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

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

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.

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

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

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.

[Suicide mortality in Spain in 2020: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Mortalidad por suicidio en España en 2020: el impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Suicide constitutes a major concern with evident contribution to global mortality worldwide. Evidence on suicide trends is mixed in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Spain may be an at-risk country for increased suicide risk in the time of COVID-19 pandemic due to prolonged restrictions and lockdown, elevated COVID-19 wave recurrence and related mental health impact. This brief report aims to provide some insight into the suicide mortality trends in the first COVID-19 pandemic year in Spain, using national data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the National Death Index were used. Annual mortality rate was calculated at a province level under random-effects models for the 2019 and 2020 years. Poisson timeseries regression was used to study the relationship between monthly suicide mortality and COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and lockdown, and second COVID-19 wave peak covariates. RESULTS: 3,671 people died by suicide in 2019 in Spain and 3,941 people died by suicide in 2020. The random-effects mortality rate in 2019 was 8.3 (CI95 = [7.6, 9.0]) per 100,000 inhabitants, and mortality rate in 2020 was 8.9 (CI95 = [8.3, 9.6]). No significant differences between mortality rates were found (p =.18). The Poisson regression showed a significant relationship between the COVID-19 outbreak and suicide mortality trend, with OR = 1.07 (CI95 = [1.02, 1.12]). CONCLUSIONS: Although annual mortality rates were not significantly different, an increased suicide risk was found from May, 2020 onwards. Our results claim for action to tackle suicide in the post-pandemic era taking into account the discouraging upcoming scenario.

What factors explain the changes in major depressive disorder symptoms by age group during the COVID-19 pandemic? A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic suggest an increase in major depressive disorder (MDD) among younger adults. The current study aims to assess the association of age groups and MDD risk before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and quantify the effect of potential mediating variables such as loneliness, social support, resilience, and socioeconomic factors. METHODS: A representative sample of Spanish adults was interviewed before (2019, N = 1880) and during (2020, N = 1103) the COVID-19 pandemic. MDD was assessed using the CIDI, loneliness through the UCLA scale, social support through the OSSS-3, resilience with the 6-BRS, and worsened economic circumstances and unemployment through a single question. Mixed-models were used to study changes in MDD by age group. Regression models were constructed to quantify the association between age and potential mediators, as well as their mediating effect on the association between age group and MDD. RESULTS: Among the younger age cohorts (18-29 and 30-44 years) the probability of having MDD during the pandemic increased from 0.04 (95 % CI: 0.002-0.09) to 0.25 (0.12-0.39) and from 0.02 (-0.001-0.03) to 0.11 (0.04-0.17), respectively. Some 36.6 % of the association between age and risk of MDD during the pandemic was explained by loneliness (12.0 %), low resilience (10.7 %), and worsened economic situation (13.9 %). LIMITATIONS: Reliance on self-report data and generalizability of the findings limited to the Spanish population. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to decrease the impact of a pandemic on depressive symptoms among young adults should address loneliness, provide tools to improve resilience, and enjoy improved financial support.

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

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

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

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

Sustained Negative Mental Health Outcomes Among Healthcare Workers Over the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To characterize the evolution of healthcare workers' mental health status over the 1-year period following the initial COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and to examine baseline characteristics associated with resolution or persistence of mental health problems over time. Methods: We conducted an 8-month follow-up cohort study. Eligible participants were healthcare workers working in Spain. Baseline data were collected during the initial pandemic outbreak. Survey-based self-reported measures included COVID-19-related exposures, sociodemographic characteristics, and three mental health outcomes (psychological distress, depression symptoms, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms). We examined three longitudinal trajectories in mental health outcomes between baseline and follow-up assessments (namely asymptomatic/stable, recovering, and persistently symptomatic/worsening). Results: We recruited 1,807 participants. Between baseline and follow-up assessments, the proportion of respondents screening positive for psychological distress and probable depression decreased, respectively, from 74% to 56% and from 28% to 21%. Two-thirds remained asymptomatic/stable in terms of depression symptoms and 56% remained symptomatic or worsened over time in terms of psychological distress. Conclusion: Poor mental health outcomes among healthcare workers persisted over time. Occupational programs and mental health strategies should be put in place.

