Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
Pirkis, Jane, Gunnell, David, Shin, Sangsoo, DelPozo-Banos, Marcos, Arya, Vikas, Analuisa Aguilar, Pablo, Appleby, Louis, Arafat, S. M. Yasir, Arensman, Ella, Ayuso-Mateos, Jose Luis, Balhara, Yatan Pal Singh, Bantjes, Jason, Baran, Anna, Behera, Chittaranjan, Bertolote, Jose, Borges, Guilherme, Bray, Michael, Brečić, Petrana, Caine, Eric D.; Calati, Raffaella, Carli, Vladimir, Castelpietra, Giulio, Chan, Lai Fong, Chang, Shu-Sen, Colchester, David, Coss-Guzmán, Maria, Crompton, David, Curkovic, Marko, Dandona, Rakhi, De Jaegere, Eva, De Leo, Diego, Deisenhammer, Eberhard, Dwyer, Jeremy, Erlangsen, Annette, Faust, Jeremy, Fornaro, Michele, Fortune, Sarah, Garrett, Andrew, Gentile, Guendalina, Gerstner, Rebekka, Gilissen, Renske, Gould, Madelyn, Gupta, Sudhir Kumar, Hawton, Keith, Holz, Franziska, Kamenshchikov, Iurii, Kapur, Navneet, Kasal, Alexandr, Khan, Murad, Kirtley, Olivia, Knipe, Duleeka, Kolves, Kairi, Kölzer, Sarah, Krivda, Hryhorii, Leske, Stuart, Madeddu, Fabio, Marshall, Andrew, Memon, Anjum, Mittendorfer-Rutz, Ellenor, Nestadt, Paul, Neznanov, Nikolay, Niederkrotenthaler, Thomas, Nielsen, Emma, Nordentoft, Merete, Oberlerchner, Herwig, O'Connor, Rory, Papsdorf, Rainer, Partonen, Timo, Michael, Phillips, Platt, Steve, Portzky, Gwendolyn, Psota, Georg, Qin, Ping, Radeloff, Daniel, Reif, Andreas, Reif-Leonhard, Christine, Rezaeian, Mohsen, Román-Vázquez, Nayda, Roskar, Saska, Rozanov, Vsevolod, Sara, Grant, Scavacini, Karen, Schneider, Barbara, Semenova, Natalia, Sinyor, Mark, Tambuzzi, Stefano, Townsend, Ellen, Ueda, Michiko, Wasserman, Danuta, Webb, Roger T.; Winkler, Petr, Yip, Paul S. F.; Zalsman, Gil, Zoja, Riccardo, John, Ann, Spittal, Matthew J..
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-331684

ABSTRACT

Background When the COVID-19 pandemic began there were concerns that suicides might rise, but predicted increases were not generally observed in the pandemic’s early months. However, the picture may be changing and patterns may vary across demographic groups. We aimed to provide an up-to-date, granular picture of the impact of COVID-19 on suicides globally.Methods We identified suicide data from official public-sector sources for countries/areas-within-countries. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analyses to model the association between the pandemic’s emergence and total suicides and suicides by sex-, age- and sex-by-age in each country/area-within-country. We compared the observed number of suicides to the expected number in the pandemic’s first nine and first 10-15 months and used meta-regression to explore sources of variation.Findings We sourced data from 33 countries (24 high-income, six upper-middle-income, three lower-middle-income). There was no evidence of greater-than-expected numbers of suicides in the majority of countries/areas-within-countries in any analysis;more commonly, there was evidence of lower-than-expected numbers. Certain sex, age and sex-by-age groups stood out as potentially concerning, but these were not consistent across countries/areas-within-countries. In the meta-regression, different patterns were not explained by countries’ COVID-19 mortality rate, stringency of public health response, level of economic support, or presence of a national suicide prevention strategy. They were also not explained by countries’ income level, although the meta-regression only included data from high-income and upper-middle-income countries, and there were suggestions from the ITS analyses that lower-middle-income countries fared less well.Interpretation Although there are some countries/areas-within-countries where overall suicide numbers and numbers for certain sex- and age-based groups are greater-than-expected, these are in the minority. Any upward movement in suicide numbers in any place or group is concerning, and we need to remain alert to and respond to changes as the pandemic and its mental health and economic consequences continue.

