Mental disorders and COVID-19 deaths: Clinical, public health, and human rights implications.

Shekhar Saxena and Cindy Chwa discuss the neglect of care for people living with mental disorders during the pandemic, and highlight relevant implications for policy-makers.

Scaling up community-delivered mental health support and care: A landscape analysis.

Introduction: The mental health crisis has caused widespread suffering and has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Marginalized groups are especially affected, with many concerns rooted in social determinants of mental health. To stem this tide of suffering, consideration of approaches outside the traditional biomedical model will be necessary. Drawing from task-sharing models of mental health care that have been pioneered in low-resource settings, community-initiated care (CIC) represents a potentially promising collection of approaches. This landscape analysis seeks to identify examples of CIC that have been implemented outside of the research context, with the aim of identifying barriers and facilitators of scale up. Methods: A narrative review approach was used for this landscape analysis in which the PubMed database was searched and further supplemented with Google Scholar. Promising programs were then discussed over multiple rounds of meetings with the research team, consisting of collaborators with varied experiences in mental health. Using the selection criteria and feedback derived from group meetings, a final list of programs was identified and summarized according to common characteristics and features. Results: The initial PubMed search yielded 16 results, supplemented by review of the first 100 entries in Google Scholar. Through 5 follow-up meetings among team members, consensus was reached on a final list of 9 programs, which were grouped into three categories based on similar themes and topics: (1) approaches for the delivery of psychosocial interventions; (2) public health and integrative approaches to mental health; and (3) approaches for addressing youth mental health. Key facilitators to scale up included the importance of sustainable financing and human resources, addressing social determinants and stigma, engaging diverse stakeholders, leveraging existing health infrastructure, using sustainable training models, ensuring cultural relevance and appropriateness, and leveraging digital technologies. Discussion: This landscape analysis, though not an exhaustive summary of the literature, describes promising examples of efforts to scale up CIC outside of the research context. Going forward, it will be necessary to mobilize stakeholders at the community, health system, and government levels to effectively promote CIC.

Operational challenges in the pre-intervention phase of a mental health trial in rural India: reflections from SMART Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: Availability of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries is largely concentrated in tertiary care with limited resources and scarcity of trained professionals at the primary care level. SMART Mental Health is a strategy that combines a community anti-stigma campaign with a primary health care workforce strengthening initiative, using electronic decision support with the goal of better identifying and supporting people with common mental disorders in India. METHODS: We describe the challenges faced and lessons learnt during the pre-intervention phase of SMART Mental Health cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Pre-intervention phase includes preliminary activities for setting-up the trial and research activities prior to delivery of the intervention. Field notes from project site visit, project team meetings and detailed follow-up discussions with members of the project team were used to document operational challenges and strategies adopted to overcome them. The socio-ecological model was used as the analytical framework to organise the findings. RESULTS: Key challenges included delays in government approvals, addressing community health worker needs, and building trust in the community. These were addressed through continuous communication, leveraging support of relevant stakeholders, and addressing concerns of community health workers and community. Issues related to use of digital platform for data collection were addressed by a dedicated technical support team. The COVID-19 pandemic and political unrest led to significant and unexpected challenges requiring important adaptations to successfully implement the project. CONCLUSION: Setting up of this trial has posed challenges at a combination of community, health system and broader socio-political levels. Successful mitigating strategies to overcome these challenges must be innovative, timely and flexibly delivered according to local context. Systematic ongoing documentation of field-level challenges and subsequent adaptations can help optimise implementation processes and support high quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2018/08/015355). Registered on 16th August 2018. http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=23254&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2018/08/015355.

Protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health cluster randomised control trial: an intervention for management of common mental disorders in India.

