What do healthcare workers need? A qualitative study on support strategies to protect mental health of healthcare workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To support healthcare workers (HCWs) during the increased burden caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, numerous recommendations for action and possible interventions have been developed. However, the actual protective factors, needs and desires of those affected, as well as potential barriers to implementing psychological interventions, have been insufficiently examined. This study addresses this research gap and captures HCWs' experiences and views. METHODS: Medical personnel including nursing staff and physicians were recruited for a qualitative study regarding protective factors as well as barriers to the implementation of support services. We conducted 21 individual, semi-structured interviews with members of the medical staff at tertiary care center in Germany. The collected data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analyses showed that social interaction in the professional and private context was rated as helpful in coping with the challenges of everyday work amplified by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The results also suggest that the available support services, despite being highly valued, were rarely accessed. Possible barriers included the fear of negative consequences when asking for support. It could be deduced that the fear and shame of admitting one's own mistakes as well as the work-related tradition of showing no weakness could be the underlying factors for this fear. RESULTS: The results of this study suggest that medical staff need a more extensive range of low-threshold support services, which should be adapted to the respective needs of the professional groups. The study also provides indications that the norms and expectations represented in the hospital system require critical reflection.

The role of migration in mental healthcare: treatment satisfaction and utilization.

Migration rates increase globally and require an adaption of national mental health services to the needs of persons with migration background. Therefore, we aimed to identify differences between persons with and without migratory background regarding (1) treatment satisfaction, (2) needed and received mental healthcare and (3) utilization of mental healthcare.In the context of a cross-sectional multicenter study, inpatients and day hospital patients of psychiatric settings in Southern Germany with severe affective and non-affective psychoses were included. Patients' satisfaction with and their use of mental healthcare services were assessed by VSSS-54 and CSSRI-EU; patients' needs were measured via CAN-EU.In total, 387 participants (migratory background: n = 72; 19%) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Migrant patients were more satisfied with the overall treatment in the past year compared to non-migrant patients. No differences between both groups were identified in met and unmet treatment needs and use of supply services (psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, and psychosocial treatment).Despite a comparable degree of met and unmet treatment needs and mental health service use among migrants and non-migrants, patients with migration background showed higher overall treatment satisfaction compared to non-migrants. The role of sociocultural and migrant-related factors may explain our findings.

[Peer Support: Utilization and Benefit in Severe Mental Illness - Results from an Observational, Cross-Sectional Study]. / Genesungsbegleitung: Inanspruchnahme und Nutzenbewertung aus Betroffenenperspektive ­ Ergebnisse einer Beobachtungsstudie.

OBJECTIVE: Peer support is playing an increasing role in the treatment of severely mentally ill people. International findings are available on its effectiveness. However, little is known about knowledge, use and benefit assessment in Germany. This paper addresses this question and presents results from an observational study with 10 participating clinics in southern Germany. METHODS: As part of the observational cross-sectional study with people with severe mental illness (IMPPETUS, N=359), sociodemographic and illness- and treatment-associated data were collected by trained study staff between March 2019 and September 2019. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse a possible association with peer support use. RESULTS: 38% (N=138) of respondents reported knowledge about the possibility of peer support; 15% (N=55) affirmed its use. Use of peer support varied across sites (between 6.5 and 37.5%) and was associated with household income. Significantly less frequent use of peer support was among those with high versus low household income (OR=0.20 [95% CI: 0.06-0.68], p=0.01). Of respondents with peer support use (N=55), 78% reported perceiving peer support to be helpful or highly helpful. DISCUSSION: Peer support not only proves to be effective under study conditions with regard to various outcomes, but is also assessed as beneficial under routine conditions in a defined care region by the majority of users. However, only a few respondents knew and used the possibility of peer support. CONCLUSION: In order to implement peer support more strongly, information about this kind of service should be provided more effectively and a dialogue about successful implementation experiences should be initiated on a regional level.

Multifactorial barriers in the implementation of schizophrenia and psychosocial therapies guidelines: A quantitative study across different professions.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines can facilitate the transfer of scientific evidence into clinical practice, yet their implementation still faces difficulties. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation status of the current German evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for schizophrenia (2019) and psychosocial therapies (2019) and to identify barriers as well as facilitators in guideline adherence. METHODS: We used a quantitative approach by developing an online questionnaire, focusing on the current implementation status as well as barriers and facilitators in guideline adherence. The questionnaire was sent to 100 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatics and 52 professional associations in mental healthcare in Germany (investigation period: 10/2019-01/2020). RESULTS: In total, 657 mental healthcare professionals (MHCP, e.g. medical doctors, psychologists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Less than half (47%) of our participants were aware of the existence of the guideline for psychosocial therapies, while 74% exhibited awareness of the schizophrenia guideline. A minority reported to adhere to the current guidelines for schizophrenia (41%) and psychosocial interventions (18%). Profession-related differences in the implementation-status were detected. Specifically, medical doctors exhibited higher awareness rates than psychosocial therapists and caregivers and additionally higher adherence rates than psychologists and caregivers. Medical doctors were less exposed to knowledge-related barriers (e.g. lack of guideline familiarity), while no differences across professions were found in external/behavior-related barriers (e.g. long versions). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the implementation of guidelines as well as related barriers vary between professions. To prevent a growing gap in guideline adherence between MHCP, target-specific implementation strategies should be considered.

Incubation, not sleep, aids problem-solving.

Solving a novel problem and finding innovative solutions requires a flexible and creative recombination of prior knowledge. It is thought that setting a problem aside before giving it another try aids problem-solving. The underlying mechanisms of such an incubation period could include unconscious processing that fosters spreading activation along associated networks and the restructuring of problem representations. Recently, it has been suggested that sleep may also support problem-solving by supporting the transformation and restructuring of memory elements. Since the effect of sleep on problem-solving has been mainly tested using the Remote Associates Test, we chose three different tasks-classical riddles, visual change detection, and anagrams-to examine various aspects of problem-solving and to pinpoint task-specific prerequisites for effects of sleep or incubation to emerge. Sixty-two participants were given two attempts to solve the problems. Both attempts either occurred consecutively or were spaced apart by a 3-hour incubation interval that was spent awake or asleep. We found that a period of incubation positively affected solutions rates in classical riddles, but not in visual change detection or anagram solving. Contrary to our hypothesis, spending the incubation period asleep, did not yield any additional benefit. Our study thus supports the notion that a period of letting a problem rest is beneficial for its solution and confines the role of sleep to memory transformations that do not directly impact on problem-solving ability.