2.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307789

ABSTRACT

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic has adversely affected population mental health.Methods: Using electronic health records from 1714 UK general practices registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink we examined incidence and event rates of depression and anxiety disorders, self-harm, prescriptions for antidepressants and benzodiazepines and GP referrals to mental health services per 100,000 person-months, before, during and after the peak of the Covid-19 emergency. Analyses were stratified by gender, age group and practice-level Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile.Findings: In April 2020, primary care-recorded incident depression reduced by 43·6% (95% CI 39·0% to 47·9%), anxiety disorders by 48·2% (CI 44·6% to 51·5%) and antidepressant prescribing by 36·2% (CI 33·7% to 38·6%) compared to expected rates based on prior trends. Reductions in first diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders were particularly stark for working-age adults and patients registered at practices in more deprived areas. Self-harm incidence was 38·5% (CI 35·7% to 41·3%) lower than expected in April 2020. Total self-harm contacts fell by 28·2% (CI 25·5% to 30·8%). Rates of both incident and any self-harm remained around thirty percent lower than expected up to June 2020. Interpretation: Our findings reveal a stark treatment gap that was greater for first diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders in working age adults, for practice populations in deprived areas, and for self-harm. Consequences could include more patients subsequently presenting with greater acuity and severity of mental illness and rising rates of non-fatal self-harm and suicide. Funding: This work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, UK Research and Innovation/Medical Research Council COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative funding and by a University of Manchester Presidential Fellowship (SS). CC-G received funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands. Declaration of Interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work;no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Ethics Approval Statement: This study is based on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink obtained under license from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Research Datalink research (protocol number 20_094R1).

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319097

ABSTRACT

Background: The UK population’s mental health declined at the pandemic onset. Convenience sample surveys indicate recovery began soon after. Using a probability sample, we tracked average mental health during the pandemic, characterised distinct mental health trajectories and identified predictors of deterioration.Methods: Secondary analysis of five waves of UK Household Longitudinal Survey from late April-early October 2020 and pre-pandemic data, 2018-2019. Mental health was assessed in 19,763 adults (≥16 years) using 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Latent class growth models identified discrete mental health trajectories and fixed-effects regression identified predictors of change in mental health.Findings: Average population mental health deteriorated with onset of the pandemic and did not begin improving until July 2020. Latent class analysis identified six distinct mental health trajectories up to October 2020. Three-quarters had consistently good (46·2%) or very good (30·9%) mental health. Two ‘recovery’ groups (15·8%) initially experienced marked declines in mental health, improving to their pre-pandemic levels by October. For 4·8%, mental health steadily deteriorated and for 2·3% it was very poor throughout. These two groups were more likely to have pre-existing mental or physical ill-health, live in deprived neighbourhoods and be non-white. Infection with COVID-19, local lockdown and financial difficulties all predicted subsequent mental health deterioration.Interpretation: Between April-October 2020, the mental health of most UK adults remained resilient or returned to pre-pandemic levels. One-in-fourteen experienced deteriorating or consistently poor mental health. People living in areas affected by lockdown, struggling financially, with pre-existing conditions or COVID infection might benefit most from early intervention.Funding Statement: None.Declaration of Interests: None.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethics approval was granted by the University of Essex Ethics Committee for the COVID-19 web and telephone surveys (ETH1920-1271).