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

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

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

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

Suicide numbers during the first 9-15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with pre-existing trends: An interrupted time series analysis in 33 countries.

Background: Predicted increases in suicide were not generally observed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the picture may be changing and patterns might vary across demographic groups. We aimed to provide a timely, granular picture of the pandemic's impact on suicides globally. Methods: We identified suicide data from official public-sector sources for countries/areas-within-countries, searching websites and academic literature and contacting data custodians and authors as necessary. We sent our first data request on 22nd June 2021 and stopped collecting data on 31st October 2021. 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 and expected numbers of suicides 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; 25 with whole-country data, 12 with data for area(s)-within-the-country, four with both). 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, economic support level, or presence of a national suicide prevention strategy. Nor were they 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 countries/areas-within-countries 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. Funding: None.

Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.

Investigating the relationship between cross-national suicide rates and COVID-19 first and second waves spread across the world: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 spreads between people in close contact. Social isolation, which is linked with increased suicide risk, prevents COVID-19 from spreading. Suicide and COVID-19 may therefore represent two antagonistic phenomena. Specifically, we tested whether previous cross-national suicide rates inversely correlate with COVID-19 cases and deaths across countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We ran unadjusted bivariate correlations between the most updated (2016) cross-national Age-Standardised suicide rates and COVID-19 cumulative cases and deaths (as of: 30/08/2020, 11/10/2020 and 30/05/2021) across countries; and we controlled for WHO Income group, WHO region, suicide data quality, and urbanicity. RESULTS: Suicide rates negatively correlated with COVID-19 cumulative cases up to 30/08/2020 (r = -0.14, P = .064) and up to 11/10/2020 at an almost significant level (r = -0.149, P = .050) across 174 countries. As of 11/10/2020 this correlation became significant when controlling for WHO region (r = -0.17, P = .028), data quality (r = -0.181, P = .017) and urbanicity (r = -0.172, P = .039); and as of 30/08/2020 when adjusting for WHO region (r = -0.15, P = .047) and data quality a (r = -0.16, P = .036). No significant correlations between suicide rates and COVID-19 deaths were found. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be an inverse correlation between previous cross-national suicide rates and COVID-19 cumulative cases across countries. Suicide and COVID-19 appear to behave, to some degree, as antagonistic phenomena, which challenges their prevention.

An international survey examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telehealth use among mental health professionals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has profoundly affected the work of mental health professionals with many transitioning to telehealth to comply with public health measures. This large international study examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health clinicians' telehealth use. METHODS: This survey study was conducted with mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists and psychologists, registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN). 1206 clinicians from 100 countries completed the telehealth section of the online survey in one of six languages between June 4 and July 7, 2020. Participants were asked about their use, training (i.e., aspects of telehealth addressed), perceptions, and concerns. OUTCOMES: Since the pandemic onset, 1092 (90.5%) clinicians reported to have started or increased their telehealth services. Telephone and videoconferencing were the most common modalities. 592 (49.1%) participants indicated that they had not received any training. Clinicians with no training or training that only addressed a single aspect of telehealth practice were more likely to perceive their services as somewhat ineffective than those with training that addressed two or more aspects. Most clinicians indicated positive perceptions of effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Quality of care compared to in-person services and technical issues were the most common concerns. Findings varied by WHO region, country income level, and profession. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest a global practice change with providers perceiving telehealth as a viable option for mental health care. Increasing local training opportunities and efforts to address clinical and technological concerns is important for meeting ongoing demands.

