Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(5): e25547, 2021 05 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217019

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to deliver mental health and addictions (MHA) services is a global priority, especially considering the urgent shift towards virtual delivery of care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to monitor the evolving role of technology in MHA services. Given that MHA policy documents represent the highest level of priorities for a government's vision and strategy for mental health care, one starting point is to measure the frequency with which technology is mentioned and the terms used to describe its use in MHA policy documents (before, during, and after COVID-19). Yet, to our knowledge, no such review of the extent to which ICTs are referred to in Canadian MHA policy documents exists to date. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic policy review was to examine the extent to which technology is addressed in Canadian government-based MHA policy documents prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to establish a baseline for documenting change. METHODS: We reviewed 22 government-based MHA policy documents, published between 2011 and 2019 by 13 Canadian provinces and territories. We conducted content analysis to synthesize the policy priorities addressed in these documents into key themes, and then systematically searched for and tabulated the use of 39 technology-related keywords (in English and French) to describe and compare jurisdictions. RESULTS: Technology was addressed in every document, however, to a varying degree. Of the 39 searched keywords, we identified 22 categories of keywords pertaining to the use of technology to deliver MHA services and information. The 6 most common categories were tele (n=16/22), phone (n=12/22), tech (n=11/22), online (n=10/22), line (n=10/22), and web (n=10/22), with n being the number of policy documents in which the category was mentioned out of 22 documents. The use of terms referring to advanced technologies, such as virtual (n=6/22) and app (n= 4/22), were less frequent. Additionally, policy documents from some provinces and territories (eg, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador) mentioned a diverse range of ICTs, whereas others described only 1 form of ICT. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that technology has been given limited strategic attention in Canadian MHA policy. Policy makers may have limited knowledge on the evidence and potential of using technology in this field, highlighting the value for knowledge translation and collaborative initiatives among policy makers and researchers. The development of a pan-Canadian framework for action addressing the integration and coordination of technology in mental health services can also guide initiatives in this field. Our findings provide a prepandemic baseline and replicable methods to monitor how the use of technology-supported services and innovations emerge relative to other priorities in MHA policy during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Behavior, Addictive/psychology , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19/psychology , Canada , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
2.
Psychiatr Serv ; 72(1): 100-103, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059742

ABSTRACT

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, many mental health care services have been shifted from face-to-face to virtual interactions. Several health policy changes have influenced telehealth uptake during this time, including changes in technology, Internet connectivity, prescriptions, and reimbursement for services. These changes have been implemented for the duration of the pandemic, and it is unclear if all, some, or none of these new or amended policies will be retained after the pandemic has ended. Accordingly, in the wake of changing policies, mental health care providers will need to make decisions about the future of their telehealth programs. This article briefly reviews telehealth policy changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights what providers should consider for future delivery and implementation of their telehealth programs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions , Insurance, Health , Mental Health Services , Telemedicine , Continuity of Patient Care , Drug Prescriptions/standards , Humans , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/organization & administration , Insurance, Health/standards , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/standards , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/standards , Telemedicine/legislation & jurisprudence , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , United States
3.
Am Psychol ; 75(8): 1130-1145, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023825

ABSTRACT

The prevalence of mental health problems among children (ages 0-21) in the United States remains unacceptably high and, post-COVID-19, is expected to increase dramatically. Decades of psychological knowledge about effective treatments should inform the delivery of better services. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has been heralded as a solution to the persistent problem of poor quality services and has, to some extent, improved our understanding of the contexts of delivery systems that implement effective practices. However, there are few studies demonstrating clear, population-level impacts of psychological interventions on children. Momentum is growing among communities, cities, states, and some federal agencies to build "health in all policies" to address broad familial, social, and economic factors known to affect children's healthy development and mental health. These health policy initiatives offer a rare opportunity to repurpose D&I science, shifting it from a primary focus on evidence-based practice implementation, to a focus on policy development and implementation to support child and family health and well-being. This shift is critical as states develop policy responses to address the health and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on already-vulnerable families. We provide a typology for building research on D&I and children's mental health policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).


