Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. FINDINGS: Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04980326.

Service use preceding and following first referral for psychiatric emergency care at a short-stay crisis unit: A cohort study across three cities and one rural area in England.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments. AIMS: To assess changes to service use following a service user's first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units. METHODS: A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021. RESULTS: The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5-13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%-82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables. CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge.

Views and experiences of migrants and stakeholders involved in social and health care for migrants in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.

Excess resource use and costs of physical comorbidities in individuals with mental health disorders: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Individuals with mental health disorders (MHDs) have worse physical health than the general population, utilise healthcare resources more frequently and intensively, incurring higher costs. We provide a first comprehensive overview and quantitative synthesis of literature on the magnitude of excess resource use and costs for those with MHDs and comorbid physical health conditions (PHCs). This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017075319) searched studies comparing resource use or costs of individuals with MHDs and comorbid PHCs versus individuals without comorbid conditions published between 2007 and 2021. We conducted narrative and quantitative syntheses, using random-effects meta-analyses to explore ranges of excess resource use and costs across care segments, comparing to MHD only, PHC only, or general population controls (GPC). Of 20,075 records, 228 and 100 were eligible for narrative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. Most studies were from the US, covered depression or schizophrenia, reporting endocrine/metabolic or circulatory comorbidities. Frequently investigated healthcare segments were inpatient, outpatient, emergency care and medications. Evidence on lost productivity, long-term and informal care was rare. Substantial differences exist between MHDs, with depressive disorder tending towards lower average excess resource use and cost estimates, while excess resource use ranges between +6% to +320% and excess costs between +14% to +614%. PHCs are major drivers of resource use and costs for individuals with MHDs, affecting care segments differently. Significant physical health gains and cost savings are potentially achievable through prevention, earlier identification, management and treatment, using more integrated care approaches. Current international evidence, however, is heterogeneous with limited geographical representativeness and comparability.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial

Introduction Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire—Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Impact of work arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in France.

•Symptoms of anxiety/depression were found in 28.8% of the participants at least once.•Unemployment and financial difficulties were associated with anxiety/depression.•Targeted mental health support could lessen mental health impact.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial.

Background and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Relationship Between Economic Loss and Anxiety During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Moderating Effects of Knowledge, Gratitude, and Perceived Stress.

Objectives: The prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused individuals to suffer economic losses, in particular due to the implementation of intensive quarantine policies. Economic loss can cause anxiety and has a negative psychological impact on individuals, worsening their mental health and satisfaction with life. We examined the protective and risk factors that can influence the relationship between economic loss and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Panel data from 911 participants were collected in April and May 2020 and again 6 months later. We analyzed the relationship between economic loss and anxiety and investigated the moderating effects of knowledge about COVID-19, gratitude, and perceived stress. Moreover, we investigated whether there were any changes in moderating effects over time or in different demographic groups. Results: In the early stages of the spread of COVID-19, gratitude (B = -0.0211, F = 4.8130, p < 0.05) and perceived stress (B = 0.0278, F = 9.3139, p < 0.01) had moderating effects on the relationship between economic loss and anxiety. However, after 6 months, only perceived stress had a significant moderating effect (B = 0.0265, F = 7.8734, p < 0.01). Conclusion: In the early stages of COVID-19, lower levels of gratitude and higher perceived stress led to greater anxiety. In later stages of the prolonged pandemic, only perceived stress had a continued moderating effect on the relationship between economic loss and anxiety. This study suggests that psychological interventions to reduce perceived stress are needed to treat the possible adverse effects of the spread of infectious diseases on mental health.

Short-stay crisis units for mental health patients on crisis care pathways: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, an increasing proportion of emergency department visits are mental health related. Concurrently, psychiatric wards are often occupied above capacity. Healthcare providers have introduced short-stay, hospital-based crisis units offering a therapeutic space for stabilisation, assessment and appropriate referral. Research lags behind roll-out, and a review of the evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and further introduction of similar units. AIMS: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of short-stay, hospital-based mental health crisis units. METHOD: We searched EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2021. All designs incorporating a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion, and all effect estimates with a comparison group were extracted and combined meta-analytically where appropriate. We assessed study risk of bias with Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials. RESULTS: Data from twelve studies across six countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, UK and USA) and 67 505 participants were included. Data indicated that units delivered benefits on many outcomes. Units could reduce psychiatric holds (42% after intervention compared with 49.8% before intervention; difference = 7.8%; P < 0.0001) and increase out-patient follow-up care (χ2 = 37.42, d.f. = 1; P < 0.001). Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in length of emergency department stay (by 164.24 min; 95% CI -261.24 to -67.23 min; P < 0.001) and number of in-patient admissions (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.68; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay mental health crisis units are effective for reducing emergency department wait times and in-patient admissions. Further research should investigate the impact of units on patient experience, and clinical and social outcomes.

