A systematic review and meta-analysis of long COVID symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing symptoms or the development of new symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis has caused a complex clinical problem known as "long COVID" (LC). This has introduced further pressure on global healthcare systems as there appears to be a need for ongoing clinical management of these patients. LC personifies heterogeneous symptoms at varying frequencies. The most complex symptoms appear to be driven by the neurology and neuropsychiatry spheres. METHODS: A systematic protocol was developed, peer reviewed, and published in PROSPERO. The systematic review included publications from the 1st of December 2019-30th June 2021 published in English. Multiple electronic databases were used. The dataset has been analyzed using a random-effects model and a subgroup analysis based on geographical location. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were established based on the data identified. RESULTS: Of the 302 studies, 49 met the inclusion criteria, although 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 36 studies had a collective sample size of 11,598 LC patients. 18 of the 36 studies were designed as cohorts and the remainder were cross-sectional. Symptoms of mental health, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, neurological, and pain were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The quality that differentiates this meta-analysis is that they are cohort and cross-sectional studies with follow-up. It is evident that there is limited knowledge available of LC and current clinical management strategies may be suboptimal as a result. Clinical practice improvements will require more comprehensive clinical research, enabling effective evidence-based approaches to better support patients.

The prevalence of mental ill-health in women during pregnancy and after childbirth during the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to explore the prevalence of the impact of the COVID-19, MERS, and SARS pandemics on the mental health of pregnant women. METHODS: All COVID-19, SARS and MERS studies that evaluated the mental health of pregnant women with/without gynaecological conditions that were reported in English between December 2000 - July 2021 were included. The search criteria were developed based upon the research question using PubMed, Science Direct, Ovid PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. A wide search criterion was used to ensure the inclusion of all pregnant women with existing gynaecological conditions. The Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Random effects model with restricted maximum-likelihood estimation method was applied for the meta-analysis and I-square statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity across studies. The pooled prevalence rates of symptoms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, stress, and sleep disorders with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed. RESULTS: This systematic review identified 217 studies which included 638,889 pregnant women or women who had just given birth. There were no studies reporting the mental health impact due to MERS and SARS. Results showed that women who were pregnant or had just given birth displayed various symptoms of poor mental health including those relating to depression (24.9%), anxiety (32.8%), stress (29.44%), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (27.93%), and sleep disorders (24.38%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: It is important to note that studies included in this review used a range of outcome measures which does not allow for direct comparisons between findings. Most studies reported self-reported measure of symptoms without clinical diagnoses so conclusions can be made for symptom prevalence rather than of mental illness. The importance of managing mental health during pregnancy and after-delivery improves the quality of life and wellbeing of mothers hence developing an evidence-based approached as part of pandemic preparedness would improve mental health during challenging times. OTHER: The work presented in this manuscript was not funded by any specific grants. A study protocol was developed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42021235356) to explore several key objectives.

Psychological mediators of the associations between pandemic-related stressors and suicidal ideation across three periods of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic's mental health impact is well-established. While early evidence suggested suicide deaths remained stable or declined, suicidal ideation (SI) became more prevalent than before the pandemic. Our study: (1) examined the prevalence and distribution of SI among Canadian adults, (2) compared SI among those with and without pre-existing mental illnesses, and (3) evaluated associations between pandemic-related stressors (i.e., unemployment, insecure employment, loss of income, medical vulnerability, COVID-19 exposure) with SI, and whether such associations were mediated by depression, thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, or perceived discrimination. METHODS: The sample was comprised of data gathered at three timepoints (Wave 1 08/18/2020-10/01/2020, n = 6629; Wave 2 12/21/2020-03/31/2021, n = 5920; Wave 3 09/07/2021-12/07/2021, n = 7354). Quota-based responses from survey research panels which matched the geographic, age, and sex distribution of the Canadian population were supplemented with convenience-sampled responses. RESULTS: The prevalence of SI was 4.1 % (Wave 1), 5.3 % (Wave 2), and 5.8 % (Wave 3). Odds of SI were higher for respondents under the age of 35 years and with pre-existing mental illnesses. SI was associated with quarantining due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 exposure, potential COVID-19 exposure at work, medical vulnerability toward COVID-19, insecure employment or unemployment, and income loss. These associations were mediated by psychological experiences, particularly depression and thwarted belongingness. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional, observational study cannot establish temporality or causality. CONCLUSION: Results highlight groups who may benefit from enhanced screening for depression and suicide risk. Reducing depression and increasing sense of belonging should be prioritized.

