COVID-19 and common mental health symptoms in the early phase of the pandemic: An umbrella review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: There remains uncertainty about the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the association between the pandemic and common mental disorders. We qualitatively summarized evidence from reviews with meta-analyses of individual study-data in the general population, healthcare workers, and specific at-risk populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic search was carried out in 5 databases for peer-reviewed systematic reviews with meta-analyses of prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the pandemic published between December 31, 2019 until August 12, 2022. We identified 123 reviews of which 7 provided standardized mean differences (SMDs) either from longitudinal pre- to during pandemic study-data or from cross-sectional study-data compared to matched pre-pandemic data. Methodological quality rated with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist scores (AMSTAR 2) instrument was generally low to moderate. Small but significant increases of depression, anxiety, and/or general mental health symptoms were reported in the general population, in people with preexisting physical health conditions, and in children (3 reviews; SMDs ranged from 0.11 to 0.28). Mental health and depression symptoms significantly increased during periods of social restrictions (1 review; SMDs of 0.41 and 0.83, respectively) but anxiety symptoms did not (SMD: 0.26). Increases of depression symptoms were generally larger and longer-lasting during the pandemic (3 reviews; SMDs depression ranged from 0.16 to 0.23) than those of anxiety (2 reviews: SMDs 0.12 and 0.18). Females showed a significantly larger increase in anxiety symptoms than males (1 review: SMD 0.15). In healthcare workers, people with preexisting mental disorders, any patient group, children and adolescents, and in students, no significant differences from pre- to during pandemic were found (2 reviews; SMD's ranging from -0.16 to 0.48). In 116 reviews pooled cross-sectional prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms ranged from 9% to 48% across populations. Although heterogeneity between studies was high and largely unexplained, assessment tools and cut-offs used, age, sex or gender, and COVID-19 exposure factors were found to be moderators in some reviews. The major limitations are the inability to quantify and explain the high heterogeneity across reviews included and the shortage of within-person data from multiple longitudinal studies. CONCLUSIONS: A small but consistent deterioration of mental health and particularly depression during early pandemic and during social restrictions has been found in the general population and in people with chronic somatic disorders. Also, associations between mental health and the pandemic were stronger in females and younger age groups than in others. Explanatory individual-level, COVID-19 exposure, and time-course factors were scarce and showed inconsistencies across reviews. For policy and research, repeated assessments of mental health in population panels including vulnerable individuals are recommended to respond to current and future health crises.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 mortality in people with pre-existing mental disorders: an umbrella review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious health risk, especially in vulnerable populations. Even before the pandemic, people with mental disorders had worse physical health outcomes compared to the general population. This umbrella review investigated whether having a pre-pandemic mental disorder was associated with worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol available on the Open Science Framework platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE All, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science up to the 6th of October 2021 for systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental disorders. The following outcomes were considered: risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk of severe illness, COVID-19 related mortality risk, risk of long-term physical symptoms after COVID-19. For meta-analyses, we considered adjusted odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment with the AMSTAR 2 tool have been done in parallel and duplicate. RESULTS: We included five meta-analyses and four narrative reviews. The meta-analyses reported that people with any mental disorder had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.69), severe illness course (OR from 1.32 to 1.77, 95%CI between 1.19-1.46 and 1.29-2.42, respectively) and COVID-19 related mortality (OR from 1.38 to 1.52, 95%CI between 1.15-1.65 and 1.20-1.93, respectively) as compared to the general population. People with anxiety disorders had an increased risk of SAR-CoV-2 infection, but not increased mortality. People with mood and schizophrenia spectrum disorders had an increased COVID-19 related mortality but without evidence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Narrative reviews were consistent with findings from the meta-analyses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: As compared to the general population, there is strong evidence showing that people with pre-existing mental disorders suffered from worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and may therefore be considered a risk group similar to people with underlying physical conditions. Factors likely involved include living accommodations with barriers to social distancing, cardiovascular comorbidities, psychotropic medications and difficulties in accessing high-intensity medical care.

