COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and informational needs in an Australian cancer population: a cross-sectional survey.

Objective This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and unmet informational needs in a cancer population during the first phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rollout in Australia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia, between 10 May and 31 July 2021. The survey assessed health beliefs, experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and informational needs. Results COVID-19 was perceived to be a significant threat to both physical and mental health. While 57.9% (n = 110) of respondents believed the COVID-19 vaccines were safe and 64.2% (n = 122) believed they were effective, more than half (52.6%; n = 100) agreed that they worried about vaccine side effects. Most respondents (84.2%; n = 160) planned to receive the COVID-19 vaccine; however, feelings of hesitancy remained. There was a statistically significant association between those aged under 60 years (P = 0.003), those with previous vaccine hesitancy (P = 0.000), those who felt they had not received adequate information (P = 0.000) and vaccine hesitancy. Requested information pertained to interactions with cancer treatments, those with a history of blood clotting and information for those undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Conclusions There is a need for tailored COVID-19 vaccine communication that is responsive to the concerns of people with cancer. This will be beneficial during current and future vaccination rollouts.

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.

Adversity, social support and risk of self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Little is known about the degree to which social factors interact with COVID-19-related adversity to increase the risk of self-harm thoughts and behaviours. Using data derived from a UK cohort study, Paul & Fancourt found that loneliness was associated with an increase in the odds of self-harm thoughts and behaviours, whereas high-quality social support protected against self-harm thoughts and behaviours. The authors concluded that it is the quality of social support and interactions, rather than the act of engaging in social interaction per se, that protects against self-harm in the context of adversity. The COVID-19 pandemic may exert longer-lasting effects on population mental health, and continued surveillance of mental health, including self-harm status, will be essential. If accompanied by appropriate measures of the availability and quality of social support, such monitoring could also inform the development of more effective adaptive interventions for those at risk of engaging in self-harm.

Utilization and Acceptability of Formal and Informal Support for Adolescents Following Self-Harm Before and During the First COVID-19 Lockdown: Results From a Large-Scale English Schools Survey.

Background: Little is known about the perceived acceptability and usefulness of supports that adolescents have accessed following self-harm, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: To examine the utilization and acceptability of formal, informal, and online support accessed by adolescents following self-harm before and during the pandemic. Method: Cross-sectional survey (OxWell) of 10,560 secondary school students aged 12-18 years in the south of England. Information on self-harm, support(s) accessed after self-harm, and satisfaction with support received were obtained via a structured, self-report questionnaire. No tests for significance were conducted. Results: 1,457 (12.5%) students reported having ever self-harmed and 789 (6.7%) reported self-harming during the first national lockdown. Informal sources of support were accessed by the greatest proportion of respondents (friends: 35.9%; parents: 25.0%). Formal sources of support were accessed by considerably fewer respondents (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: 12.1%; psychologist/ psychiatrist: 10.2%; general practitioner: 7.4%). Online support was accessed by 8.6% of respondents, and 38.3% reported accessing no support at all. Informal sources of support were rated as most helpful, followed by formal sources, and online support. Of the respondents who sought no support, 11.3% reported this as being helpful. Conclusions: More than a third of secondary school students in this sample did not seek any help following self-harm. The majority of those not seeking help did not find this to be a helpful way of coping. Further work needs to determine effective ways of overcoming barriers to help-seeking among adolescents who self-harm and improving perceived helpfulness of the supports accessed.