International recruitment of mental health nurses to the national health service: a challenge for the UK.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) has been dealing with a shortage in the nursing workforce for the past few decades. With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and post-Brexit effects, it is important now more than ever to concentrate on recruiting new staff and retaining current staff in the National Health Service. The increasing demand for mental health services stresses the importance of prioritising recruitment of mental health nurses. One of the main strategies being implemented to combat this shortage is the recruitment of internationally trained mental health nurses. Whilst this is a favourable solution, the multiple challenges this proposal brings makes it hard for the National Health Service to practically implement this to increase staff numbers. In this discursive position paper, we consider the difficulties the National Health Service is currently facing in terms of recruiting mental health nurses and then discuss the importance of and need for international recruitment including the strategies that are currently being implemented. The challenges and obstacles associated with this proposed resolution will also be addressed.

Mental health impact of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS, and COVID-19: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few decades, 3 pathogenic pandemics have impacted the global population; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and SARS-CoV-2. The global disease burden has attributed to millions of deaths and morbidities, with the majority being attributed to SARS-CoV-2. As such, the evaluation of the mental health (MH) impact across healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and the general public would be an important facet to evaluate to better understand short, medium and long-term exposures. AIM: To identify and report: (1) MH conditions commonly observed across all 3 pandemics; (2) Impact of MH outcomes across HCPs, patients and the general public associated with all 3 pandemics; and (3) The prevalence of the MH impact and clinical epidemiological significance. METHODS: A systematic methodology was developed and published on PROSPERO (CRD42021228697). The databases PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used as part of the data extraction process, and publications from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2021 were searched. MeSH terms and keywords used included Mood disorders, PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Psychological stress, Psychosis, Bipolar, Mental Health, Unipolar, Self-harm, BAME, Psychiatry disorders and Psychological distress. The terms were expanded with a 'snowballing' method. Cox-regression and the Monte-Carlo simulation method was used in addition to I 2 and Egger's tests to determine heterogeneity and publication bias. RESULTS: In comparison to MERS and SARS-CoV, it is evident SAR-CoV-2 has an ongoing MH impact, with emphasis on depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: It was evident MH studies during MERS and SARS-CoV was limited in comparison to SARS-CoV-2, with much emphasis on reporting symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress and sleep disturbances. The lack of comprehensive studies conducted during previous pandemics have introduced limitations to the "know-how" for clinicians and researchers to better support patients and deliver care with limited healthcare resources.

The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Suicidal Thoughts in the United Kingdom

AimsBackground: The impact of the pandemic and resultant restrictions on suicidal thoughts may vary across populations, geographical areas, between high and low socio-economic groups and vulnerable populations. Aim: To investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and resultant restrictions on suicidal thoughts in the United Kingdom.MethodsThe study group conducted a cross sectional survey using a questionnaire based on published approaches (Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7, Patient Health Questionnaire 9, Impact of Events Scale-Revised) to understand the psychological impact of COVID-19 and the resultant restrictions on suicidal thoughts. The study was conducted in 3 phases to capture the different phases of the pandemic restrictions:Phase 1: 1st May 2020 to 31st July 2020Phase 2: 12th November 2020 to 12th February 2021Phase 3: 1st July 2021 to 30th September 2021Inclusion: All individuals above 16 years of age who wanted to participate were eligible.Analysis strategy: Descriptive analysis and logistic regression is applied in this study.ResultsThe study recruited 29133 participants in phase 1;83851 participants in phase 2 and 75204 participants in phase 3. The largest age group of participants was 45–64 years. About two thirds of respondents were female. Majority of participants were of White British ethnicity. 31% participants in phase 1, 30% in phase 2 and 19% in phase 3 reported suicidal thoughts.The preliminary regression analysis indicates that younger and male participants reported more suicidal thoughts among other findings which will be reported in the presentation.Limitations: The non-probability sample design and time limited surveys meant that longitudinal changes were not possible to elicit.ConclusionThere is mixed evidence on whether rates of suicidal thoughts increased during the pandemic. The results of this study will add to the evidence base and influence future pandemic planning and efforts to developing resilience and good mental health in society.