Effects of a WHO-guided digital health intervention for depression in Syrian refugees in Lebanon: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most displaced people with mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries do not receive effective care, and their access to care has deteriorated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Digital mental health interventions are scalable when digital access is adequate, and they can be safely delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined whether a new WHO-guided digital mental health intervention, Step-by-Step, in which participants were supported by a nonspecialist helper, was effective in reducing depression among displaced people in Lebanon. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind, 2-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial, comparing guided Step-by-Step with enhanced care as usual (ECAU) among displaced Syrians suffering from depression and impaired functioning in Lebanon. Primary outcomes were depression (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9) and impaired functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule-12, WHODAS) at posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included subjective well-being, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and self-described problems. A total of 569 displaced people from Syria with depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) and impaired functioning (WHODAS > 16) were randomized to Step-by-Step (N = 283; lost to follow-up: N = 167) or ECAU (N = 286; lost to follow-up: 133). Participants were considered to be lost to follow-up when they did not fill in the outcome measures at posttest or follow-up. Recruitment started on December 9, 2019 and was completed on July 9, 2020. The last follow-up assessments were collected in December 2020. The study team had access to the online platform, where they could see treatment arm assignment for each participant. All questionnaires were completed by participants online. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses showed intervention effects on depression (standardized mean differences [SMDs]: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26; 0.70; p < 0.001), impaired functioning (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14; 0.56; p < 0.001), post-traumatic stress (SMD: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16; 0.56; p < 0.001), anxiety (SMD: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24; 0.68; p < 0.001), subjective well-being (SMD: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26; 0.68; p < 0.001), and self-identified personal problems (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI 0.28; 0.70; p < 0.001). Significant effects on all outcomes were maintained at 3 months follow-up. During the trial, one serious adverse event occurred, unrelated to the intervention. The main limitation of the current trial is the high dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a guided, digital intervention was effective in reducing depression in displaced people in Lebanon. The guided WHO Step-by-Step intervention we examined should be made available to communities of displaced people that have digital access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769.

Guided digital health intervention for depression in Lebanon: randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people with mental disorders in communities exposed to adversity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) do not receive effective care. Digital mental health interventions are scalable when digital access is adequate, and can be safely delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of a new WHO-guided digital mental health intervention, Step-by-Step, supported by a non-specialist helper in Lebanon, in the context of concurring economic, humanitarian and political crises, a large industrial disaster and the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, two-arm pragmatic randomised trial, comparing guided Step-by-Step with enhanced care as usual (ECAU) among people suffering from depression and impaired functioning. Primary outcomes were depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)) and impaired functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule-12 (WHODAS)) at post-treatment. FINDINGS: 680 people with depression (PHQ-9>10) and impaired functioning (WHODAS>16) were randomised to Step-by-Step or ECAU. Intention-to-treat analyses showed effects on depression (standardised mean differences, SMD: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97), impaired functioning (SMD: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.65), post-traumatic stress (SMD: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.79), anxiety (SMD: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.99), subjective well-being (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.62) and self-identified personal problems (SMD: 0.56; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.83). Significant effects on all outcomes were retained at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Guided digital mental health interventions can be effective in the treatment of depression in communities exposed to adversities in LMICs, although some uncertainty remains because of high attrition. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Guided digital mental health interventions should be considered for implementation in LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769.

Baseline situational analysis in Bangladesh, Jordan, Paraguay, the Philippines, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe for the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health: Universal Health Coverage for Mental Health.

