Have the COVID-19 outbreak and related restrictions affected the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions?

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, and the restrictions implemented by governments to limit its public health impact, may have determined a reduction of the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions, that is a limitation to adequate, human, and value-based mental healthcare, with rising inequalities in comparison with the general population. This systematic review was, therefore, conducted to collate evidence on the impact of the pandemic period on the mental health of individuals with pre-existing severe mental health conditions. Of 3,774 retrieved citations, we selected 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of the included studies assessed trends in psychological symptoms over the pandemic period, then arguing that symptoms worsened for a number of reasons, including the risk of contracting the virus, the disruption of mental health services, and the feelings of loneliness and isolation associated with the restriction measures. Even though studies provided somewhat contradictory results, the majority of evidence indicates that people with pre-existing mental health conditions were more likely to report greater self-isolation distress, anxiety, depression, COVID-19-related perceived stress, and were more likely to voluntarily self-isolate than those without a mental health condition. These findings appeared to suggest that a combination of factors related to the pandemic itself and to the prevention and mitigation strategies were responsible for a reduction of the right to mental health of people with mental health conditions, with increased inequalities in comparison with the general population.

Remote mental health care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review.

Mitigating the COVID-19 related disruptions in mental health care services is crucial in a time of increased mental health disorders. Numerous reviews have been conducted on the process of implementing technology-based mental health care during the pandemic. The research question of this umbrella review was to examine what the impact of COVID-19 was on access and delivery of mental health services and how mental health services have changed during the pandemic. A systematic search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted up to August 12, 2022, and 38 systematic reviews were identified. Main disruptions during COVID-19 were reduced access to outpatient mental health care and reduced admissions and earlier discharge from inpatient care. In response, synchronous telemental health tools such as videoconferencing were used to provide remote care similar to pre-COVID care, and to a lesser extent asynchronous virtual mental health tools such as apps. Implementation of synchronous tools were facilitated by time-efficiency and flexibility during the pandemic but there was a lack of accessibility for specific vulnerable populations. Main barriers among practitioners and patients to use digital mental health tools were poor technological literacy, particularly when preexisting inequalities existed, and beliefs about reduced therapeutic alliance particularly in case of severe mental disorders. Absence of organizational support for technological implementation of digital mental health interventions due to inadequate IT infrastructure, lack of funding, as well as lack of privacy and safety, challenged implementation during COVID-19. Reviews were of low to moderate quality, covered heterogeneously designed primary studies and lacked findings of implementation in low- and middle-income countries. These gaps in the evidence were particularly prevalent in studies conducted early in the pandemic. This umbrella review shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners and mental health care institutions mainly used synchronous telemental health tools, and to a lesser degree asynchronous tools to enable continued access to mental health care for patients. Numerous barriers to these tools were identified, and call for further improvements. In addition, more high quality research into comparative effectiveness and working mechanisms may improve scalability of mental health care in general and in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Adverse childhood experiences and global mental health: avenues to reduce the burden of child and adolescent mental disorders.

Mental disorders are one of the largest contributors to the burden of disease globally, this holds also for children and adolescents, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prevalence and severity of these disorders are influenced by social determinants, including exposure to adversity. When occurring early in life, these latter events are referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).In this editorial, we provide an overview of the literature on the role of ACEs as social determinants of mental health through the lenses of global mental health. While the relation between ACEs and mental health has been extensively explored, most research was centred in higher income contexts. We argue that findings from the realm of global mental health should be integrated into that of ACEs, e.g. through preventative and responsive psychosocial interventions for children, adolescents and their caregivers. The field of global mental health should also undertake active efforts to better address ACEs in its initiatives, all with the goal of reducing the burden of mental disorders among children and adolescents globally.

Long-term effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: As refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of developing mental disorders, we assessed the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH + ), a psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, in reducing the risk of developing any mental disorders at 12-month follow-up in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe. METHODS: Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 ⩾ 3) but without a mental disorder according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) were randomised to either SH + or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The frequency of mental disorders at 12 months was measured with the M.I.N.I., while secondary outcomes included self-identified problems, psychological symptoms and other outcomes. RESULTS: Of 459 participants randomly assigned to SH + or ETAU, 246 accepted to be interviewed at 12 months. No difference in the frequency of any mental disorders was found (relative risk [RR] = 0.841; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.389-1.819; p-value = 0.659). In the per protocol (PP) population, that is in participants attending at least three group-based sessions, SH + almost halved the frequency of mental disorders at 12 months compared to ETAU, however so few participants and events contributed to this analysis that it yielded a non-significant result (RR = 0.528; 95% CI 0.180-1.544; p-value = 0.230). SH + was associated with improvements at 12 months in psychological distress (p-value = 0.004), depressive symptoms (p-value = 0.011) and wellbeing (p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show any long-term preventative effect of SH + in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western European countries. Analysis of the PP population and of secondary outcomes provided signals of a potential effect of SH + in the long-term, which would suggest the value of exploring the effects of booster sessions and strategies to increase SH + adherence.