4.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313480

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread morbidity and mortality as well as disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world;this has occurred as a result of both infection with the virus itself and the health protection measures taken to curb its spread. There are concerns that rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm may rise during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. Given the likely rapidly expanding research evidence base on the pandemic’s impact on rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm and emerging evidence about how best to mitigate such effects, it is important that the best available knowledge is made readily available to policymakers, public health specialists and clinicians as soon as is possible. To facilitate this, we plan to undertake a living systematic review focusing on suicide prevention in relation to COVID-19. Method: Regular automated searches will feed into a web-based screening system which will also host the data extraction form for included articles. Our eligibility criteria are wide and include aspects of incidence and prevalence of suicidal behaviour, effects of exposures and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, with minimal restrictions on the types of study design to be included. The outcomes assessed will be death by suicide;self-harm or attempted suicide (including hospital attendance and/or admission for these reasons);and suicidal thoughts/ideation. There will be no restriction on study type, except for single case reports. There will be no restriction on language of publication. The review will be updated at three-monthly intervals if a sufficient volume of new evidence justifies doing so. Conclusions: Our living review will provide a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020183326 01/05/2020

5.
ProQuest Central;
Preprint in English | ProQuest Central | ID: ppcovidwho-328222

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable morbidity, mortality and disruption to people’s lives around the world. There are concerns that rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour may rise during and in its aftermath. Our living systematic review synthesises findings from emerging literature on incidence and prevalence of suicidal behaviour as well as suicide prevention efforts in relation to COVID-19, with this iteration synthesising relevant evidence up to 19 th October 2020. Method:  Automated daily searches feed into a web-based database with screening and data extraction functionalities. Eligibility criteria include incidence/prevalence of suicidal behaviour, exposure-outcome relationships and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes of interest are suicide, self-harm or attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. No restrictions are placed on language or study type, except for single-person case reports. We exclude one-off cross-sectional studies without either pre-pandemic measures or comparisons of COVID-19 positive vs. unaffected individuals. Results: Searches identified 6,226 articles. Seventy-eight articles met our inclusion criteria. We identified a further 64 relevant cross-sectional studies that did not meet our revised inclusion criteria. Thirty-four articles were not peer-reviewed (e.g. research letters, pre-prints). All articles were based on observational studies. There was no consistent evidence of a rise in suicide but many studies noted adverse economic effects were evolving. There was evidence of a rise in community distress, fall in hospital presentation for suicidal behaviour and early evidence of an increased frequency of suicidal thoughts in those who had become infected with COVID-19. Conclusions:  Research evidence of the impact of COVID-19 on suicidal behaviour is accumulating rapidly. This living review provides a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide risk as the longer term impacts of the pandemic on suicide risk are researched.

6.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327188

ABSTRACT

Background Evidence on the impacts of the pandemic on healthcare presentations for self-harm has accumulated rapidly. However, existing reviews do not include studies published beyond 2020. Aims To systematically review evidence on health services utilisation for self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A comprehensive search of multiple databases (WHO COVID-19 database;Medline;medRxiv;Scopus;PsyRxiv;SocArXiv;bioRxiv;COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, PubMed) was conducted. Studies reporting presentation frequencies for self-harm published from 1 st Jan. 2020 to 7 th Sept. 2021 were included. Study quality was assessed using a critical appraisal tool. Results Fifty-one studies were included. 59% (30/51) were rated as ‘low’ quality, 29% (15/51) as ‘moderate’ and 12% (6/51) as ‘high-moderate’. Most evidence (84%, 43/51 studies) was from high-income countries. 47% (24/51) of studies reported reductions in presentation frequency, including all 6 rated as high-moderate quality, which reported reductions of 17- 56%. Settings treating higher lethality self-harm were overrepresented among studies reporting increased demand. Two of the 3 higher quality studies including study observation months from 2021 reported reductions in service utilisation. Evidence from 2021 suggested increased use of health services following self-harm among adolescents, particularly girls. Conclusions Sustained reductions in service utilisation were seen into the first half of 2021. However, evidence from low- and middle-income countries is lacking. The increased use of health services among adolescents, particularly girls, into 2021 is of concern. Our findings may reflect changes in thresholds for help seeking, use of alternative sources of support and variable effects of the pandemic across different groups.

