[COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Effects on Psychiatric and Psychosocial Care in Urban and Rural Areas - Two Studies Implementing the Questionnaire PandA-Psy]. / Corona-Pandemie-bedingte Auswirkungen auf die psychiatrische und psychosoziale Versorgung im städtischen und ländlichen Raum ­ Zwei Untersuchungen mit dem Fragebogen PandA-Psy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in psychiatric and psychosocial services and their impact on the care of people with severe mental illness in two contrasting regions. METHODS: Development and use of an online questionnaire (PandA-Psy) in Leipzig (N=50) and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (N=126). RESULTS: In community psychiatric care, mostly comparable changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were observed in the two selected regions. These mainly concern the decrease in face-to-face contacts and group services, the increase in digital and telephone services, as well as the increasing constraints of staff. Differences between the regions are discussed. CONCLUSION: PandA-Psy was successfully used to map changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in psychiatric and psychosocial services in two areas. In addition to the predominantly negative consequences of the pandemic situation, we also found opportunities arising from the crisis.

Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services: A systematic review.

The purpose of the review was to investigate the changes in mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies was conducted from February 2021 to March 2022 using four databases and five languages. 29 studies reporting on mental health services in 63 countries were included. Findings were organised according to nine major topics: (1) lack of preparedness vs. timely response and flexible solutions, (2) changes in access, referrals, and admission, (3) impacts on outpatient, community and psychosocial services, (4) inpatient: reorganisation of hospital psychiatric units/acute wards, (5) diagnostic and therapeutic adaptations, (6) effects on medication, (7) infection control measures, (8), changes in patients' demands, engagement, and mental health, and (9) impacts on staff and team. Many services were closed intermittently or considerably reduced while telepsychiatric services were extensively expanded. Face-to-face services decreased, as did the work with therapeutic groups. Many inpatient units restructured their services to accommodate COVID-19 patients. While the digitalisation of services allowed for better access to services for some, restrictive measures hindered access for most. Staff experienced changes such as heightened impacts on their own mental health, burdens on patients and the pausing of professional training. Clearly, diverse findings of studies relate to different (national) contexts, type of service offered, but also to the time of the investigation, as studies noted several distinct phases of change during the pandemic. This review suggests directions for policy and service development, such as fostering community services and providing support services for particularly vulnerable populations.

LeiP#netz 2.0: mapping COVID-19-related changes in mental health services in the German city of Leipzig.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to investigate the changes in psychosocial and psychiatric services in the German city of Leipzig during the COVID-19-pandemic. METHODS: A participatory, mixed-methods study was used involving a quantitative online survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews with professionals. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data. RESULTS: Fifty professionals from various mental health services participated in the survey and eleven professionals were interviewed. Quantitative findings showed that some services were closed intermittently and that there was a stiff increase in use of digital/telephonic service and a decrease in face-to-face services. Staff or funding did not change considerably during the pandemic. Psychosocial groups were suspended or reduced, while access to services became more difficult and professional training for staff was stopped. Thematic analysis of the interviews showed that professionals experienced different phases and levels of change during the pandemic, including changes on a structural level, on the users' level, and on the staff' level. Professionals particularly criticised the equivocality of COVID-19 regulations, a defective flow of information and lack of attention for mental healthcare in public policies. They also saw positive aspects, such as the capacity of users and the outpatient care system to adapt to the new situation. CONCLUSION: This study suggests directions for policy and service development, such as communicating clearly in infection-control measures, fostering outpatient care and networks between services.