Impact of maternal mental health interventions on child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Observational studies have shown a relationship between maternal mental health (MMH) and child development, but few studies have evaluated whether MMH interventions improve child-related outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this review is to synthesise findings on the effectiveness of MMH interventions to improve child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials conducted in LMICs evaluating interventions with a MMH component and reporting children's outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes included in at least two trials. RESULTS: We identified 21 trials with 28 284 mother-child dyads. Most trials were conducted in middle-income countries, evaluating home visiting interventions delivered by general health workers, starting in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only ten trials described acceptable methods for blinding outcome assessors. Four trials showed high risk of bias in at least two of the seven domains assessed in this review. Narrative synthesis showed promising but inconclusive findings for child-related outcomes. Meta-analysis identified a sizeable impact of interventions on exclusive breastfeeding (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.71, ten trials, N = 4749 mother-child dyads, I2 = 61%) and a small effect on child height-for-age at 6-months (std. mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, three trials, N = 1388, I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses did not identify intervention benefits for child cognitive and other growth outcomes; however, few trials measured these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the importance of MMH to improve child-related outcomes in LMICs, particularly exclusive breastfeeding. Given, the small number of trials and methodological limitations, more rigorous trials should be conducted.

Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in asylum seekers and refugees: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AimsIn the past few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of forcibly displaced migrants worldwide, of which a substantial proportion is refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers may experience high levels of psychological distress, and show high rates of mental health conditions. It is therefore timely and particularly relevant to assess whether current evidence supports the provision of psychosocial interventions for this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions compared with control conditions (treatment as usual/no treatment, waiting list, psychological placebo) aimed at reducing mental health problems in distressed refugees and asylum seekers. METHODS: We used Cochrane procedures for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in adults and children asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety symptoms at post-intervention were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include: PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, functioning, quality of life and dropouts due to any reason. RESULTS: We included 26 studies with 1959 participants. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that psychosocial interventions have a clinically significant beneficial effect on PTSD (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.01 to -0.41; I2 = 83%; 95% CI 78-88; 20 studies, 1370 participants; moderate quality evidence), depression (SMD = -1.02; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.51; I2 = 89%; 95% CI 82-93; 12 studies, 844 participants; moderate quality evidence) and anxiety outcomes (SMD = -1.05; 95% CI -1.55 to -0.56; I2 = 87%; 95% CI 79-92; 11 studies, 815 participants; moderate quality evidence). This beneficial effect was maintained at 1 month or longer follow-up, which is extremely important for populations exposed to ongoing post-migration stressors. For the other secondary outcomes, we identified a non-significant trend in favour of psychosocial interventions. Most evidence supported interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma-focused component. Limitations of this review include the limited number of studies collected, with a relatively low total number of participants, and the limited available data for positive outcomes like functioning and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the epidemiological relevance of psychological distress and mental health conditions in refugees and asylum seekers, and in view of the existing data on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, these interventions should be routinely made available as part of the health care of distressed refugees and asylum seekers. Evidence-based guidelines and implementation packages should be developed accordingly.

Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: a public mental health perspective.

AIMS: To discuss the potential usefulness of a public health approach for 'mental health and psychosocial support' (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian settings. METHODS: Building on public mental health terminology in accordance with recent literature on this topic and considering existing international consensus guidelines on MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings, this paper reflects on the relevance of the language of promotion and prevention for supporting the rationale, design and evaluation of interventions, with a particular focus on populations affected by disasters and conflicts in low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: A public mental health approach and associated terminology can form a useful framework in the design and evaluation of MHPSS interventions, and may contribute to reducing a divisive split between 'mental health' and 'psychosocial' practice in the humanitarian field. Many of the most commonly implemented MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings can be described in terms of promotion and prevention terminology. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a common terminology across health, protection, education, nutrition and other relevant sectors providing humanitarian interventions has the potential to allow for integration of MHPSS activities in one overall framework, with diverse humanitarian practitioners working to achieve a common goal.

Pragmatic design in randomized controlled trials.

At more than 10 years after the paper by Hotopf and colleagues regarding pragmatic trials in psychiatry, the field has evolved and is evolving further. There have been many developments in our understanding of what pragmatism really means, and excellent examples of truly pragmatic trials in psychiatry are currently available. Funders have helped encourage more emphasis on the need for such studies, but 'local' and trans-national regulations could help more. Consumers of the evidence should have a greater voice in generating the research agenda and, as this happens, the questions generated are more likely to be answered by a pragmatic approach to trials.

Drug dose as mediator of treatment effect in antidepressant drug trials: the case of fluoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at investigating whether dose is a mediator of treatment effect in fluoxetine-randomized trials. Specifically, we investigated whether dose was higher in trials in which the aim was to demonstrate fluoxetine efficacy in comparison with older antidepressants and lower in trials in which the aim was to demonstrate a new drug's efficacy against fluoxetine. METHOD: We applied the model developed by Baron and Kenny to investigate the mediational role of drug dose on treatment effect. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing fluoxetine with other antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute-phase treatment of unipolar major depression. RESULTS: A total of 173 studies were included. In 76 comparisons (44%), fluoxetine was the experimental antidepressant. A metaregression analysis indicated that after adjusting for possible confounders, studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were associated with a significant advantage for fluoxetine. However, the Baron and Kenny model revealed no mediational role of drug dose in influencing treatment effect. CONCLUSION: The outcome of fluoxetine-randomized trials changed according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or as a reference. This finding cannot be attributed to antidepressants dose, as dose failed to emerge as mediator of treatment effect in the Baron and Kenny approach.

Does psychostimulant treatment in children with ADHD increase later risk of substance use disorder?

Psychostimulants are the first choice medication in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Despite the proven high efficacy of psychostimulants, at least in the short term, for ADHD core symptoms, concerns continue to be raised on their adverse effects, including putative increased risk of substance use disorders (SUDs). A recent multicentre, case-control, longitudinal, prospective, European study by Groenman and colleagues found that treatment with psychostimulants in children with ADHD lowered the risk of SUDs in adolescence. However, this finding is at odds with other recent evidence concluding that ADHD children with and without medication treatment history did not significantly differ on any subsequent SUDs rates. In the present paper, we discuss the study by Groenman and colleagues in view of its methodological strengths and limitations, and we suggest possible implications for day-to-day clinical practice.

Use of antipsychotic drugs and mood stabilizers in women of childbearing age with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: epidemiological survey.

Aims. To determine the prevalence of women of childbearing age with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder exposed to antipsychotic (AP) drugs and mood stabilizers (MS) in Lombardy, a European region of 10 million inhabitants and 1 752 285 women of childbearing age. Methods. The data concerning psychiatric care, drug treatments and pregnancy outcomes were retrieved from local administrative databases during a 12-month census period. Results. During a 12-month census period, 2893 women of childbearing age with schizophrenia (74.8% of all women of childbearing age with schizophrenia) and 918 with bipolar disorder (80.1% of all women of childbearing age with bipolar disorder) were exposed to AP drugs or MS, yielding a prevalence of exposure for women with schizophrenia of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-1.71) per 1000 female inhabitants, and for women with bipolar disorder of 0.52 (95% CI 0.49-0.55) per 1000 female inhabitants. Persistent exposure to potentially teratogenic medications accounted for one in every 1000 women of childbearing age. Of the 57 pregnancies in women with schizophrenia, normal delivery was recorded in 23 (40%) cases; of the 26 pregnancies in women with bipolar disorder, normal delivery was recorded in 10 (38%) cases. Conclusions. In women of childbearing age with severe mental disorders, exposure to psychotropic drugs is substantial, which suggests that the issue of reproductive health is epidemiologically relevant and a major public health concern.

Dichotomizing rating scale scores in psychiatry: a bad idea?

In psychiatry, the use of rating scales as measures of outcome in clinical trials allows us to generate continuous outcome data, where each individual's outcome is measured in numbers. Continuous outcomes can be divided into two categories, such as improved and not improved, or may be kept continuous. This article briefly presents the main advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches, which are commonly employed in the analyses of rating scale scores in clinical trials and systematic reviews.

What is the WHO essential medicines list?

This article briefly presents the main characteristics of the World Health Organization (WHO) essential medicines list (EML), a register of minimum medicine needs for every health-care system. The idea behind the list is that the use of a limited number of well-known and cost-effective medicines may lead to improved long-term medicine supply, lower costs and better health care provision.

Heterogeneity: the issue of apples, oranges and fruit pie.

Heterogeneity refers to any kind of variation among studies contributing to the same outcome in a systematic review. There are three broad types of heterogeneity: clinical heterogeneity, methodological heterogeneity and statistical heterogeneity. In this paper, we describe these three types of heterogeneity and the main statistical approaches to measure heterogeneity.