7.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003904, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686090

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cause of Death , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , England/epidemiology , Female , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Life Expectancy , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Residence Characteristics , Respiratory Tract Diseases/mortality , Socioeconomic Factors , Wales/epidemiology
8.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e052613, 2022 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685588

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: A substantial reduction in self-harm recorded in primary care occurred during the first wave of COVID-19 but effects on primary care management of self-harm are unknown. Our objectives were to examine the impact of COVID-19 on clinical management within 3 months of an episode of self-harm. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 4238 patients with an index episode of self-harm recorded in UK primary care during the COVID-19 first-wave period (10 March 2020-10 June 2020) compared with 48 739 patients in a prepandemic comparison period (10 March-10 June, 2010-2019). OUTCOME MEASURES: Using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we compared cohorts of patients with an index self-harm episode recorded during the prepandemic period versus the COVID-19 first-wave period. Patients were followed up for 3 months to capture subsequent general practitioner (GP)/practice nurse consultation, referral to mental health services and psychotropic medication prescribing. We examined differences by gender, age group and Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile. RESULTS: Likelihood of having at least one GP/practice nurse consultation was broadly similar (83.2% vs 80.3% in the COVID-19 cohort). The proportion of patients referred to mental health services in the COVID-19 cohort (4.2%) was around two-thirds of that in the prepandemic cohort (6.1%). Similar proportions were prescribed psychotropic medication within 3 months in the prepandemic (54.0%) and COVID-19 first-wave (54.9%) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges experienced by primary healthcare teams during the initial COVID-19 wave, prescribing and consultation patterns following self-harm were broadly similar to prepandemic levels. We found no evidence of widening of digital exclusion in terms of access to remote consultations. However, the reduced likelihood of referral to mental health services warrants attention. Accessible outpatient and community services for people who have self-harmed are required as the COVID-19 crisis recedes and the population faces new challenges to mental health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Self-Injurious Behavior , Cohort Studies , Humans , Primary Health Care , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Self-Injurious Behavior/epidemiology , Self-Injurious Behavior/psychology , Self-Injurious Behavior/therapy , United Kingdom/epidemiology
9.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293948

ABSTRACT

Background: There is growing global concern about the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on population mental health. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. <br><br>Methods: Secondary analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study Waves 6 (2014/15) to 9 (2018/19), matched to the Covid-19 web-survey completed by 17,452 panel members 23-29 April 2020. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were conducted to examine annual temporal trends. Fixed effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared to preceding trends. <br><br>Findings: Mean population GHQ-12 score increased from 11·5 (95% confidence interval: 11·3–11·6) in 2018/19 to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April 2020, one month into lockdown. This was 0·48 (0·07-0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for prior upward trends between 2013 and 2019. Comparing scores within-individuals, adjusting for time-trends and predictors, increases were greatest in 18-24-year-olds (2·7, 1·89-3·48), 25-34-year-olds (1·6, 0·96-2·18), women (0·9, 0·50-1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79-2·12). People employed before the pandemic averaged a notable increase (0·6;0·20-1·06). <br><br>Interpretation: In late April 2020, mental health in the UK deteriorated compared to trends pre-Covid, particularly in young people, women and those living with young children. Those in employment before the pandemic also experienced greater deterioration one month into lockdown, perhaps due to actual or anticipated redundancy. While deterioration occurred across income groups, we anticipate inequalities may widen over time, as in other causes of recessions.<br><br>Funding Statement: This study was unfunded.<br><br>Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. <br><br>Ethics Approval Statement: The data used are publicly available via UK Data Service repository (study numbers 6614 and 8644), and do not require ethical assessment for academic research purposes.

10.
J Affect Disord Rep ; 6: 100271, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531514

ABSTRACT

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.