Impact of COVID-19 on telepsychiatry at the service and individual patient level across two UK NHS mental health Trusts.

BACKGROUND: The effects of COVID-19 on the shift to remote consultations remain to be properly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent, nature and clinical impact of the use of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it with the data in the same period of the 2 years before the outbreak. METHODS: We used deidentified electronic health records routinely collected from two UK mental health Foundation Trusts (Oxford Health (OHFT) and Southern Health (SHFT)) between January and September in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We considered three outcomes: (1) service activity, (2) in-person versus remote modalities of consultation and (3) clinical outcomes using Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) data. HoNOS data were collected from two cohorts of patients (cohort 1: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2018, 2019 and 2020; cohort 2: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2019 and 2020), and analysed in clusters using superclasses (namely, psychotic, non-psychotic and organic), which are used to assess overall healthcare complexity in the National Health Service. All statistical analyses were done in Python. FINDINGS: Mental health service activity in 2020 increased in all scheduled community appointments (by 15.4% and 5.6% in OHFT and SHFT, respectively). Remote consultations registered a 3.5-fold to 6-fold increase from February to June 2020 (from 4685 to a peak of 26 245 appointments in OHFT and from 7117 to 24 987 appointments in SHFT), with post-lockdown monthly averages of 23 030 and 22 977 remote appointments/month in OHFT and SHFT, respectively. Video consultations comprised up to one-third of total telepsychiatric services per month from April to September 2020. For patients with dementia, non-attendance rates at in-person appointments were higher than remote appointments (17.2% vs 3.9%). The overall HoNOS cluster value increased only in the organic superclass (clusters 18-21, n=174; p<0.001) from 2019 to 2020, suggesting a specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population of patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The rapid shift to remote service delivery has not reached some groups of patients who may require more tailored management with telepsychiatry.

Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in Spring 2020. DESIGN: A regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites. RESULTS: Pooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect. CONCLUSIONS: MH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences.

An evaluation of the mental health impact of SARS-CoV-2 on patients, general public and healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the lives of billions of people with recurrent waves. Healthcare systems are struggling to manage pre-existing patient care and recurring covid-19 demands. As a result, we evaluated the mental health impact using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken from April 2020 to 22nd January 2021 using multiple electronic databases. A systematic review protocol was developed and published on PROSPERO registration; CRD42020181481. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, insomnia and suicidal thoughts. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 11,295 studies and of those 287 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 206 studies revealed minimal differences in prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD among HCPs compared with the public during the pandemic but higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts/ideation or self-harm (11% vs 5.8%) and lower prevalence of wellbeing (28.2% vs 52.6%) among the public compared to HCPs. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic has led to a high mental health burden especially amongst HCPs and higher suicidal ideation and lower wellbeing in general public which warrants further investigation and management globally. These findings highlight an emerging critical public health issue that requires urgent solutions.