Relationship Between Economic Loss and Anxiety During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Moderating Effects of Knowledge, Gratitude, and Perceived Stress

Objectives The prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused individuals to suffer economic losses, in particular due to the implementation of intensive quarantine policies. Economic loss can cause anxiety and has a negative psychological impact on individuals, worsening their mental health and satisfaction with life. We examined the protective and risk factors that can influence the relationship between economic loss and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Panel data from 911 participants were collected in April and May 2020 and again 6 months later. We analyzed the relationship between economic loss and anxiety and investigated the moderating effects of knowledge about COVID-19, gratitude, and perceived stress. Moreover, we investigated whether there were any changes in moderating effects over time or in different demographic groups. Results In the early stages of the spread of COVID-19, gratitude (B = –0.0211, F = 4.8130, p < 0.05) and perceived stress (B = 0.0278, F = 9.3139, p < 0.01) had moderating effects on the relationship between economic loss and anxiety. However, after 6 months, only perceived stress had a significant moderating effect (B = 0.0265, F = 7.8734, p < 0.01). Conclusion In the early stages of COVID-19, lower levels of gratitude and higher perceived stress led to greater anxiety. In later stages of the prolonged pandemic, only perceived stress had a continued moderating effect on the relationship between economic loss and anxiety. This study suggests that psychological interventions to reduce perceived stress are needed to treat the possible adverse effects of the spread of infectious diseases on mental health.

Understanding the Economic Value and Impacts on Informal Carers of People Living with Mental Health Conditions.

Informal carers play a vital role in supporting people living with mental health conditions, but comparatively little is known about the economic value of caring. This study undertook an online survey of adult informal carers supporting adults with mental health conditions to better understand the impacts of caring on carer quality of life, levels of loneliness, finances and employment, as well as estimate the economic value of time spent caring. In total, 712 carers participated in the multi-national survey between August 2019 and April 2020. A total of 17% were male, with a mean age of 53, and 68% supported a child living with a mental health condition. A total of 56% of care recipients were male, with a mean age of 37. Adverse impacts on quality of life, loneliness and personal finances were greatest in carers living with care recipients. Overall mean weekly hours of care were 43.42, rising to 65.41 for carers living with care recipients. Mean weekly costs of care per carer ranged from €660 to €2223 depending on living arrangements. Annual costs ranged between €34,960 and €125,412, depending on living arrangements and valuation method. Informal care costs are substantial, and policy makers should consider investing more in carer support, especially for carers living with care recipients.

Risk and protective factors of depression in the general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in Korea.

BACKGROUND: The risk of depression has risen in the general population during the COVID-19 epidemic. This study was conducted to explore risk and protective factors associated with depression among the general population uninfected by COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 1,500 representative South Korean citizens aged 19-65 years through an anonymous online survey. Depression was defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 10 or higher. Other questionnaires included one measuring psycho-behavioural and social changes, and stress, due to COVID-19, a six-item version of the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6), and a three-item version of the UCLA loneliness scale. RESULTS: Of the 1492 participants not infected by COVID-19, 312 (20.9%) exhibited depression. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that depression was positively associated with COVID-19-related stress and psycho-behavioural variables such as disturbances in eating and sleeping, younger age, smoking, underlying mental illness, and loneliness scale scores. In contrast, exercise three or more times per week and GQ-6 scale scores were inversely associated with depression. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining daily routines including eating, sleeping, and regular exercise and focusing on gratitude may be important for the prevention of depression. In addition, more attention should be paid to vulnerable populations, including young people, those with mental illnesses, and smokers, who might be more susceptible to depression.

Integrating youth mental health into cash transfer programmes in response to the COVID-19 crisis in low-income and middle-income countries.

Social protection measures can play an important part in securing livelihoods and in mitigating short-term and long-term economic, social, and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, cash transfer programmes are currently being adapted or expanded in various low-income and middle-income countries to support individuals and families during the pandemic. We argue that the current crisis offers an opportunity for these programmes to focus on susceptible young people (aged 15-24 years), including those with mental health conditions. Young people living in poverty and with mental health problems are at particular risk of experiencing adverse health, wellbeing, and employment outcomes with long-term consequences. They are also at risk of developing mental health conditions during this pandemic. To support this population, cash transfer programmes should not only address urgent needs around food security and survival but expand their focus to address longer-term mental health impacts of pandemics and economic crises. Such an approach could help support young people's future life chances and break the vicious cycle between mental illness and poverty that spirals many young people into both socioeconomic and mental health disadvantage.