11.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2134803, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1516698

ABSTRACT

Importance: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with fatigue and sleep problems long after the acute phase of COVID-19. In addition, there are concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection causing psychiatric illness; however, evidence of a direct effect is inconclusive. Objective: To assess risk of risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue, or sleep problems following SARS-CoV-2 infection and to analyze changes according to demographic subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assembled matched cohorts using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, a UK primary care registry of 11 923 499 individuals aged 16 years or older. Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from February 1 to December 9, 2020. Individuals with less than 2 years of historical data or less than 1 week follow-up were excluded. Individuals with positive results on a SARS-CoV-2 test without prior mental illness or with anxiety or depression, psychosis, fatigue, or sleep problems were matched with up to 4 controls based on sex, general practice, and year of birth. Controls were individuals who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Data were analyzed from January to July 2021. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined via polymerase chain reaction testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue, or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking, and body mass index. Results: Of 11 923 105 eligible individuals (6 011 020 [50.4%] women and 5 912 085 [49.6%] men; median [IQR] age, 44 [30-61] years), 232 780 individuals (2.0%) had positive result on a SARS-CoV-2 test. After applying selection criteria, 86 922 individuals were in the matched cohort without prior mental illness, 19 020 individuals had prior anxiety or depression, 1036 individuals had psychosis, 4152 individuals had fatigue, and 4539 individuals had sleep problems. After adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between positive SARS-CoV-2 test results and psychiatric morbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.66-2.02), fatigue (aHR, 5.98; 95% CI, 5.33-6.71), and sleep problems (aHR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.64-3.78). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.65-1.77) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.55-5.75). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals registered at an English primary care practice during the pandemic, there was consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of fatigue and sleep problems. However, the results from the negative control analysis suggest that unobserved confounding may be responsible for at least some of the positive association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Fatigue/etiology , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Sleep , Adult , Anxiety/drug therapy , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Depression/drug therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , England/epidemiology , Fatigue/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Primary Health Care , Psychotic Disorders/drug therapy , Psychotic Disorders/epidemiology , Psychotic Disorders/etiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology
12.
EClinicalMedicine ; 41: 101175, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487700

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of temporal trends in clinically treated self-harm is an important component of suicide prevention in the dynamic context of COVID-19. There is little evidence beyond the initial months following the onset of the pandemic, despite national and regional restrictions persisting to mid-2021. METHODS: Descriptive time series analysis utilizing de-identified, primary care health records of 2.8 million patients from the Greater Manchester Care Record. Frequencies of self-harm episodes between 1st January 2019 and 31st May 2021 were examined, including stratification by sex, age group, ethnicity, and index of multiple deprivation quintile. FINDINGS: There were 33,444 episodes of self-harm by 13,148 individuals recorded during the study period. Frequency ratios of incident and all episodes of self-harm were 0.59 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) and 0.69 (CI 0.63 to 0.75) respectively in April 2020 compared to February 2020. Between August 2020 and May 2021 frequency ratios were 0.92 (CI 0.88 to 0.96) for incident episodes and 0.86 (CI 0.84 to 0.88) for all episodes compared to the same months in 2019. Reductions were largest among men and people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods, while an increase in all-episode self-harm was observed for adolescents aged 10-17. INTERPRETATION: Reductions in primary care-recorded self-harm persisted to May 2021, though they were less marked than in April 2020 during the first national lockdown. The observed reductions could represent longer term reluctance to seek help from health services. Our findings have implications for the ability for services to offer recommended care for patients who have harmed themselves.

13.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 7: 100144, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260817

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those expected from historical trends have been unequally distributed, both geographically and socioeconomically. Not all excess deaths have been directly related to COVID-19 infection. We investigated geographical and socioeconomic patterns in excess deaths for major groups of underlying causes during the pandemic. METHODS: Weekly mortality data from 27/12/2014 to 2/10/2020 for England and Wales were obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Negative binomial regressions were used to model death counts based on pre-pandemic trends for deaths caused directly by COVID-19 (and other respiratory causes) and those caused indirectly by it (cardiovascular disease or diabetes, cancers, and all other indirect causes) over the first 30 weeks of the pandemic (7/3/2020-2/10/2020). FINDINGS: There were 62,321 (95% CI: 58,849 to 65,793) excess deaths in England and Wales in the first 30 weeks of the pandemic. Of these, 46,221 (95% CI: 45,439 to 47,003) were attributable to respiratory causes, including COVID-19, and 16,100 (95% CI: 13,410 to 18,790) to other causes. Rates of all-cause excess mortality ranged from 78 per 100,000 in the South West of England and in Wales to 130 per 100,000 in the West Midlands; and from 93 per 100,000 in the most affluent fifth of areas to 124 per 100,000 in the most deprived. The most deprived areas had the highest rates of death attributable to COVID-19 and other indirect deaths, but there was no socioeconomic gradient for excess deaths from cardiovascular disease/diabetes and cancer. INTERPRETATION: During the first 30 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic there was significant geographic and socioeconomic variation in excess deaths for respiratory causes, but not for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Pandemic recovery plans, including vaccination programmes, should take account of individual characteristics including health, socioeconomic status and place of residence. FUNDING: None.

14.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e044434, 2021 05 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241054

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey. SETTING: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media. RESULTS: Psychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a 'behavioural issue', inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Self-Injurious Behavior , Adolescent , Adult , Caregivers , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 8(7): 610-619, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219821

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The mental health of the UK population declined at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sample surveys indicate that recovery began soon after. Using a probability sample, we tracked mental health during the pandemic to characterise mental health trajectories and identify predictors of deterioration. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of five waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (a large, national, probability-based survey that has been collecting data continuously since January, 2009) from late April to early October, 2020 and pre-pandemic data taken from 2018-19. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We used latent class mixed models to identify discrete mental health trajectories and fixed-effects regression to identify predictors of change in mental health. FINDINGS: Mental health was assessed in 19 763 adults (≥16 years; 11 477 [58·1%] women and 8287 [41·9%] men; 3453 [17·5%] participants from minority ethnic groups). Mean population mental health deteriorated with the onset of the pandemic and did not begin improving until July, 2020. Latent class analysis identified five distinct mental health trajectories up to October 2020. Most individuals in the population had either consistently good (7437 [39·3%] participants) or consistently very good (7623 [37·5%] participants) mental health across the first 6 months of the pandemic. A recovering group (1727 [12·0%] participants) showed worsened mental health during the initial shock of the pandemic and then returned to around pre-pandemic levels of mental health by October, 2020. The two remaining groups were characterised by poor mental health throughout the observation period; for one group, (523 [4·1%] participants) there was an initial worsening in mental health that was sustained with highly elevated scores. The other group (1011 [7·0%] participants) had little initial acute deterioration in their mental health, but reported a steady and sustained decline in mental health over time. These last two groups were more likely to have pre-existing mental or physical ill-health, to live in deprived neighbourhoods, and be of Asian, Black or mixed ethnicity. Infection with SARS-CoV-2, local lockdown, and financial difficulties all predicted a subsequent deterioration in mental health. INTERPRETATION: Between April and October 2020, the mental health of most UK adults remained resilient or returned to pre-pandemic levels. Around one in nine individuals had deteriorating or consistently poor mental health. People living in areas affected by lockdown, struggling financially, with pre-existing conditions, or infection with SARS-CoV-2 might benefit most from early intervention. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Models, Statistical , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
16.
Lancet Public Health ; 6(2): e124-e135, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118741