INTRODUCTION: Mental, neurological and substance use conditions lead to tremendous suffering, yet globally access to effective care is limited. In line with the 13th General Programme of Work (GPW 13), in 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health: Universal Health Coverage for Mental Health to advance mental health policies, advocacy, and human rights and to scale up access to quality and affordable care for people living with mental health conditions. Six countries were selected as 'early-adopter' countries for the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health in the initial phase. Our objective was to rapidly and comprehensively assess the strength of mental health systems in each country with the goal of informing national priority-setting at the outset of the Initiative. METHODS: We used a modified version of the Program for Improving Mental Health Care (PRIME) situational analysis tool. We used a participatory process to document national demographic and population health characteristics; environmental, sociopolitical, and health-related threats; the status of mental health policies and plans; the prevalence of mental disorders and treatment coverage; and the availability of resources for mental health. RESULTS: Each country had distinct needs, though several common themes emerged. Most were dealing with crises with serious implications for population mental health. None had sufficient mental health services to meet their needs. All aimed to decentralize and deinstitutionalize mental health services, to integrate mental health care into primary health care, and to devote more financial and human resources to mental health systems. All cited insufficient and inequitably distributed specialist human resources for mental health as a major impediment. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid assessment facilitated priority-setting for mental health system strengthening by national stakeholders. Next steps include convening design workshops in each country and initiating monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus, a brief psychological intervention for adults affected by humanitarian disasters in Nepal: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 235 million people are impacted by humanitarian emergencies worldwide, presenting increased risk of experiencing a mental disorder. Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a brief group psychological treatment delivered by trained facilitators without prior professional mental health training in a disaster-prone setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) from November 25, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Participants in both arms were assessed at baseline, midline (7 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 1 week after treatment in the experimental arm), and endline (20 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 3 months posttreatment). The intervention was Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a psychological treatment of 5 weekly sessions, which was compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) consisting of a family psychoeducation meeting with a referral option to primary care providers trained in mental healthcare. The setting was 72 wards (geographic unit of clustering) in eastern Nepal, with 1 PM+ group per ward in the treatment arm. Wards were eligible if they were in disaster-prone regions and residents spoke Nepali. Wards were assigned to study arms based on covariate constrained randomization. Eligible participants were adult women and men 18 years of age and older who met screening criteria for psychological distress and functional impairment. Outcomes were measured at the participant level, with assessors blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was psychological distress assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes included depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, "heart-mind" problems, social support, somatic symptoms, and functional impairment. The hypothesized mediator was skill use aligned with the treatment's mechanisms of action. A total of 324 participants were enrolled in the control arm (36 wards) and 319 in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). The overall sample (N = 611) had a median age of 45 years (range 18-91 years), 82% of participants were female, 50% had recently experienced a natural disaster, and 31% had a chronic physical illness. Endline assessments were completed by 302 participants in the control arm (36 wards) and 303 participants in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). At the midline assessment (immediately after Group PM+ in the experimental arm), mean GHQ-12 total score was 2.7 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 1.7, 3.7, p < 0.001), with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.4 (95% CI: -0.5, -0.2). At 3 months posttreatment (primary endpoint), mean GHQ-12 total score was 1.4 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 0.3, 2.5, p = 0.014), with SMD of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.4, 0.0). Among the secondary outcomes, Group PM+ was associated with endline with a larger proportion attaining more than 50% reduction in depression symptoms (29.9% of Group PM+ arm versus 17.3% of control arm, risk ratio = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4, p = 0.002). Fewer participants in the Group PM+ arm continued to have "heart-mind" problems at endline (58.8%) compared to the control arm (69.4%), risk ratio = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7, 1.0, p = 0.042). Group PM+ was not associated with lower PTSD symptoms or functional impairment. Use of psychosocial skills at midline was estimated to explain 31% of the PM+ effect on endline GHQ-12 scores. Adverse events in the control arm included 1 suicide death and 1 reportable incidence of domestic violence; in the Group PM+ arm, there was 1 death due to physical illness. Study limitations include lack of power to evaluate gender-specific effects, lack of long-term outcomes (e.g., 12 months posttreatment), and lack of cost-effectiveness information. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a 5-session group psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists modestly reduced psychological distress and depression symptoms in a setting prone to humanitarian emergencies. Benefits were partly explained by the degree of psychosocial skill use in daily life. To improve the treatment benefit, future implementation should focus on approaches to enhance skill use by PM+ participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03747055.