History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002-2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to examine the prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, both short-term and long-term, among SARS patients, healthcare workers and the general public of SARS-affected regions, and to examine the protective and risk factors associated with these mental health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature using databases such as Medline, Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, the National Central Library Online Catalog and dissertation databases to identify studies in the English or Chinese language published between January 2003 to May 2020 which reported psychological distress and mental health morbidities among SARS patients, healthcare workers, and the general public in regions with major SARS outbreaks. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 6984 titles. Screening resulted in 80 papers for the review, 35 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of post-recovery probable or clinician-diagnosed anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among SARS survivors were 19, 20 and 28%, respectively. The prevalence of these outcomes among studies conducted within and beyond 6 months post-discharge was not significantly different. Certain aspects of mental health-related quality of life measures among SARS survivors remained impaired beyond 6 months post-discharge. The prevalence of probable depressive disorder and PTSD among healthcare workers post-SARS were 12 and 11%, respectively. The general public had increased anxiety levels during SARS, but whether there was a clinically significant population-wide mental health impact remained inconclusive. Narrative synthesis revealed occupational exposure to SARS patients and perceived stigmatisation to be risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers, although causality could not be determined due to the limitations of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The chronicity of psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors should alert us to the potential long-term mental health complications of covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers working in high-risk venues should be given adequate mental health support. Stigmatisation against patients and healthcare workers should be explored and addressed. The significant risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity among included studies limited the certainty of the body of evidence of the review.

Rapid commentary: Ethical implications for clinical trialists and patients associated with COVID-19 research.

Pandemics disrupt clinical trials worldwide, with lasting effects on research. It can severely impact clinical trialists ability to conduct safe and ethically uncompromised trials. Hence, the mounting pressure results in ethically and morally distressing decisions faced by clinical trial professionals during pandemic situations. Whilst clinical trialists attempt to think about preparedness and responses during a pandemic, the need to have an ethical framework that has real-world applicability is imperative. Pandemics are a challenging time for all, however, the safety and access to support for clinical trialists and patients within clinical trials should be at the forefront for their organisations and the government.

COVID-19 and Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic Communities: A Complex Relationship Without Just Cause.

Emerging evidence has indicated a negative and disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) communities. Previous studies have already reported that biological and social risk factors increase disease susceptibility, particularly in BAME communities. Despite frontline workers in ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom's National Health Service attempting to quell the pandemic, disproportionate numbers of BAME physicians and other health care workers have died of COVID-19. This unprecedented situation highlights ethical and moral implications, which could further augment the impact of the pandemic on their mental health. While the government attempts to mitigate the rate of virus transmission, certain key factors inadvertently augment the negative impact of the pandemic on the mental health and general well-being of BAME communities. This study examined the available literature to explore the association between, and the wider impact of, COVID-19 on BAME communities. Furthermore, this study aims to raise awareness and provide a deeper insight into current scientific discussions.

Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol and results of first three weeks from an international cross-section survey - focus on health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The psychological impact of COVID-19, resultant measures and future consequences to life will be unveiled in time. AIM: To investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19, resultant restrictions, impact on behaviours and mental wellbeing globally. This early analysis, explores positive and adverse factors and behaviours with focus on healthcare professionals. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey, using a questionnaire based on published approaches to understand the psychological impact of COVID-19. The survey will be repeated at 6 months because of rapidly changing situation. RESULTS: We have presented results from first 3 weeks of the survey. Conclusions may change as more individuals take part over time. 7,917 participants completed the survey in the first 3 weeks; 7,271 are from the United Kingdom. 49.7% of the participants are healthcare professionals. There is high representation of female participants. Participants reporting suicidal thoughts is 32%. Healthcare professionals have reported mild depression and anxiety in higher proportions. Increasing age and female gender report higher compliance with government advice on COVID 19 whereas higher education, homeowners, key worker status, high alcohol, drug use and participants with pre-existing suicidal thoughts reported low compliance with government advice. Participants who reported suicidal thoughts pre-COVID are less likely to communicate with friends and family, or engage in coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence has shown an adverse psychological impact of previous pandemics on the population, especially wellbeing of healthcare professionals. Research should focus on identifying the need, preparing services and determining the factors that enhance and build resilience. FUNDING: This survey is linked to a MRC global health research program of the Portsmouth-Brawijaya center for Global Health, Population, and Policy, (MR/N006267/1), University of Portsmouth.