The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Examining the Effectiveness of Web-Based Interventions to Enhance Resilience in Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, the impact of continued exposure to workplace environmental and psychological stressors on health care professionals' mental health is associated with increased depression, substance misuse, sleep disorders, and posttraumatic stress. This can lead to staff burnout, poor quality health care, and reduced patient safety outcomes. Strategies to improve the psychological health and well-being of health care staff have been highlighted as a critical priority worldwide. The concept of resilience for health care professionals as a tool for negotiating workplace adversity has gained increasing prominence. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the effectiveness of web-based interventions to enhance resilience in health care professionals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Ovid SP databases for relevant records published after 1990 until July 2021. We included studies that focused on internet-delivered interventions aiming at enhancing resilience. Study quality was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trial designs and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for other study designs. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42021253190). PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies, conducted between 2014 and 2020 and involving 1573 health care workers, were included in the review. In total, 4 randomized controlled trial designs and 4 pre- and postdesign studies were conducted across a range of international settings and health care disciplines. All of these studies aimed to evaluate the impact of web-based interventions on resilience or related symptoms in health care professionals involved in patient-facing care. Interventions included various web-based formats and therapeutic approaches over variable time frames. One randomized controlled trial directly measured resilience, whereas the remaining 3 used proxy measures to measure psychological concepts linked to resilience. Three pretest and posttest studies directly measured resilience, whereas the fourth study used a proxy resilience measure. Owing to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and intervention designs, meta-analysis was not possible, and qualitative data synthesis was undertaken. All studies found that resilience or proxy resilience levels were enhanced in health care workers following the implementation of web-based interventions. The overall risk of bias of all 8 studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that web-based interventions designed to enhance resilience may be effective in clinical practice settings and have the potential to provide support to frontline staff experiencing prolonged workplace stress across a range of health care professional groups. However, the heterogeneity of included studies means that findings should be interpreted with caution; more web-based interventions need rigorous testing to further develop the evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021253190; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253190.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Delivery of Mental Health Services and Telemental Health: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country's COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government's response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time. RESULTS: Of the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries' face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients' preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

COVID-19 and substance use disorders: a review of international guidelines for frontline healthcare workers of addiction services.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders may be at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 infection and developing medical complications. Several institutional and governmental health agencies across the world developed ad hoc guidance for substance use disorder services and care of individuals misusing substances. We aimed to synthesise the best available recommendations on management and care of people with or at risk of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic from existing guidelines published in UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore. METHODS: We systematically searched existing guidelines and websites from 28 international institutions and governmental bodies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 4th 2021). We summarized the extracted data as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS: We organised the available recommendations from 19 sources in three sections. First, we focused on general advice and recommendations for people who misuse alcohol or drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design of contingency plans, safeguarding issues for children and families of service users and advice to the public, patients, and carers. Then, we summarised specific guidelines for people who use illicit drugs and related services, such as opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes. Finally, we provided a synthesis on specific recommendations for services supporting people who misuse alcohol and key topics in the field, such as management of alcohol detoxification and safe transition between supervised and unsupervised consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Available guidance reflected different approaches, ranging from being extremely cautious in providing recommendations other than generic statements to proposing adaptation of previously available guidelines to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the early phase, guidance focused on reduction of infection transmission and service delivery. Guidance did not provide advice on infection prevention via vaccination programmes and service access strategies tailored to individuals with substance use disorders.

Efficacy of tiapride in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tiapride is an atypical antipsychotic used to treat alcohol withdrawal, aggressiveness and agitation, headache, dyskinesias, tic and Tourette's disorder. More recently, it has been proposed for the treatment of delirium and agitation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Although its safety profile makes it suitable for use in vulnerable populations, the use of tiapride for psychiatric disorders is limited. This work aims to systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of tiapride in individuals with a psychiatric disorder. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, GreyLit, OpenGrey, and ProQuest up to March 2020 for randomised controlled trials focussing on the use of tiapride in the treatment of individuals with a psychiatric disorder (e.g., mood disorder, schizophrenia spectrum, substance use disorder). The Risk of Bias 2 was performed for the quality assessment of the included studies. RESULTS: We identified 579 records. Of them, six studies (published between 1982 and 2010) were included in the review. Four studies referred to alcohol withdrawal, and two to the management of agitation in elderly patients with dementia. None of the studies reported significant differences between tiapride and other active comparators in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The overall risk of bias was moderate to high. CONCLUSION: Tiapride may be considered as a relatively safe treatment option for selected patients with alcohol withdrawal or agitation in dementia. However, solid evidence of its efficacy in the scientific literature is lacking. High-quality trials remain necessary to fully sustain its use in clinical practice.

COVID-19 and Telepsychiatry: Development of Evidence-Based Guidance for Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents unique challenges in health care, including mental health care provision. Telepsychiatry can provide an alternative to face-to-face assessment and can also be used creatively with other technologies to enhance care, but clinicians and patients may feel underconfident about embracing this new way of working. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to produce an open-access, easy-to-consult, and reliable source of information and guidance about telepsychiatry and COVID-19 using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: We systematically searched existing English language guidelines and websites for information on telepsychiatry in the context of COVID-19 up to and including May 2020. We used broad search criteria and included pre-COVID-19 guidelines and other digital mental health topics where relevant. We summarized the data we extracted as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS: Findings from this study are presented as both a short practical checklist for clinicians and detailed textboxes with a full summary of all the guidelines. The summary textboxes are also available on an open-access webpage, which is regularly updated. These findings reflected the strong evidence base for the use of telepsychiatry and included guidelines for many of the common concerns expressed by clinicians about practical implementation, technology, information governance, and safety. Guidelines across countries differ significantly, with UK guidelines more conservative and focused on practical implementation and US guidelines more expansive and detailed. Guidelines on possible combinations with other digital technologies such as apps (eg, from the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Health Service Apps Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) are less detailed. Several key areas were not represented. Although some special populations such as child and adolescent, and older adult, and cultural issues are specifically included, important populations such as learning disabilities, psychosis, personality disorder, and eating disorders, which may present particular challenges for telepsychiatry, are not. In addition, the initial consultation and follow-up sessions are not clearly distinguished. Finally, a hybrid model of care (combining telepsychiatry with other technologies and in-person care) is not explicitly covered by the existing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: We produced a comprehensive synthesis of guidance answering a wide range of clinical questions in telepsychiatry. This meets the urgent need for practical information for both clinicians and health care organizations who are rapidly adapting to the pandemic and implementing remote consultation. It reflects variations across countries and can be used as a basis for organizational change in the short- and long-term. Providing easily accessible guidance is a first step but will need cultural change to implement as clinicians start to view telepsychiatry not just as a replacement but as a parallel and complementary form of delivering therapy with its own advantages and benefits as well as restrictions. A combination or hybrid approach can be the most successful approach in the new world of mental health post-COVID-19, and guidance will need to expand to encompass the use of telepsychiatry in conjunction with other in-person and digital technologies, and its use across all psychiatric disorders, not just those who are the first to access and engage with remote treatment.