Role of access to personal protective equipment, treatment prioritization decisions, and changes in job functions on health workers' mental health outcomes during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, organizational changes were required to ensure adequate staffing in healthcare facilities. The extent to which organizational changes impacted the mental wellbeing of healthcare workers (HCWs) remains unexplored. Here we analyzed the association between three work-related stressors (reported access to protective equipment, change in job functions, and patient prioritization decision-making) and mental health outcomes (depression symptoms, psychological distress, suicidal thoughts, and fear of infection) in a large sample of Spanish HCWs during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study including HCWs from three regions of Spain between April 24th and June 22nd, 2020. An online survey measured sociodemographic characteristics, work-related stressors, fear of infection, and mental health outcomes (depression [PHQ-9], psychological distress [GHQ-12], death wishes [C-SSRS]). We conducted mixed-effects regression models to adjust all associations for relevant individual- and region-level sources of confounding. RESULTS: We recruited 2,370 HCWs. Twenty-seven percent screened positive for depression and 74% for psychological distress. Seven percent reported death wishes. Respondents were more afraid of infecting their loved ones than of getting infected themselves. All work-related stressors were associated with depression symptoms and psychological distress in adjusted models. LIMITATIONS: Non-probabilistic sampling, potential reverse causation. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable work-related stressors are associated with worse mental health among HCWs. Our results suggest that workplace prevention strategies for HCWs should provide sufficient protective equipment, minimize changes in job functions, favor the implementation of criteria for patient triage and on-call bioethics committees, and facilitate access to stepped-care, evidence-based mental health treatment.

Association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes among health workers during the initial COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, health systems faced unprecedented organizational stress. Meanwhile, reports of episodes of discrimination and violence towards healthcare workers increased globally. This study explores the association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes in a large sample of healthcare workers in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare workers from inpatient and outpatient facilities (N=2,053) filled an on-line questionnaire in May or June 2020. Mental health outcomes included depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire [GHQ-12]) and death thoughts (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]). We also measured perceived discrimination and/or stigmatization due to being a healthcare worker since pandemic onset. Regression models adjusted for potential confounding sources (age, sex, history of a mental health diagnosis and type of job) were fitted. RESULTS: Thirty percent of the respondents reported discrimination and/or stigmatization. Perceived discrimination was associated with higher depression (B=2.4, 95 percent CI: 1.8, 2.9) and psychological distress (B=1.1, 95 percent CI: 0.7, 1.4) scores, and with a 2-fold increase in risk of reporting death thoughts (OR=2.0, 95 percent CI: 1.4, 3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived discrimination is a modifiable driver of mental health problems among healthcare workers. Mass media, legislators, and healthcare institutions must put in place prevention and restoration strategies to limit discrimination towards healthcare workers and reduce its mental health impact.

Changes in Health Behaviors, Mental and Physical Health among Older Adults under Severe Lockdown Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain.

We used data from 3041 participants in four cohorts of community-dwelling individuals aged ≥65 years in Spain collected through a pre-pandemic face-to-face interview and a telephone interview conducted between weeks 7 to 15 after the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown. On average, the confinement was not associated with a deterioration in lifestyle risk factors (smoking, alcohol intake, diet, or weight), except for a decreased physical activity and increased sedentary time, which reversed with the end of confinement. However, chronic pain worsened, and moderate declines in mental health, that did not seem to reverse after restrictions were lifted, were observed. Males, older adults with greater social isolation or greater feelings of loneliness, those with poorer housing conditions, as well as those with a higher prevalence of chronic morbidities were at increased risk of developing unhealthier lifestyles or mental health declines with confinement. On the other hand, previously having a greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet and doing more physical activity protected older adults from developing unhealthier lifestyles with confinement. If another lockdown were imposed during this or future pandemics, public health programs should specially address the needs of older individuals with male sex, greater social isolation, sub-optimal housing conditions, and chronic morbidities because of their greater vulnerability to the enacted movement restrictions.

The Structural and Intercultural Competence for Epidemiological Studies (SICES) guidelines: a 22-item checklist.

Structural and intercultural competence approaches have been widely applied to fields such as medical training, healthcare practice, healthcare policies and health promotion. Nevertheless, their systematic implementation in epidemiological research is absent. Based on a scoping review and a qualitative analysis, in this article we propose a checklist to assess cultural and structural competence in epidemiological research: the Structural and Intercultural Competence for Epidemiological Studies guidelines. These guidelines are organised as a checklist of 22 items and consider four dimensions of competence (awareness and reflexivity, cultural and structural validation, cultural and structural sensitivity, and cultural and structural representativeness), which are applied to the different stages of epidemiological research: (1) research team building and research questions; (2) study design, participant recruitment, data collection and data analysis; and (3) dissemination. These are the first guidelines addressing structural and cultural competence in epidemiological inquiry.