Subject(s)
Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Implementation Science , Information Dissemination/methods , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Evidence-Based Practice/methods , Humans , Infant , United States , Young Adult
6.
Psychiatr Serv ; 72(3): 242-246, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883467

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19 and the lockdown measures adopted in England on patients with acute mental illness. METHODS: The authors analyzed referrals to the crisis resolution and home treatment (CRHT) team and inpatient admissions to acute adult wards, at Leicestershire Partnership National Health Service Trust, an integrated community and mental health trust in the United Kingdom. Number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions during a 4-week period starting March 16, 2020 ("COVID-19 period"), was studied and compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019 ("control periods"). Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were compared with those admitted during the 2019 control period. RESULTS: The number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions were lower during the COVID-19 period, compared with the control periods, by approximately 12% and 20%, respectively. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were significantly more often detained under the Mental Health Act and were considered to pose a risk of aggression. The pattern of diagnoses differed significantly between 2020 and 2019. A higher percentage of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were diagnosed as having nonaffective psychotic disorders (52% versus 35%) or bipolar disorder (25% versus 15%), and fewer received a diagnosis of depression (8% versus 16%), anxiety disorder (0% versus 3%), adjustment disorder (0% versus 8%), emotionally unstable personality disorder (6% versus 15%), or any other personality disorder (0% versus 5%) (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the pandemic has profoundly affected care by acute mental health services.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Commitment of Mentally Ill/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Psychiatric Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Acute Disease , Adult , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , England , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data
7.
Int J Law Psychiatry ; 73: 101632, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808407

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020 presented new and urgent challenges to mental health services and legislators around the world. This special issue of the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry explores mental health law, mental capacity law, and medical and legal ethics in the context of COVID-19. Papers are drawn from India, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, and the United States. Together, these articles demonstrate the complexity of psychiatric and legal issues prompted by COVID-19 in terms of providing mental health care, protecting rights, exercising decision-making capacity, and a range of other topics. While further work is needed in many of these areas, these papers provide a strong framework for addressing key issues and meeting the challenges that COVID-19 and, possibly, other outbreaks are likely to present in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Commitment of Mentally Ill , Human Rights , Mental Competency , Mental Disorders/psychology , Mental Health Services , Mental Health , COVID-19/epidemiology , Commitment of Mentally Ill/ethics , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Rights/ethics , Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Health Services/ethics , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Int J Law Psychiatry ; 72: 101601, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-610675

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus pandemic, referred to here as Covid-19, has brought into sharp focus the increasing divergence of devolved legislation and its implementation in the United Kingdom. One such instance is the emergency health and social care legislation and guidance introduced by the United Kingdom Central Government and the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to this pandemic. We provide a summary, comparison and discussion of these proposed and actual changes with a particular focus on the impact on adult social care and safeguarding of the rights of citizens. To begin, a summary and comparison of the relevant changes, or potential changes, to mental health, mental capacity and adult social care law across the four jurisdictions is provided. Next, we critique the suggested and actual changes and in so doing consider the immediate and longer term implications for adult social care, including mental health and mental capacity, at the time of publication.several core themes emerged: concerns around process and scrutiny; concerns about possible changes to the workforce and last, the possible threat on the ability to safeguard human rights. It has been shown that, ordinarily, legislative provisions across the jurisdictions of the UK are different, save for Wales (which shares most of its mental health law provisions with England). Such divergence is also mirrored in the way in which the suggested emergency changes could be implemented. Aside from this, there is also a wider concern about a lack of parity of esteem between social care and health care, a concern which is common to all. What is interesting is that the introduction of CVA 2020 forced a comparison to be made between the four UK nations which also shines a spotlight on how citizens can anticipate receipt of services.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Legislation, Medical/trends , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders/therapy , Northern Ireland/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL