Practitioners' perspectives on preparing for and delivering remote psychological support in Nepal, Perú and the United States during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled a global paradigm shift in how psychological support is delivered. Remote delivery, through phone and video calls, is now commonplace around the world. However, most adoption of remote delivery methods is occurring without any formal training to ensure safe and effective care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this applied qualitative study was to determine practitioners' experiences of rapidly adapting to deliver psychological support remotely during COVID-19. DESIGN: We used a pragmatic paradigm and applied approach to gain perspectives related to the feasibility and perceived usefulness of synchronous remote psychological support, including views on how practitioners can be prepared. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted remotely with 27 specialist and non-specialist practitioners in Nepal, Perú and the USA. Interviewees were identified through purposeful sampling. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Respondents revealed three key themes: (i) Remote delivery of psychological support raises unique safety concerns and interference with care, (ii) Remote delivery enhances skills and expands opportunities for delivery of psychological support to new populations, and (iii) New training approaches are needed to prepare specialist and non-specialist practitioners to deliver psychological support remotely. CONCLUSIONS: Remote psychological support is feasible and useful for practitioners, including non-specialists, in diverse global settings. Simulated remote role plays may be a scalable method for ensuring competency in safe and effective remotely-delivered care.

A Smart Social Distance Monitoring System

The entire world is affected by Covid-19 pandemic. One of the major reasons is that it is contagious and a minimum distance should be maintained to stay safe. Social distancing might be a difficult task to implement effectively. Social distancing plays a pivotal role in curbing diseases that are contagious like Covid-19.Now that situations are returning to normal, the risk of getting infected is still high. Governments are deciding to ease lockdown regulations, as part of the unlocking public places, workspaces and educational institutions started to resume their activities. Considering the current scenario, the public has to strictly follow all the necessary Covid-19 protocols to reduce the spike in the number of Covid cases. This project aims to develop a prototype device that helps in implementing social distancing using Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) wireless technology based solution. Prototype issues an alert signal when the distance between individuals is less than the prescribed threshold distance. If the protocol is breached, the user is alarmed through an LED. UWB is known for its advantages as it has greater signal strength compared to Bluetooth. The design of the prototype enables implementation as wearable such as an ID card. © 2022 IEEE.

Treatment Preferences for Pharmacological versus Psychological Interventions among Primary Care Providers in Nepal: Mixed Methods Analysis of a Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

There is increasing evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychological interventions in low- and middle-income countries. However, primary care providers (PCPs) may prefer treating patients with medication. A secondary exploratory analysis of a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate psychological vs. pharmacological treatment preferences among PCPs. Thirty-four health facilities, including 205 PCPs, participated in the study, with PCPs in 17 facilities assigned to a standard version of the mental health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) training delivered by mental health specialists. PCPs in the other 17 facilities received mhGAP instruction delivered by specialists and people with lived experience of mental illness (PWLE), using a training strategy entitled Reducing Stigma among HealthcAre ProvidErs (RESHAPE). Pre- and post- intervention attitudes were measured through quantitative and qualitative tools. Qualitative interviews with 49 participants revealed that PCPs in both arms endorsed counseling's benefits and collaboration within the health system to provide counseling. In the RESHAPE arm, PCPs were more likely to increase endorsement of statements such as "depression improves without medication" (F = 9.83, p < 0.001), "not all people with depression must be treated with antidepressants" (χ2 = 17.62, p < 0.001), and "providing counseling to people who have alcohol abuse problems is effective" (χ2 = 26.20, p < 0.001). These mixed-method secondary findings from a pilot trial suggest that in-person participation of PWLE in training PCPs may not only reduce stigma but also increase PCPs' support of psychological interventions. This requires further investigation in a full-scale trial.

"COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle income countries: Reimagining global mental health": Correction

Reports an error in "COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle-income countries: Reimagining global mental health" by Lola Kola, Brandon A. Kohrt, Charlotte Hanlon, John A. Naslund, Siham Sikander, Madhumitha Balaji, Corina Benjet, Eliza Yee Lai Cheung, Julian Eaton, Pattie Gonsalves, Maji Hailemariam, Nagendra P. Luitel, Daiane B. Machado, Eleni Misganaw, Olayinka Omigbodun, Tessa Roberts, Tatiana Taylor Salisbury, Rahul Shidhaye, Charlene Sunkel, Victor Ugo, Andre Janse van Rensburg, Oye Gureje, Soumitra Pathare, Shekhar Saxena, Graham Thornicroft and Vikram Patel (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2021[Jun], Vol 8[6], 535-550). In this Review, Lola Kola's degree should have been PhD and Brandon A Kohrt's degree should have been PhD. Madhumitha Balaji's affiliation should have been "Sangath, India". These corrections have been made to the online version as of Mar 8, 2021, and will be made to the printed version. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2021-51602-023.) Most of the global population live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), which have historically received a small fraction of global resources for mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic has spread rapidly in many of these countries. This Review examines the mental health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs in four parts. First, we review the emerging literature on the impact of the pandemic on mental health, which shows high rates of psychological distress and early warning signs of an increase in mental health disorders. Second, we assess the responses in different countries, noting the swift and diverse responses to address mental health in some countries, particularly through the development of national COVID-19 response plans for mental health services, implementation of WHO guidance, and deployment of digital platforms, signifying a welcome recognition of the salience of mental health. Third, we consider the opportunity that the pandemic presents to reimagine global mental health, especially through shifting the balance of power from high-income countries to LMICs and from narrow biomedical approaches to community-oriented psychosocial perspectives, in setting priorities for interventions and research. Finally, we present a vision for the concept of building back better the mental health systems in LMICs with a focus on key strategies;notably, fully integrating mental health in plans for universal health coverage, enhancing access to psychosocial interventions through task sharing, leveraging digital technologies for various mental health tasks, eliminating coercion in mental health care, and addressing the needs of neglected populations, such as children and people with substance use disorders. Our recommendations are relevant for the mental health of populations and functioning of health systems in not only LMICs but also high-income countries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with wide disparities in quality of and access to mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

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

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

The potential application of probiotics and prebiotics for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

COVID-19 is a pandemic disease caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This new viral infection was first identified in China in December 2019, and it has subsequently spread globally. The lack of a vaccine or curative treatment for COVID-19 necessitates a focus on other strategies to prevent and treat the infection. Probiotics consist of single or mixed cultures of live microorganisms that can beneficially affect the host by maintaining the intestinal or lung microbiota that play a major role in human health. At present, good scientific evidence exists to support the ability of probiotics to boost human immunity, thereby preventing colonization by pathogens and reducing the incidence and severity of infections. Herein, we present clinical studies of the use of probiotic supplementation to prevent or treat respiratory tract infections. These data lead to promising benefits of probiotics in reducing the risk of COVID-19. Further studies should be conducted to assess the ability of probiotics to combat COVID-19.