RESUMEN
BackgroundEvidence on the impacts of the pandemic on healthcare presentations for self-harm has accumulated rapidly. However, existing reviews do not include studies published beyond 2020. AimsTo systematically review evidence on health services utilisation for self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsA comprehensive search of multiple databases (WHO COVID-19 database; Medline; medRxiv; Scopus; PsyRxiv; SocArXiv; bioRxiv; COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, PubMed) was conducted. Studies reporting presentation frequencies for self-harm published from 1st Jan. 2020 to 7th Sept. 2021 were included. Study quality was assessed using a critical appraisal tool. ResultsFifty-one studies were included. 59% (30/51) were rated as low quality, 29% (15/51) as moderate and 12% (6/51) as high-moderate. Most evidence (84%, 43/51 studies) was from high-income countries. 47% (24/51) of studies reported reductions in presentation frequency, including all 6 rated as high-moderate quality, which reported reductions of 17- 56%. Settings treating higher lethality self-harm were overrepresented among studies reporting increased demand. Two of the 3 higher quality studies including study observation months from 2021 reported reductions in service utilisation. Evidence from 2021 suggested increased use of health services following self-harm among adolescents, particularly girls. ConclusionsSustained reductions in service utilisation were seen into the first half of 2021. However, evidence from low- and middle-income countries is lacking. The increased use of health services among adolescents, particularly girls, into 2021 is of concern. Our findings may reflect changes in thresholds for help seeking, use of alternative sources of support and variable effects of the pandemic across different groups.
RESUMEN
BackgroundDeaths in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in England & Wales have been shown to be unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. MethodsYLL for registered deaths in England & Wales, from 27th December 2014 until 25th December 2020, were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England & Wales. Panel time-series models were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7th March 2020 and 25th December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease & diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths - all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. FindingsBetween 7th March 2020 and 25th December 2020 there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England & Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from (916; 95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to (1,645; 95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, an average of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, an average of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in both in the North West. InterpretationDuring 2020, the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic, longstanding socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in England & Wales were exacerbated, with the most deprived areas suffering the greatest losses in potential years of life lost. FundingNone
RESUMEN
BackgroundSurveillance of clinically treated self-harm episode frequency is an important component of suicide prevention in the dynamic context of COVID-19. Studies published to date have investigated the initial months following the onset of the pandemic, despite national and regional restrictions persisting to Summer 2021. MethodsWe conducted a descriptive time series analysis utilising data from the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified, primary care health records of 2.8 million patients. Counts of incident and all episodes of self-harm recorded between 1st January 2019 and 31st May 2021 were made for all patients, with stratification by sex, age group, ethnicity, and index of multiple deprivation (IMD) quintile and examination of overall differences by national and regional restriction phases. FindingsBetween 1st January 2019 and 31st May 2021, 33,444 episodes of self-harm by 13,148 individuals were recorded. Frequency ratios of incident and all episodes of self-harm were 0.59 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) and 0.69 (CI 0.63 to 0.75) respectively in April 2020 compared to February 2020. Between August 2020 and May 2021 frequency ratios were 0.92 (CI 0.88 to 0.96) for incident episodes and 0.86 (CI 0.84 to 0.88) for all episodes compared to the same months in 2019. Reductions were largest among men and people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods. An increase in all-episode self-harm (frequency ratio 1.09, CI 1.03 to 1.16) was observed for adolescents aged 10-17 between August 2020 and May 2021. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a sustained impact on help seeking for self-harm. Reductions in primary care recorded self-harm have implications for clinicians ability to assess the needs and risks of individuals. Some patients may be experiencing prolonged untreated deterioration in their mental health while other groups are presenting in higher numbers. Our findings have important implications for primary care and mental health services in manging ongoing demand. FundingUKRI COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative (grant reference COV0499), University of Manchester Presidential Fellowship (SS), and NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesThe primary hypothesis was that the risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue and sleep problems increased following COVID-19 infection. The analysis plan was pre-registered (https://osf.io/n2k34/). DesignMatched cohorts were assembled using a UK primary care registry (the CPRD-Aurum database). Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from 1st February 2020 to 9th December 2020. SettingPrimary care database of 11,923,499 adults ([≥]16 years). ParticipantsFrom 232,780 adults with a positive COVID-19 test (after excluding those with <2 years historical data or <1 week follow-up), 86,922 without prior mental illness, 19,020 with anxiety or depression, 1,036 with psychosis, 4,152 with fatigue and 4,539 with sleep problems were matched to up to four controls based on gender, general practice and year of birth. A negative control used patients who tested negative for COVID-19 and patients negative for COVID with an influenza diagnosis. Main Outcomes and MeasuresCox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a COVID-19 positive test and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking and BMI. ResultsAfter adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between testing positive for COVID-19 and almost all markers of psychiatric morbidity, fatigue and sleep problems. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for incident psychiatric morbidity was 1.75 (95% CI 1.56-1.96). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative COVID-19 test (aHR 1.57, 95% CI 1.51-1.63) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR 2.97, 95% CI 1.36-6.48). ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence that COVID-19 infection elevates risk of fatigue and sleep problems, however the results from the negative control analysis suggests that residual confounding may be responsible for at least some of the association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.
