Young people at risk for developing bipolar disorder: Two-year findings from the multicenter prospective, naturalistic Early-BipoLife study.

Early identification and intervention of individuals with an increased risk for bipolar disorder (BD) may improve the course of illness and prevent long­term consequences. Early-BipoLife, a multicenter, prospective, naturalistic study, examined risk factors of BD beyond family history in participants aged 15-35 years. At baseline, positively screened help-seeking participants (screenBD at-risk) were recruited at Early Detection Centers and in- and outpatient depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) settings, references (Ref) drawn from a representative cohort. Participants reported sociodemographics and medical history and were repeatedly examined regarding psychopathology and the course of risk factors. N = 1,083 screenBD at-risk and n = 172 Ref were eligible for baseline assessment. Within the first two years, n = 31 screenBD at-risk (2.9 %) and none of Ref developed a manifest BD. The cumulative transition risk was 0.0028 at the end of multistep assessment, 0.0169 at 12 and 0.0317 at 24 months (p = 0.021). The transition rate with a BD family history was 6.0 %, 4.7 % in the Early Phase Inventory for bipolar disorders (EPIbipolar), 6.6 % in the Bipolar Prodrome Interview and Symptom Scale-Prospective (BPSS-FP) and 3.2 % with extended Bipolar At-Risk - BARS criteria). In comparison to help-seeking young patients from psychosis detection services, transition rates in screenBD at-risk participants were lower. The findings of Early-BipoLife underscore the importance of considering risk factors beyond family history in order to improved early detection and interventions to prevent/ameliorate related impairment in the course of BD. Large long-term cohort studies are crucial to understand the developmental pathways and long-term course of BD, especially in people at- risk.

Counseling and support services for healthcare workers in German university hospitals during the pandemic-descriptive results of a Germany-wide cross-sectional survey.

Background: Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are experiencing tremendous levels of emotional and physical stress. Hospitals are trying to help personnel cope with work-related pressure. The aim of this study was to assess HCWs' awareness and utilization of counseling and support services during the pandemic, HCWs' unmet counseling and support needs, and the type and content of these services. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from January to June 2021 through the German national research organization Network University Medicine (NUM). All participating hospitals (6 in total) were asked to inform their employees about the study. Results: A total of 1,495 HCWs were included in the analysis. Of these, 42.8% (n = 637) were frontline HCWs (who had contact with COVID-19 patients), 23.1% (n = 344) were second-line HCWs (who only had contact with non-COVID-19 patients) and 34.1% (n = 508) had no contact with any patients. Participating hospitals offer various counseling and support services for their staff. The percentage of respondents who were unaware of available counseling and support services ranged from 5.0 to 42.0%. Depending on the type of counseling and support services, 23.0-53.6% of the respondents indicated that counseling and support services were provided but not used, while 1.7-11.6% indicated that, despite the need for them, such services were not available. HCWs' overall satisfaction with the provided counseling and support services and their unmet support needs differed by patient contact: Frontline HCWs reported more unmet needs for counseling and support than second-line HCWs, while second-line HCWs reported more unmet needs than HCWs without patient contact. Conclusion: The results indicate that hospitals should make more efforts to inform HCWs about available counseling and support services. Hospitals could also create networks where HCWs could share information about the type and content of services and their experiences with various counseling and support services. These steps would enable hospitals to respond more quickly and effectively to the problems facing HCWs during pandemics.

[Willingness to get vaccinated among hospital staff in Germany: What is the role of COVID-19 conspiracy assumptions?] / Impfbereitschaft von Krankenhauspersonal in Deutschland: Welche Rolle spielen Verschwörungsannahmen zu COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: A critical factor in achieving widespread immunity against COVID-19 is the willingness of previously unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated. Medical staff play a key role in this, as they ensure healthcare during the pandemic and for many serve as a source of information about vaccinations. Among the factors that negatively influence the general willingness to get vaccinated are conspiracy assumptions and the spread of misinformation. OBJECTIVE: The willingness of hospital staff in Germany to get vaccinated and various influencing variables were examined to obtain indicators that could help increase the general willingness to get vaccinated. METHODS: Between January and June 2021, a voluntary and anonymous online survey conducted as part of the egePan joint project of the national network for university medicine (funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research) was used to assess the willingness to be vaccinated, individual social characteristics, the belief in conspiracy assumptions, and communication items in German hospitals. RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, physicians and scientific staff in particular indicated an increased willingness to get vaccinated. Conspiracy assumptions were not very widespread but most frequent among administrative and nursing staff. Conspiracy assumptions were negatively associated with the willingness to get vaccinated. Predictors for a higher willingness to get vaccinated were the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations and a higher age. DISCUSSION: Since the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations have a positive effect on the willingness to get vaccinated, educational work and transparent information transfer could counteract the spread of conspiracy assumptions and increase vaccination rates among hospital staff.