INTRODUCTION: In India about 95% of individuals who need treatment for common mental disorders like depression, stress and anxiety and substance use are unable to access care. Stigma associated with help seeking and lack of trained mental health professionals are important barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health integrates a community-level stigma reduction campaign and task sharing with the help of a mobile-enabled electronic decision support system (EDSS)-to reduce psychiatric morbidity due to stress, depression and self-harm in high-risk individuals. This paper presents and discusses the protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation will use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate implementation fidelity and identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation of the intervention. Case studies of six intervention and two control clusters will be used. Quantitative data sources will include usage analytics extracted from the mHealth platform for the trial. Qualitative data sources will include focus group discussions and interviews with recruited participants, primary health centre doctors, community health workers (Accredited Social Health Activits) who participated in the project and local community leaders. The design and analysis will be guided by Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and the normalisation process theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the George Institute for Global Health, India and the Institutional Ethics Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder meetings, digital and social media platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2018/08/015355.

Policy stringency and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries.

BACKGROUND: To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). FINDINGS: Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·014 [95% CI 0·005 to 0·023] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·015 to -0·004] for life evaluation). Pandemic intensity (number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) was also associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·016 [0·008 to 0·025] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·017 to -0·004] for life evaluation). The negative association between policy stringency and mental health was mediated by observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. We observed that countries pursuing an elimination strategy used different policy timings and intensities compared with countries pursuing a mitigation strategy. The containment policies of countries pursuing elimination strategies were on average less stringent, and fewer deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Changes in mental health measures during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were small. More stringent COVID-19 policies were associated with poorer mental health. Elimination strategies minimised transmission and deaths, while restricting mental health effects. FUNDING: None.

Public mental health: required actions to address implementation failure in the context of COVID-19.

Mental disorders account for at least 18% of global disease burden, and the associated annual global costs are projected to be US$6 trillion by 2030. Evidence-based, cost-effective public mental health (PMH) interventions exist to prevent mental disorders from arising, prevent associated impacts of mental disorders (including through treatment), and promote mental wellbeing and resilience. However, only a small proportion of people with mental disorders receive minimally adequate treatment. Compared with treatment, there is even less coverage of interventions to prevent the associated impacts of mental disorders, prevent mental disorders from arising, or promote mental wellbeing and resilience. This implementation failure breaches the right to health, has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and results in preventable suffering, broad impacts, and associated economic costs. In this Health Policy paper, we outline specific actions to improve the coverage of PMH interventions, including PMH needs assessments, collaborative advocacy and leadership, PMH practice to inform policy and implementation, training and improvement of population literacy, settings-based and integrated approaches, use of digital technology, maximising existing resources, focus on high-return interventions, human rights approaches, legislation, and implementation research. Increased interest in PMH in populations and governments since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic supports these actions. Improved implementation of PMH interventions can result in broad health, social, and economic impacts, even in the short-term, which support the achievement of a range of policy objectives, sustainable economic development, and recovery.

Mental Health During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Recommendations for Moving Forward.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this article provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies available through early 2021 examining the mental-health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of the evidence indicates that anxiety, depression, and distress increased in the early months of the pandemic. Meanwhile, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and loneliness remained largely stable throughout the first year of the pandemic. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (one urgent, two short-term, and four ongoing) to support mental health during the pandemic and beyond.

"COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle income countries: Reimagining global mental health": Correction