Characteristics of mental health stability during COVID-19: An online survey with people residing in a city region of the North West of England.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Despite the significant mental health challenges the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated government measures have presented, research has shown that the majority of people have adapted and coped well. The aim of this study was i) to determine the proportion of people with mental stability and volatility during the pandemic in a North West England city region sample and ii) to establish group differences in psychosocial variables. Mental stability and volatility refer to the extent to which individuals reported change in levels of common mental health symptoms over the course of 12 weeks. No change in mental health over the 12 weeks reflected mental stability whilst change in mental health reflected mental volatility. METHOD: A two-wave-online survey (N = 163) was used to explore the psychological and social impact of the pandemic on relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods within the region. The data collected represents 12 weeks of individual pandemic experience between mid-June and mid-December 2020. A three-level composite common mental health change variable was created combining self-reported anxiety and depression to group stable, volatile, and very volatile individuals in terms of the changeability of their mental health. Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc tests were used to determine how people with mental stability and volatility differed on factors categorised within an ecological framework of resilience (individual, community, societal, and COVID-19 specific). RESULTS: Individuals categorised as 'stable' in terms of mental health symptoms (63.6%) had better mental and physical health; were more tolerant of uncertainty; and reported higher levels of resilience and wellbeing compared to 'very volatile' people (19.8%). These individuals also reported feeling less socially isolated, experienced a greater sense of belonging to their community which was more likely to fulfil their needs, and were more likely to have access to green space nearby for their recommended daily exercise. 'Stable' individuals did not report worrying any more during the pandemic than usual and tolerated uncertainty better compared to those in the 'volatile' group. IMPLICATIONS: The majority of participants in this sample were mentally stable and coping well with the challenges presented by the pandemic. The resilience of these individuals was related to key place-based factors such as a strong sense of community and useable local assets. The data showcase the role of place-based social determinants in supporting resilience and thereby highlight key preventative measures for public mental health during times of international crisis.

Systematic review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicidal behaviour amongst health and social care workers across the world.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the mental health of healthcare and social care workers, and its potential effect on suicidal thoughts and behaviour is of particular concern. METHODS: This systematic review identified and appraised the published literature that has reported on the impact of COVID-19 on suicidal thoughts and behaviour and self-harm amongst healthcare and social care workers worldwide up to May 31, 2021. RESULTS: Out of 37 potentially relevant papers identified, ten met our eligibility criteria. Our review has highlighted that the impact of COVID-19 has varied as a function of setting, working relationships, occupational roles, and psychiatric comorbidities. LIMITATIONS: There have been no completed cohort studies comparing pre- and post-pandemic suicidal thoughts and behaviours. It is possible some papers may have been missed in the search. CONCLUSIONS: The current quality of evidence pertaining to suicidal behaviour in healthcare workers is poor, and evidence is entirely absent for those working in social care. The clinical relevance of this work is to bring attention to what evidence exists, and to encourage, in practice, proactive approaches to interventions for improving healthcare and social care worker mental health.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration: ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

Disordered eating and self-harm as risk factors for poorer mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Young adults and especially those with pre-existing mental health conditions, such as disordered eating and self-harm, appear to be at greater risk of developing metal health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear whether this increased risk is affected by any changes in lockdown restrictions, and whether any lifestyle changes could moderate this increased risk. METHODS: In a longitudinal UK-based birth cohort (The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) we assessed the relationship between pre-pandemic measures of disordered eating and self-harm and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2657 young adults. Regression models examined the relationship between self-reported disordered eating, self-harm, and both disordered eating and self-harm at age 25 years and depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and mental wellbeing during a period of eased restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic (May-July 2020) when participants were aged 27-29 years. Analyses were adjusted for sex, questionnaire completion date, pre-pandemic socioeconomic disadvantage and pre-pandemic mental health and wellbeing. We also examined whether lifestyle changes (sleep, exercise, alcohol, visiting green space, eating, talking with family/friends, hobbies, relaxation) in the initial UK lockdown (April-May 2020) moderated these associations. RESULTS: Pre-existing disordered eating, self-harm and comorbid disordered eating and self-harm were all associated with the reporting of a higher frequency of depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and poorer mental wellbeing during the pandemic compared to individuals without disordered eating and self-harm. Associations remained when adjusting for pre-pandemic mental health measures. There was little evidence that interactions between disordered eating and self-harm exposures and lifestyle change moderators affected pandemic mental health and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with pre-pandemic disordered eating, self-harm and comorbid disordered eating and self-harm were at increased risk for developing symptoms of depression, anxiety and poor mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, even when accounting for pre-pandemic mental health. Lifestyle changes during the pandemic do not appear to alter this risk. A greater focus on rapid and responsive service provision is essential to reduce the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of these already vulnerable individuals. The aim of this project was to explore the mental health of young adults with disordered eating behaviours (such as fasting, vomiting/taking laxatives, binge-eating and excessive exercise) and self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed data from an established study that has followed children from birth (in 1991 and 1992) up to present day, including during the pandemic when participants were 28 years old. We looked at the relationship between disordered eating and/or self-harm behaviours from before the pandemic and mental health problems (symptoms of depression and anxiety) and mental wellbeing during the pandemic. We also explored whether there were any lifestyle changes (such as changes in sleep, exercise, visiting green space) that might be linked to better mental health and wellbeing in young adults with disordered eating and self-harm. We found that young adults with prior disordered eating and/or self-harm had more symptoms of depression and anxiety, and worse mental wellbeing than individuals without prior disordered eating or self-harm. However, lifestyle changes did not appear to affect mental health and wellbeing in these young adults. Our findings suggest that people with a history of disordered eating and/or self-harm were at high risk for developing mental health problems during the pandemic, and they will need help from mental health services.

