Search

Introduction: COVID-19 has caused severe disruption to clinical services in Bangladesh but the extent of this, and the impact on healthcare professionals is unclear. We aimed to assess the perceived levels of anxiety, depression and burnout among doctors and nurses during COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We undertook an online survey using RedCap, directed at doctors and nurses across four institutions in Bangladesh (The Sheikh Russel Gastro Liver Institute & Hospital (SRNGIH), Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH), Mugda Medical College Hospital (MMCH) and M Abdur Rahim Medical College (MARMC) Hospital). We collected information on demographics, awareness of well-being services, COVID-19-related workload, as well as anxiety, depression and burnout using two validated questionnaires: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)., Results: Of the 3000 participants approached, we received responses from 2705 (90.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in anxiety, depression and burnout scores across institutions (p<0.01). Anxiety, depression and burnout scores were statistically worse in COVID-19 active staff compared with those not working on COVID-19 activities (p<0.01 for HADS anxiety and depression and MBI emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalisation (DP) and personal accomplishment (PA)). Over half of the participants exhibited some level of anxiety (SRNGIH: 52.2%; DMCH: 53.9%; MMCH: 61.3%; MARMC: 68%) with a high proportion experiencing depression (SRNGIH: 39.5%; DMCH: 38.7%; MMCH: 53.7%; MARMC: 41.1%). Although mean burnout scores were within the normal range for each institution, a high proportion of staff (almost 20% in some instances) were shown to be classified as experiencing burnout by their EE, DP and PA scores., Conclusion: We identified a high prevalence of perceived anxiety, depression and burnout among doctors and nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was worse in staff engaged in COVID-19-related activities. These findings could help healthcare organisations to plan for future similar events., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Studies on COVID-19 pandemic-associated changes in mortality following self-harm remain scarce and inconclusive. Background: To compare mortality risks in individuals who had self-harmed to those for individuals who had not, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Waves 1 and 2) in Wales, the United Kingdom, using population-based routinely collected data. Aims: To compare mortality risks in individuals who had self-harmed to those for individuals who had not, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Waves 1 and 2) in Wales, the United Kingdom, using population-based routinely collected data. Method: We linked whole population health data to all-cause mortality following an episode of self-harm between April 2016 and March 2021. Propensity score matching, Cox regression, and difference-in-differences were applied to compute changes in excess mortality (as ratios of hazard ratios, RHRs) before and during the pandemic for individuals who self-harmed. Results: The difference in mortality for individuals who self-harmed compared to those who did not widened during Wave 1 (RHR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.04-4.03) and Wave 2 (RHR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.12-4.29) from before the pandemic. Stratification by sex and age group produced no significant subgroup differences although risk for younger than 65 years group were higher. Limitations: Limitations include small sample size and incomplete data on cause-specific deaths during the pandemic. Conclusion: Our results underscore continuous monitoring of mortality of individuals who self-harm and effective interventions to address any increases in mortality.

Background: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales., Methods: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales)., Results: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person., Conclusion: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The World Health Organisation declared the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic on 11th March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in its grip. At the time of writing, there were more than 767,972,961 million confirmed cases and over 6,950,655 million deaths. While the main policy focus has been on controlling the virus and ensuring vaccine roll-out and uptake, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be long-term, with certain population groups affected more than others., Methods: The overall objectives of our 'Coronavirus: Mental Health and the Pandemic' study were to explore UK adults' experiences of the Coronavirus pandemic and to gain insights into the mental health impacts, population-level changes over time, current and future mental health needs, and how these can best be addressed. The wider mixed-methods study consisted of repeated cross-sectional surveys and embedded qualitative sub-studies including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with the wider UK adult population. For this particular inequalities and mental health sub-study, we used mixed methods data from our cross-sectional surveys and we carried out three Focus Group Discussions with a maximum variation sample from across the UK adult population. The discussions covered the broader topic of 'Inequalities and mental health during the Coronavirus pandemic in the UK' and took place online between April and August 2020. Focus Groups transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in NVIVO. Cross-sectional survey data were analysed using STATA for descriptive statistics., Results: Three broad main themes emerged, each supporting a number of sub-themes: (1) Impacts of the pandemic; (2) Moving forward: needs and recommendations; (3) Coping mechanisms and resilience. Findings showed that participants described their experiences of the pandemic in relation to its impact on themselves and on different groups of people. Their experiences illustrated how the pandemic and subsequent measures had exacerbated existing inequalities and created new ones, and triggered various emotional responses. Participants also described their coping strategies and what worked and did not work for them, as well as support needs and