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.

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.

Role of medical comorbidity in the association between psychiatric disorders and mortality among patients with COVID-19.

We examined whether excess chronic medical comorbidity mediated excess COVID-19 inpatient mortality among people with mental disorders in the early phase of the pandemic, a question with important implications for public health and clinical decision-making. Using records of 2599 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, we conducted a formal causal mediation analysis to estimate the extent to which chronic comorbidity mediates the association between mental disorders and COVID-19 mortality. The Odds Ratio (95% CI) for Natural Indirect Effect and Controlled Direct Effect were 1.07(1.02, 1.14) and 1.40 (1.00, 1.95), respectively, suggesting that a large proportion of excess COVID-19 mortality among people with mental disorders may be explained by factors other than comorbidity.

Prospective Analysis Between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio on Admission and Development of Delirium Among Older Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Objective: To examine any prospective association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at hospital admission and subsequent delirium in older COVID-19 hospitalized patients comparing by sex and age groups. Methods: The sample consisted of 1,785 COVID-19 adult inpatients (minimum sample size required of 635 participants) admitted to a public general hospital in Madrid (Spain) between March 16th and April 15th, 2020. Variables were obtained from electronic health records. Binary logistic regression models were performed between baseline NLR and delirium adjusting for age, sex, medical comorbidity, current illness severity, serious mental illness history and use of chloroquine and dexamethasone. An NLR cut-off was identified, and stratified analyses were performed by age and sex. Also, another biomarker was tested as an exposure (the systemic immune-inflammation index -SII). Results: 55.3% of the patients were men, with a mean age of 66.8 years. Roughly 13% of the patients had delirium during hospitalization. NLR on admission predicted subsequent delirium development (adjusted OR = 1.02, 95 percent CI: 1.00-1.04, p = 0.024). Patients between 69 and 80 years with NLR values > 6.3 presented a twofold increased risk for delirium (p = 0.004). There were no sex differences in the association between baseline NLR and delirium (p > 0.05) nor SII predicted delirium development (p = 0.341). Conclusion: NLR is a good predictor of delirium during hospitalization, especially among older adults, independently of medical comorbidity, illness severity, and other covariates. Routine blood tests on admission might provide valuable information to guide the decision-making process to be followed with these especially vulnerable patients.

Clinical trials of psychological interventions cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak: how should we respond?

The measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak have no precedent in the recent history of many countries. Around 2,000 million people in the world are in isolation or quarantine, and gatherings of people have been expressly banned in many countries. In Spain, this prohibition affects workplaces, schools, and the national health system, where most of the healthcare is being provided either on the phone or online.

Implementation of a Mindfulness-Based Crisis Intervention for Frontline Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak in a Public General Hospital in Madrid, Spain.

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak is having an impact on the well-being of healthcare workers. Mindfulness-based interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing stress and fostering resilience and recovery in healthcare workers. There are no studies examining the feasibility of brief mindfulness-based interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: This is an exploratory study with a post intervention assessment. We describe an on-site brief mindfulness intervention and evaluate its helpfulness, safety, and feasibility. Results: One thousand out of 7,000 (14%) healthcare workers from La Paz University Hospital in Madrid (Spain) participated in at least one session. One hundred and fifty out of 1,000 (15%) participants filled out a self-report questionnaire evaluating the helpfulness of the intervention for on-site stress reduction. Ninety two subjects (61%) participated in more than one session. Most of the participants were women (80%) with a mean age of 38.6 years. Almost half of the sample were nurses (46%). Sessions were perceived as being helpful with a mean rating of 8.4 on a scale from 0 to 10. Only 3 people (2%) reported a minor adverse effect (increased anxiety or dizziness). Discussion: Our data supports the utility, safety and feasibility of an on-site, brief mindfulness-based intervention designed to reduce stress for frontline health workers during a crisis. There is a need to continue testing this type of interventions, and to integrate emotion regulation strategies as an essential part of health workers' general training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04555005.