Maternal thoughts of self-harm and their association with future offspring mental health problems.

INTRODUCTION: Depression and self-harm are leading causes of disability in young people, but prospective data on how maternal depression and self-harm thoughts contribute to these outcomes, and how they may interact is lacking. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 8,425 mothers and offspring from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing birth cohort study. Exposures were maternal self-harm ideation and depression measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, collected at eleven time points over the period 18 weeks' gestation to 18 years post-partum. Outcomes were offspring past-year major depressive disorder and lifetime self-harm assessed at age 24. RESULTS: Nearly one-fifth (16.7%) of mothers reported thoughts of self-harm on at least one of the eleven assessment points. The frequency of maternal self-harm ideation was related to both outcomes in a dose-response manner. Young adults whose mothers had self-harm ideation on 5-11 occasions were over three times more likely (Odds ratio (OR), 3.32; 95% CI, 1.63-6.76) to be depressed and over 1.5 times as likely (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.73, 3.29) to have self-harmed than their peers whose mothers had never reported self-harm thoughts. Maternal self-harm thoughts remained associated with both offspring outcomes independent of maternal depression, and no evidence was found for an interaction between the two exposures. DISCUSSION: Clinicians collecting data on maternal depression may consider paying attention to questions about self-harm ideation in assessments. Examining accumulated maternal self-harm ideation over time may provide insights into which children are most at risk for later self-harm and depression.

Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in two longitudinal UK population cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures are likely to have a marked effect on mental health. It is important to use longitudinal data to improve inferences. AIMS: To quantify the prevalence of depression, anxiety and mental well-being before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, to identify groups at risk of depression and/or anxiety during the pandemic. METHOD: Data were from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) index generation (n = 2850, mean age 28 years) and parent generation (n = 3720, mean age 59 years), and Generation Scotland (n = 4233, mean age 59 years). Depression was measured with the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in ALSPAC and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in Generation Scotland. Anxiety and mental well-being were measured with the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 and the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. RESULTS: Depression during the pandemic was similar to pre-pandemic levels in the ALSPAC index generation, but those experiencing anxiety had almost doubled, at 24% (95% CI 23-26%) compared with a pre-pandemic level of 13% (95% CI 12-14%). In both studies, anxiety and depression during the pandemic was greater in younger members, women, those with pre-existing mental/physical health conditions and individuals in socioeconomic adversity, even when controlling for pre-pandemic anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for increased anxiety in young people that is coincident with the pandemic. Specific groups are at elevated risk of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important for planning current mental health provisions and for long-term impact beyond this pandemic.