recommendations for moving forward through, and out of, the pandemic; all of which are valuable learnings to be considered in policy making for improving mental health and for ensuring future preparedness., Conclusions: The pandemic is taking a long-term toll on the nations' mental health which will continue to have impacts for years to come. It is therefore crucial to learn the vital lessons learned from this pandemic. Specific as well as whole-government policies need to respond to this, address inequalities and the different needs across the life-course and across society, and take a holistic approach to mental health improvement across the UK., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention., Design and Participants: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model., Results: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place., Conclusions: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RL, SJ, AJ and AE are members of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group (TAG). AJ is also cochair of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) advising the UK government. SJ is also a member of the Welsh Government Testing TAG and Cardiff University COVID Strategic Advisory Board (SAB)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To determine whether clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) children or children living with a CEV person in Wales were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression in primary or secondary care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with children in the general population and to compare patterns of anxiety and depression during the pandemic (23 March 2020-31 January 2021, referred to as 2020/2021) and before the pandemic (23 March 2019-31 January 2020, referred to as 2019/2020), between CEV children and the general population., Design: Population-based cross-sectional cohort study using anonymised, linked, routinely collected health and administrative data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. CEV individuals were identified using the COVID-19 shielded patient list., Setting: Primary and secondary healthcare settings covering 80% of the population of Wales., Participants: Children aged 2-17 in Wales: CEV (3769); living with a CEV person (20 033); or neither (415 009)., Primary Outcome Measure: First record of anxiety or depression in primary or secondary healthcare in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, identified using Read and International Classification of Diseases V.10 codes., Results: A Cox regression model adjusted for demographics and history of anxiety or depression revealed that only CEV children were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression during the pandemic compared with the general population (HR=2.27, 95% CI=1.94 to 2.66, p<0.001). Compared with the general population, the risk among CEV children was higher in 2020/2021 (risk ratio 3.04) compared with 2019/2020 (risk ratio 1.90). In 2020/2021, the period prevalence of anxiety or depression increased slightly among CEV children, but declined among the general population., Conclusions: Differences in the period prevalence of recorded anxiety or depression in healthcare between CEV children and the general population were largely driven by a reduction in presentations to healthcare services by children in the general population during the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AJ is a member of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group and is also cochair of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advising the UK government. None of the other authors have any competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To quantify population health risks for domiciliary care workers (DCWs) in Wales, UK, working during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: A population-level retrospective study linking occupational registration data to anonymised electronic health records maintained by the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in a privacy-protecting trusted research environment., Setting: Registered DCW population in Wales., Participants: Records for all linked DCWs from 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2021., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Our primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 infection; secondary outcomes included contacts for suspected COVID-19, mental health including self-harm, fit notes, respiratory infections not necessarily recorded as COVID-19, deaths involving COVID-19 and all-cause mortality., Results: Confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection rates increased over the study period to 24% by 30 November 2021. Confirmed COVID-19 varied by sex (males: 19% vs females: 24%) and age (>55 years: 19% vs <35 years: 26%) and were higher for care workers employed by local authority social services departments compared with the private sector (27% and 23%, respectively). 34% of DCWs required support for a mental health condition, with mental health-related prescribing increasing in frequency when compared with the prepandemic period. Events for self-harm increased from 0.2% to 0.4% over the study period as did the issuing of fit notes. There was no evidence to suggest a miscoding of COVID-19 infection with non-COVID-19 respiratory conditions. COVID-19-related and all-cause mortality were no greater than for the general population aged 15-64 years in Wales (0.1% and 0.034%, respectively). A comparable DCW workforce in Scotland and England would result in a comparable rate of COVID-19 infection, while the younger workforce in Northern Ireland may result in a greater infection rate., Conclusions: While initial concerns about excess mortality are alleviated, the substantial pre-existing and increased mental health burden for DCWs will require investment to provide long-term support to the sector's workforce., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious health risk, especially in vulnerable populations. Even before the pandemic, people with mental disorders had worse physical health outcomes compared to the general population. This umbrella review investigated whether having a pre-pandemic mental disorder was associated with worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Following a pre-registered protocol available on the Open Science Framework platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE All, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science up to the 6th of October 2021 for systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental disorders. The following outcomes were considered: risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk of severe illness, COVID-19 related mortality risk, risk of long-term physical symptoms after COVID-19. For meta-analyses, we considered adjusted odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment with the AMSTAR 2 tool have been done in parallel and duplicate., Results: We included five meta-analyses and four narrative reviews. The meta-analyses reported that people with any mental disorder had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.69), severe illness course (OR from 1.32 to 1.77, 95%CI between 1.19-1.46 and 1.29-2.42, respectively) and COVID-19 related mortality (OR from 1.38 to 1.52, 95%CI between 1.15-1.65 and 1.20-1.93, respectively) as compared to the general population. People with anxiety disorders had an increased risk of SAR-CoV-2 infection, but not increased mortality. People with mood and schizophrenia spectrum disorders had an increased COVID-19 related mortality but without evidence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Narrative reviews were consistent with findings from the meta-analyses., Discussion and Conclusions: As compared to the general population, there is strong evidence showing that people with pre-existing mental disorders suffered from worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and may therefore be considered a risk group similar to people with underlying physical conditions. Factors likely involved include living accommodations with barriers to social distancing, cardiovascular comorbidities, psychotropic medications and difficulties in accessing high-intensity medical care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to be detrimental to mental health, it may hold a parallel potential for positive change. Little is known about posttraumatic growth (PTG) as a potential outcome for individuals with lived experience of psychiatric disorders following trauma exposure, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were 1,424 adults with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder who took part in a longitudinal study of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic conducted by the National Centre for Mental Health. PTG was measured using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Short Form (PTGI-SF). Factors hypothesized to be associated with PTG were investigated using linear regression. The mean participant PTGI score was 12.64 (SD = 11.01). On average, participants reported the highest scores on items related to appreciation of life and lowest on those related to spiritual change subscale. We found the strongest evidence of associations between higher levels of PTG and higher scores on assessment items related to perceived social support, B = 2.86; perceptions of the pandemic as traumatic, B = 4.89; and higher psychological well-being, B = 0.40. Taken together, we did not observe evidence of widespread PTG related to the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with lived experiences of psychiatric disorders., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Traumatic Stress published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.)

Domiciliary care workers (DCWs) continued to provide care to adults in their own homes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence of the impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes of DCWs is currently mixed. The OSCAR study will quantify the impact of COVID-19 upon health outcomes of DCWs in Wales, explore causes of variation and extrapolate to the rest of the UK DCW population. An embedded qualitative study aimed to explore DCW experiences during the pandemic, including factors that may have varied risk of exposure to COVID-19 and adverse health and wellbeing outcomes. Registered DCWs working throughout Wales were invited to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview. 24 DCWs were interviewed between February and July 2021. Themes were identified through inductive analysis using thematic coding. Several themes emerged relating to risk of exposure to COVID-19. First, general changes to the role of the DCW during the pandemic were identified. Second, practical challenges for DCWs in the workplace were reported, including staff shortages, clients and families not following safety procedures, initial shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), DCW criticism of standard use PPE, client difficulty with PPE and management of rapid antigen testing. Third, lack of government/employer preparation for a pandemic was described, including the reorganisation of staff clients and services, inadequate or confusing information for many DCWs, COVID-19 training and the need for improved practical instruction and limited official standard risk assessments for DCWs. Pressure to attend work and perceptions of COVID-19 risk and vaccination was also reported. In summary, this paper describes the risk factors associated with working during the pandemic. We have mapped recommendations for each problem using these qualitative findings including tailored training and better support for isolated team members and identified the required changes at several socio-ecological levels., (© 2022 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Public use of digital mental health technologies has informed several studies focusing on patterns of engagement within user-led digital support systems. General engagement with these services has increased since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore how user engagement patterns with these platforms changed during the pandemic., Methods: In this cohort study, we included individuals aged 14-25 years who signed up to the online mental health platform Kooth in the UK before the pandemic (May 1, 2019 to March 10, 2020) and during the pandemic (March 11, 2020 to Oct 31, 2021). Routinely collected usage data were assessed for consenting users who returned to Kooth at least once after sign-up. We used logistic regression to compare service component usage and overall engagement across cohorts., Findings: 5048 individuals (mean sign-ups per day 9·0 [12·0]) were included in