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected population mental health. We aimed to assess temporal trends in primary care-recorded common mental illness, episodes of self-harm, psychotropic medication prescribing, and general practitioner (GP) referrals to mental health services during the COVID-19 emergency in the UK. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study using primary care electronic health records from general practices registered on the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We included patient records from Jan 1, 2010, to Sept 10, 2020, to establish long-term trends and patterns of seasonality, but focused primarily on the period January, 2019-September, 2020. We extracted data on clinical codes entered into patient records to estimate the incidence of depression and anxiety disorders, self-harm, prescriptions for antidepressants and benzodiazepines, and GP referrals to mental health services, and assessed event rates of all psychotropic prescriptions and self-harm. We used mean-dispersion negative binomial regression models to predict expected monthly incidence and overall event rates, which were then compared with observed rates to assess the percentage reduction in incidence and event rates after March, 2020. We also stratified analyses by sex, age group, and practice-level Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. FINDINGS: We identified 14 210 507 patients from 1697 UK general practices registered in the CPRD databases. In April, 2020, compared with expected rates, the incidence of primary care-recorded depression had reduced by 43·0% (95% CI 38·3-47·4), anxiety disorders by 47·8% (44·3-51·2), and first antidepressant prescribing by 36·4% (33·9-38·8) in English general practices. Reductions in first diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders were largest for adults of working age (18-44 and 45-64 years) and for patients registered at practices in more deprived areas. The incidence of self-harm was 37·6% (34·8-40·3%) lower than expected in April, 2020, and the reduction was greatest for women and individuals aged younger than 45 years. By September, 2020, rates of incident depression, anxiety disorder, and self-harm were similar to expected levels. In Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, rates of incident depression and anxiety disorder remained around a third lower than expected to September, 2020. In April, 2020, the rate of referral to mental health services was less than a quarter of the expected rate for the time of year (75·3% reduction [74·0-76·4]). INTERPRETATION: Consequences of the considerable reductions in primary care-recorded mental illness and self-harm could include more patients subsequently presenting with greater severity of mental illness and increasing incidence of non-fatal self-harm and suicide. Addressing the effects of future lockdowns and longer-term impacts of economic instability on mental health should be prioritised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Self-Injurious Behavior/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Self-Injurious Behavior/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
17.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 2: 100052, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101407
19.
Lancet Public Health ; 5(10): e543-e550, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-803320

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, research on the indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of the population and the health-care system is scarce. We aimed to investigate the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on general practice health-care usage, and the subsequent diagnoses of common physical and mental health conditions in a deprived UK population. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected primary care data that was recorded in the Salford Integrated Record between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2020. We extracted the weekly number of clinical codes entered into patient records overall, and for six high-level categories: symptoms and observations, diagnoses, prescriptions, operations and procedures, laboratory tests, and other diagnostic procedures. Negative binomial regression models were applied to monthly counts of first diagnoses of common conditions (common mental health problems, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer), and corresponding first prescriptions of medications indicative of these conditions. We used these models to predict the expected numbers of first diagnoses and first prescriptions between March 1 and May 31, 2020, which were then compared with the observed numbers for the same time period. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, 1073 first diagnoses of common mental health problems were reported compared with 2147 expected cases (95% CI 1821 to 2489) based on preceding years, representing a 50·0% reduction (95% CI 41·1 to 56·9). Compared with expected numbers, 456 fewer diagnoses of circulatory system diseases (43·3% reduction, 95% CI 29·6 to 53·5), and 135 fewer type 2 diabetes diagnoses (49·0% reduction, 23·8 to 63·1) were observed. The number of first prescriptions of associated medications was also lower than expected for the same time period. However, the gap between observed and expected cancer diagnoses (31 fewer; 16·0% reduction, -18·1 to 36·6) during this time period was not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: In this deprived urban population, diagnoses of common conditions decreased substantially between March and May 2020, suggesting a large number of patients have undiagnosed conditions. A rebound in future workload could be imminent as COVID-19 restrictions ease and patients with undiagnosed conditions or delayed diagnosis present to primary and secondary health-care services. Such services should prioritise the diagnosis and treatment of these patients to mitigate potential indirect harms to protect public health. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Diagnosis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cerebrovascular Disorders/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , General Practice/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
20.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 7(10): 883-892, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-665107

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23-30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. FINDINGS: Waves 6-9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8-20·0) in 2018-19 to 27·3% (26·3-28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3-11·6) in 2018-19, to 12·6 (12·5-12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07-0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18-24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89-3·48), 25-34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96-2·18), women (0·92, 0·50-1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79-2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20-1·06). INTERPRETATION: By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Regression Analysis , Sampling Studies , Sex Distribution , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL