time. RESULTS: Around 63.6% and 68.8% of the participants had neutral emotional state after giving sample and before announcement of results, respectively. The mean score of agreement with decision to test was 9 ± 1.6 and discomfort related to testing was 4.6 ± 2.6 on Likert scale of 1-10. A statistically significant difference (P = 0.01) was observed in mean response for "something can be done to help" after giving sample (1.6 ± 0.4) and before announcement of results (1.8 ± 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing testing for COVID-19 undergo psychological turmoil and use various coping methods. Patients endorsed various suggestions including quicker generation of results, environmental changes and counselling services to help them cope better. Incorporating these suggestions may improve the diagnostic process in patients with COVID-19.