the pre-pandemic cohort and 13 841 (mean sign-ups per day 11·5 [13·9]) in the pandemic cohort, representing a significant increase in sign-ups per day during the pandemic compared with the pre-pandemic period (Welch's t-test p=0·0001). Compared with users pre-pandemic, users during the pandemic were less likely to have a drop-in chat with a practitioner (odds ratio [OR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·47-0·54], p<0·0001) but were more likely to journal (1·92 [1·77-2·07], p<0·0001) and comment on existing content (1·10 [1·03-1·18], p=0·008). Users who signed up to Kooth during the pandemic and requested a chat with a practitioner (7816 [56·5%] of 13 841 users) were also less likely to receive a chat than users who requested a chat pre-pandemic (3791 [75·1%] of 5048 users; OR 0·68 [0·63-0·74], p<0·0001)., Interpretation: During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with the ability and resources to access digital mental health support were diverted from face-to-face services to digital mental health services. This change might have resulted in an unmet need for drop-in practitioner chats, with users probably resorting to asynchronous support through community interaction or journaling., Funding: Kooth Digital Health., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a complex impact on risks of suicide and non-fatal self-harm worldwide with some evidence of increased risk in specific populations including women, young people, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. This review aims to systematically address whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease confer elevated risk directly., Method: As part of a larger Living Systematic Review examining self-harm and suicide during the pandemic, automated daily searches using a broad list of keywords were performed on a comprehensive set of databases with data from relevant articles published between January 1, 2020 and July 18, 2021. Eligibility criteria for our present review included studies investigating suicide and/or self-harm in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 with or without manifestations of COVID-19 disease with a comparator group who did not have infection or disease. Suicidal and self-harm thoughts and behaviour (STBs) were outcomes of interest. Studies were excluded if they reported data for people who only had potential infection/disease without a confirmed exposure, clinical/molecular diagnosis or self-report of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Studies of news reports, treatment studies, and ecological studies examining rates of both SARS-CoV-2 infections and suicide/self-harm rates across a region were also excluded., Results: We identified 12 studies examining STBs in nine distinct samples of people with SARS-CoV-2. These studies, which investigated STBs in the general population and in subpopulations, including healthcare workers, generally found positive associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease and subsequent suicidal/self-harm thoughts and suicidal/self-harm behaviour., Conclusions: This review identified some evidence that infection with SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 disease may be associated with increased risks for suicidal and self-harm thoughts and behaviours but a causal link cannot be inferred. Further research with longer follow-up periods is required to confirm these findings and to establish whether these associations are causal.

The COVID-19 pandemic has harmed many people's mental health globally. Whilst the evidence generated thus far from high-income countries regarding the pandemic's impact on suicide rates is generally reassuring, we know little about its influence on this outcome in lower- and middle-income countries or among marginalised and disadvantaged people. There are some signals for concern regarding the pandemic's potentially unequal impact on suicide rates, with some of the affected demographic subgroups and regions being at elevated risk before the pandemic began. However, the evidence-base for this topic is currently sparse, and studies conducted to date have generally not taken account of pre-pandemic temporal trends. The collection of accurate, complete and comparable data on suicide rate trends in ethnic minority and low-income groups should be prioritised. The vulnerability of low-income groups will likely be exacerbated further by the current energy supply and cost-of-living crises in many countries. It is therefore crucial that reassuring messaging highlighting the stability of suicide rates during the pandemic does not lead to complacency among policymakers.

Background: Evidence on the impact of the pandemic on healthcare presentations for self-harm has accumulated rapidly. However, existing reviews do not include studies published beyond 2020., Aims: To systematically review evidence on presentations to health services following self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic., Method: A comprehensive search of databases (WHO COVID-19 database; Medline; medRxiv; Scopus; PsyRxiv; SocArXiv; bioRxiv; COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, PubMed) was conducted. Studies published from 1 January 2020 to 7 September 2021 were included. Study quality was assessed with a critical appraisal tool., Results: Fifty-one studies were included: 57% (29/51) were rated as 'low' quality, 31% (16/51) as 'moderate' and 12% (6/51) as 'high-moderate'. Most evidence (84%, 43/51) was from high-income countries. A total of 47% (24/51) of studies reported reductions in presentation frequency, including all six 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 three higher-quality studies including study observation months from 2021 reported reductions in self-harm presentations. Evidence from 2021 suggests increased numbers of presentations among adolescents, particularly girls., Conclusions: Sustained reductions in numbers of self-harm presentations were seen into the first half of 2021, although this evidence is based on a relatively small number of higher-quality studies. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries is lacking. Increased numbers of presentations among adolescents, particularly girls, into 2021 is concerning. Findings may reflect changes in thresholds for help-seeking, use of alternative sources of support and variable effects of the pandemic across groups.