COVID-19 vaccination rates in hospitalized mentally ill patients compared to the general population in Germany: Results from the COVID Ψ Vac study.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness is known to come along with a large mortality gap compared to thegeneral population and it is a risk for COVID-19 related morbidity andmortality. Achieving high vaccination rates in people with mental illness is therefore important. Reports are conflicting on whether vaccination rates comparable to those of the general population can be achieved and which variables represent risk factors for nonvaccination in people with mental illness. METHODS: The COVID Ψ Vac study collected routine data on vaccination status, diagnostic groups, sociodemographics, and setting characteristics from in- and day-clinic patients of 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany in August 2021. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine risk factors for nonvaccination. RESULTS: Complete vaccination rates were 59% (n = 776) for the hospitalized patients with mental illness versus 64% for the regionally and age-matched general population. Partial vaccination rates were 68% (n = 893) for the hospitalised patients with mental illness versus 67% for the respective general population and six percentage (n = 74) of this hospitalized population were vaccinated during the hospital stay. Rates showed a large variation between hospital sites. An ICD-10 group F1, F2, or F4 main diagnosis, younger age, and coercive accommodation were further risk factors for nonvaccination in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination rates were lower in hospitalized people with mental illness than in the general population. By targeting at-risk groups with low-threshold vaccination programs in all health institutions they get in contact with, vaccination rates comparable to those in the general population can be achieved.

Changes and Challenges in Inpatient Mental Health Care During the First Two High Incidence Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany - Results From the COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey.

Psychiatric inpatient treatment, an important pillar of mental health care, is often of longer duration in Germany than in other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic called for infection prevention and control measures and thereby led to shifts in demand and inpatient capacities. The Germany-wide COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey surveyed department heads of German psychiatric inpatient institutions. It assessed changes in utilization during the first two high incidence phases of the pandemic (spring 2020 and winter 2020/21) and also consequences for care, telemedicine experiences, hygiene measures, treatment of patients with mental illness and co-occuring SARS-CoV-2, and coercive measures in such patients. A total of n = 71 psychiatric departments (of 346 contacted) participated in the survey. The results showed a median decrease of inpatient treatment to 80% of 2019 levels and of day hospital treatment to 50% (first phase) and 70% (second phase). Reductions were mainly due to decreases in elective admissions, and emergency admissions remained unchanged or increased in 87% of departments. Utilization was reduced for affective, anxiety, personality, and addiction disorders but appeared roughly unaffected for psychotic disorders. A lack of integration of patients into their living environment, disease exacerbations, loss of contact, and suicide attempts were reported as problems resulting from reduced capacities and insufficient outpatient treatment alternatives. Almost all departments (96%) treated patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring SARS-CoV-2 infection. The majority established special wards and separate areas for (potentially) infectious patients. Telephone and video consultations were found to provide benefits in affective and anxiety disorders. Involuntary admissions of persons without mental illness because of infection protection law violations were reported by 6% of the hospitals. The survey showed high adaptability of psychiatric departments, which managed large capacity shifts and introduced new services for infectious patients, which include telemedicine services. However, the pandemic exacerbated some of the shortcomings of the German mental health system: Avoidable complications resulted from the lack of cooperation and integrated care sequences between in- and outpatient sectors and limited options for psychiatric hospitals to provide outpatient services. Preventive approaches to handle comparable pandemic situations in the future should focus on addressing these shortcomings.

Evaluation of a flexible and integrative psychiatric care model in a department of child and adolescent psychiatry in Tübingen, Germany: study protocol (EVA_TIBAS).

BACKGROUND: Model projects for flexible and integrated treatment (FIT) in Germany aim at advancing the quality of care for people with mental disorders. A new FIT model project was established in 2017 at the Department of child and adolescent psychiatry (KJP) of the University Hospital Tübingen (Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, UKT). The study design of EVA_TIBAS presented here describes the evaluation of the FIT model project at the KJP of the UKT. This evaluation aims at quantifying the anticipated FIT model project changes, which are to improve patients' cross-sectoral care at the same maximum cost as standard care. METHODS: EVA_TIBAS is a controlled cohort study using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. The FIT evaluation consists of three modules. In Module A, anonymized claims data of a statutory health insurance fund will be used to compare outcomes (duration of inpatient and day care psychiatric treatment, inpatient and day care psychiatric length of stay, outpatient psychiatric treatment in hospital, inpatient hospital readmission, emergency admission rate, direct medical costs) of patients treated in the model hospital with patients treated in structurally comparable control hospitals (estimated sample size = ca. 600 patients). In Module B, patient-reported outcomes (health related quality of life, symptom burden, return to psychosocial relationships (e.g. school, friends, hobbies), treatment satisfaction, societal costs) will be assessed quantitatively using validated questionnaires for the model and two control hospitals (estimated sample size = ca. 300 patients). A subsequent health economic evaluation will be based on cost-effectiveness analyses from both the insurance fund's and the societal perspective. In Module C, about 30 semi-structured interviews will examine the quality of offer, effects and benefits of the service offered by the social service of the AOK Baden-Württemberg (for stabilizing the overall situation of care in the family) in the model hospital. A focus group discussion will address the quality of cooperation between employees of the university hospital and the social services. DISCUSSION: The results of this evaluation will be used to inform policy makers whether this FIT model project or aspects of it should be implemented into standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (ID: NCT04727359 , date: 27 January 2021).