ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that increasing neighbourhood social cohesion can prevent mental health problems, including depression and anxiety. However, it is unknown whether this is the case for adolescents and young adults. AIMS: To investigate whether neighbourhood social cohesion can prevent depression and anxiety, and identify interventions that can increase neighbourhood cohesion in young people. METHOD: We conducted a rapid review for an overview of the available literature. PubMed, Campbell Collaboration, KSR Ltd and grey literature databases were searched from inception up to 10 July 2020. When synthesising the results, we applied a hierarchy of evidence, prioritising study designs that allowed for the most ability to infer causality. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBIS tool and Joanna Briggs Institute risk-of-bias assessment. A narrative review and two workshops with young people were conducted to inform what future interventions may look like. RESULTS: Forty-two peer-reviewed publications, including two systematic reviews, 13 longitudinal studies and 27 cross-sectional studies, were identified. Prospective longitudinal studies found that neighbourhood social cohesion factors (safety, trust, positive social connections, helping others and a lack of crime and violence) were associated with fewer depressive symptoms. Future interventions to increase neighbourhood cohesion should involve creating safe and attractive community centres, accessible and safe outdoor spaces, community activity groups and online communities. CONCLUSIONS: Neighbourhood social cohesion has the potential to protect mental health. The next step is to conduct intervention studies to evaluate the effects on onset prevention. Clinicians should consider the impact cohesion can have on mental health, and signpost to community initiatives.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Digital or electronic mental health (e-mental health) interventions can be useful approaches in reducing the burden of depression, with tools available for use in prevention, treatment, or relapse prevention. They may have specific benefit for primary care, as depression is often managed in this setting. However, little is known about attitudes and barriers among GPs towards e-mental health interventions for depression. AIM: This study aimed to assess attitudes, knowledge, use, and barriers for depression-focused e-mental health among GPs across the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey of self-selecting GPs in the UK conducted over a 10-day period in December 2017. METHOD: The survey consisted of 13 multiple choice questions posted on the Doctors.net.uk (DNUK) website. RESULTS: In all, 1044 responses were included; 72% of GPs reported using at least one type of e-mental health intervention for depression. Overall, GPs reported that e-mental health interventions are most effective when delivered in a guided way, rather than in an unguided manner. In addition, 92% of GPs reported that neither they nor their colleagues received e-mental health training. CONCLUSION: A moderate number of GPs use e-mental health for depression in their services, and report it is likely that its use will increase. There is a gap in training and awareness of effective interventions. GPs consider guided e-mental health interventions to be most effective, in contrast to the unguided way it is mostly offered in primary care.