Introduction: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics., Methods and Analysis: This is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost-consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RL, SJ, AJ and AE are members of the Welsh Government COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group. AJ is also co-chair of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advising the UK government. SJ is also a member of the Welsh Government Testing Technical Advisory Group and Cardiff University COVID Strategic Advisory Board., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Prevalence estimates of COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have ranged from 1% to over 60% in the general population. Individuals with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19-related PTSD but this has received inadequate attention., Methods: Participants were 1571 adults with lived experience of psychiatric disorder who took part in a longitudinal study of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. PTSD was assessed by the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) anchored to the participant's most troubling COVID-19-related experiencevent. Factors hypothesised to be associated with traumatic stress symptoms were investigated by linear regression., Results: 40.10% of participants perceived some aspect of the pandemic as traumatic. 5.28% reported an ICD-11 PTSD qualifying COVID-19 related traumatic exposure and 0.83% met criteria for probable ICD-11 COVID-19-related PTSD. Traumatic stress symptoms were associated with younger age, lower income, lower social support, and financial worries, and lived experience of PTSD/complex PTSD. Depression and anxiety measured in June 2020 predicted traumatic stress symptoms at follow-up approximately 20 weeks later in November 2020., Conclusions: We did not find evidence of widespread COVID-19-related PTSD among individuals with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder. There is a need for future research to derive valid prevalence estimates of COVID-19-related PTSD., (© The Authors. Depression and Anxiety published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There has been substantial discussion as to whether the mental health and socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic might impact suicide rates. Although India accounts for the largest proportion of global suicides, the early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide rates in this country are unknown., Methods: National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data were used to calculate annual suicide rates for the period 2010-2020, stratified by sex and state. Rate Ratios (RRs) stratified by sex and state were calculated to estimate the extent of change in suicide rates., Results: Suicide rates in India generally showed a decreasing trend from 2010 until 2017, with the trend reversing after this period, particularly for males. Among males and females, the highest increase post 2017 was noted in 2020 (compared to 2017) (males: RR = 1.18 95% UI 1.17-1.19; females: RR = 1.05 95% UI 1.03-1.06)., Limitation: Suicide rates based on the NCRB data might be an underestimation of the true suicide rates., Conclusion: Suicide rates in India increased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and although the increase in suicide rates, especially among males, predates the pandemic, the increase in suicide rates was highest in 2020, compared to increases in previous years. Further research is warranted to understand the potential ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide in India., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Google Trends data are increasingly used by researchers as an indicator of population mental health, but few studies have investigated the validity of this approach during a public health emergency., Methods: Relative search volumes (RSV) for the topics depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicide, suicidal ideation, loneliness, and abuse were obtained from Google Trends. We used graphical and time-series approaches to compare daily trends in searches for these topics against population measures of these outcomes recorded using validated self-report scales (PHQ-9; GAD-7; UCLA-3) in a weekly survey (n = ~70,000) of the impact COVID-19 on psychological and social experiences in the UK population (21/03/2020 to 21/08/ 2020)., Results: Self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, self-harm/suicidal ideation, self-harm, loneliness and abuse decreased during the period studied. There was no evidence of an association between self-reported anxiety, self-harm, abuse and RSV on Google Trends. Trends in Google topic RSV for depression and suicidal ideation were inversely associated with self-reports of these outcomes (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). However, there was statistical and graphical evidence that self-report and Google searches for loneliness (p < 0.001) tracked one another., Limitations: No age/sex breakdown of Google Trends data available. Survey respondents were not representative of the UK population and no pre-pandemic data were available., Conclusion: Google Trends data do not appear to be a useful indicator of changing levels of population mental health during a public health emergency, but may have some value as an indicator of loneliness., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: The WHO declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in the grip of the COVID-19. To date, more than 211 730 035 million confirmed cases and more than 4 430 697 million people have died. While controlling the virus and implementing vaccines are the main priorities, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be longer term and are less obvious than the physical health ones. Lockdown restrictions, physical distancing, social