Reports an error in "COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle-income countries: Reimagining global mental health" by Lola Kola, Brandon A. Kohrt, Charlotte Hanlon, John A. Naslund, Siham Sikander, Madhumitha Balaji, Corina Benjet, Eliza Yee Lai Cheung, Julian Eaton, Pattie Gonsalves, Maji Hailemariam, Nagendra P. Luitel, Daiane B. Machado, Eleni Misganaw, Olayinka Omigbodun, Tessa Roberts, Tatiana Taylor Salisbury, Rahul Shidhaye, Charlene Sunkel, Victor Ugo, Andre Janse van Rensburg, Oye Gureje, Soumitra Pathare, Shekhar Saxena, Graham Thornicroft and Vikram Patel (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2021[Jun], Vol 8[6], 535-550). In this Review, Lola Kola's degree should have been PhD and Brandon A Kohrt's degree should have been PhD. Madhumitha Balaji's affiliation should have been "Sangath, India". These corrections have been made to the online version as of Mar 8, 2021, and will be made to the printed version. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2021-51602-023.) Most of the global population live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), which have historically received a small fraction of global resources for mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic has spread rapidly in many of these countries. This Review examines the mental health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs in four parts. First, we review the emerging literature on the impact of the pandemic on mental health, which shows high rates of psychological distress and early warning signs of an increase in mental health disorders. Second, we assess the responses in different countries, noting the swift and diverse responses to address mental health in some countries, particularly through the development of national COVID-19 response plans for mental health services, implementation of WHO guidance, and deployment of digital platforms, signifying a welcome recognition of the salience of mental health. Third, we consider the opportunity that the pandemic presents to reimagine global mental health, especially through shifting the balance of power from high-income countries to LMICs and from narrow biomedical approaches to community-oriented psychosocial perspectives, in setting priorities for interventions and research. Finally, we present a vision for the concept of building back better the mental health systems in LMICs with a focus on key strategies;notably, fully integrating mental health in plans for universal health coverage, enhancing access to psychosocial interventions through task sharing, leveraging digital technologies for various mental health tasks, eliminating coercion in mental health care, and addressing the needs of neglected populations, such as children and people with substance use disorders. Our recommendations are relevant for the mental health of populations and functioning of health systems in not only LMICs but also high-income countries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with wide disparities in quality of and access to mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Prioritizing the Mental Health and Well-Being of Healthcare Workers: An Urgent Global Public Health Priority.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on health systems in most countries, and in particular, on the mental health and well-being of health workers on the frontlines of pandemic response efforts. The purpose of this article is to provide an evidence-based overview of the adverse mental health impacts on healthcare workers during times of crisis and other challenging working conditions and to highlight the importance of prioritizing and protecting the mental health and well-being of the healthcare workforce, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we provide a broad overview of the elevated risk of stress, burnout, moral injury, depression, trauma, and other mental health challenges among healthcare workers. Second, we consider how public health emergencies exacerbate these concerns, as reflected in emerging research on the negative mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers. Further, we consider potential approaches for overcoming these threats to mental health by exploring the value of practicing self-care strategies, and implementing evidence based interventions and organizational measures to help protect and support the mental health and well-being of the healthcare workforce. Lastly, we highlight systemic changes to empower healthcare workers and protect their mental health and well-being in the long run, and propose policy recommendations to guide healthcare leaders and health systems in this endeavor. This paper acknowledges the stressors, burdens, and psychological needs of the healthcare workforce across health systems and disciplines, and calls for renewed efforts to mitigate these challenges among those working on the frontlines during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mental Health Consequences for Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review to Draw Lessons for LMICs.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review provides a summary of current evidence on the mental health consequences of COVID on HCWs. Methods: A scoping review was conducted searching PubMed and Embase for articles relevant to mental health conditions among HCWs during COVID-19. Relevant articles were screened and extracted to summarize key outcomes and findings. Results: A total of fifty-one studies were included in this review. Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, psychological trauma, insomnia and sleep quality, workplace burnout and fatigue, and distress were the main outcomes reviewed. Most studies found a high number of symptoms endorsed for depression, anxiety, and other conditions. We found differences in symptoms by sex, age, and HCW role, with female, younger-aged, frontline workers, and non-physician workers being affected more than other subgroups. Conclusion: This review highlights the existing burden of mental health conditions reported by HCWs during COVID-19. It also demonstrates emerging disparities among affected HCW subgroups. This scoping review emphasizes the importance of generating high quality evidence and developing informed interventions for HCW mental health with a focus on LMICs.

Mental Distress and Human Rights Violations During COVID-19: A Rapid Review of the Evidence Informing Rights, Mental Health Needs, and Public Policy Around Vulnerable Populations.

Background: COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts were abrupt and challenging for most countries with the protracted lockdown straining socioeconomic activities. Marginalized groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of the pandemic such as human rights abuses and violations which can lead to psychological distress. In this review, we focus on mental distress and disturbances that have emanated due to human rights restrictions and violations amidst the pandemic. We underscore how mental health is both directly impacted by the force of pandemic and by prevention and mitigation structures put in place to combat the disease. Methods: We conducted a review of relevant studies examining human rights violations in COVID-19 response, with a focus on vulnerable populations, and its association with mental health and psychological well-being. We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies between December 2019 to July 2020. Three reviewers evaluated the eligibility criteria and extracted data. Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic inquiry reporting on distress due to human rights violations. Unanimously, the studies found vulnerable populations to be at a high risk for mental distress. Limited mobility rights disproportionately harmed psychiatric patients, low-income individuals, and minorities who were at higher risk for self-harm and worsening mental health. Healthcare workers suffered negative mental health consequences due to stigma and lack of personal protective equipment and stigma. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and refugees also experienced negative consequences. Conclusions: This review emphasizes the need to uphold human rights and address long term mental health needs of populations that have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Countries can embed a proactive psychosocial response to medical management as well as in existing prevention strategies. International human rights guidelines are useful in this direction but an emphasis should be placed on strengthening rights informed psychosocial response with specific strategies to enhance mental health in the long-term. We underscore that various fundamental human rights are interdependent and therefore undermining one leads to a poor impact on the others. We strongly recommend global efforts toward focusing both on minimizing fatalities, protecting human rights, and promoting long term mental well-being.

From adversity to resilience in the COVID-19 era: strengthening mental health systems in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the impact of a major public health emergency on mental health, and the ways that individuals, communities, professionals and systems can react positively to such a crisis. The Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) has substantial experience in mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in crises, and COVID-19 has driven further innovation to support mental health and well-being.Global and regional guidance has been developed quickly, applying lessons learnt from previous disease outbreaks to respond to the pandemic at a systems level, for different population groups, and for countries of different income levels. Preliminary results from a global rapid assessment survey to assess the impact of COVID-19 on MHPSS services, indicate that 20 of the 22 EMR Member States have MHPSS as integral components of national COVID-19 response plans; one-third have allocated additional funding. However, MHPSS services have been severely impacted by the pandemic, including psychotherapy, psychosocial interventions, community services, and services for children/adolescents. Innovative solutions such as crisis hotlines, tele-consultations, digital self-help platforms, novel approaches to ensure supply of psychotropic medicines, and task sharing/shifting for basic psychosocial support, are being used in many countries to overcome service disruptions and maintain care for those with mental conditions.

Roadmap to strengthen global mental health systems to tackle the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID pandemic has been devastating for not only its direct impact on lives, physical health, socio-economic status of individuals, but also for its impact on mental health. Some individuals are affected psychologically more severely and will need additional care. However, the current health system is so fragmented and focused on caring for those infected that management of mental illness has been neglected. An integrated approach is needed to strengthen the health system, service providers and research to not only manage the current mental health problems related to COVID but develop robust strategies to overcome more long-term impact of the pandemic. A series of recommendations are outlined in this paper to help policy makers, service providers and other stakeholders, and research and research funders to strengthen existing mental health systems, develop new ones, and at the same time advance research to mitigate the mental health impact of COVID19. The recommendations refer to low, middle and high resource settings as capabilities vary greatly between countries and within countries. DISCUSSION: The recommendations for policy makers are focused on strengthening leadership and governance, finance mechanisms, and developing programme and policies that especially include the most vulnerable populations. Service provision should focus on accessible and equitable evidence-based community care models commensurate with the existing mental health capacity to deliver care, train existing primary care staff to cater to increased mental health needs, implement prevention and promotion programmes tailored to local needs, and support civil societies and employers to address the increased burden of mental illness. Researchers and research funders should focus on research to develop robust information systems that can be enhanced further by linking with other data sources to run predictive models using artificial intelligence, understand neurobiological mechanisms and community-based interventions to address the pandemic driven mental health problems in an integrated manner and use innovative digital solutions. CONCLUSION: Urgent action is needed to strengthen mental health system in all settings. The recommendations outlined can be used as a guide to develop these further or identify new ones in relation to local needs.