isolation, as well as the loss of a loved one, working in a frontline capacity and loss of economic security may have negative effects on and increase the mental health challenges in populations around the world. There is a major demand for long-term research examining the mental health experiences and needs of people in order to design adequate policies and interventions for sustained action to respond to individual and population mental health needs both during and after the pandemic., Methods and Analysis: This repeated cross-sectional mixed-method study conducts regular self-administered representative surveys, and targeted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with adults in the UK, as well as validation of gathered evidence through citizens' juries for contextualisation (for the UK as a whole and for its four devolved nations) to ensure that emerging mental health problems are identified early on and are properly understood, and that appropriate policies and interventions are developed and implemented across the UK and within devolved contexts. STATA and NVIVO will be used to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval for this study has been granted by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge, UK (PRE 2020.050) and by the Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee of De Montfort University, UK (REF 422991). While unlikely, participants completing the self-administered surveys or participating in the virtual focus groups, semi-structured interviews and citizens' juries might experience distress triggered by questions or conversations. However, appropriate mitigating measures have been adopted and signposting to services and helplines will be available at all times. Furthermore, a dedicated member of staff will also be at hand to debrief following participation in the research and personalised thank-you notes will be sent to everyone taking part in the qualitative research.Study findings will be disseminated in scientific journals, at research conferences, local research symposia and seminars. Evidence-based open access briefings, articles and reports will be available on our study website for everyone to access. Rapid policy briefings targeting issues emerging from the data will also be disseminated to inform policy and practice. These briefings will position the findings within UK public policy and devolved nations policy and socioeconomic contexts in order to develop specific, timely policy recommendations. Additional dissemination will be done through traditional and social media. Our data will be contextualised in view of existing policies, and changes over time as-and-when policies change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The mental health of the UK population declined at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sample surveys indicate that recovery began soon after. Using a probability sample, we tracked mental health during the pandemic to characterise mental health trajectories and identify predictors of deterioration., Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of five waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (a large, national, probability-based survey that has been collecting data continuously since January, 2009) from late April to early October, 2020 and pre-pandemic data taken from 2018-19. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We used latent class mixed models to identify discrete mental health trajectories and fixed-effects regression to identify predictors of change in mental health., Findings: Mental health was assessed in 19 763 adults (≥16 years; 11 477 [58·1%] women and 8287 [41·9%] men; 3453 [17·5%] participants from minority ethnic groups). Mean population mental health deteriorated with the onset of the pandemic and did not begin improving until July, 2020. Latent class analysis identified five distinct mental health trajectories up to October 2020. Most individuals in the population had either consistently good (7437 [39·3%] participants) or consistently very good (7623 [37·5%] participants) mental health across the first 6 months of the pandemic. A recovering group (1727 [12·0%] participants) showed worsened mental health during the initial shock of the pandemic and then returned to around pre-pandemic levels of mental health by October, 2020. The two remaining groups were characterised by poor mental health throughout the observation period; for one group, (523 [4·1%] participants) there was an initial worsening in mental health that was sustained with highly elevated scores. The other group (1011 [7·0%] participants) had little initial acute deterioration in their mental health, but reported a steady and sustained decline in mental health over time. These last two groups were more likely to have pre-existing mental or physical ill-health, to live in deprived neighbourhoods, and be of Asian, Black or mixed ethnicity. Infection with SARS-CoV-2, local lockdown, and financial difficulties all predicted a subsequent deterioration in mental health., Interpretation: Between April and October 2020, the mental health of most UK adults remained resilient or returned to pre-pandemic levels. Around one in nine individuals had deteriorating or consistently poor mental health. People living in areas affected by lockdown, struggling financially, with pre-existing conditions, or infection with SARS-CoV-2 might benefit most from early intervention., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MH reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative, outside the submitted work. SLH reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, grants from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), grants from Wellcome Trust, grants from the Medical Research Council, and grants from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, outside the submitted work; is a member of the following advisory groups: ethnic inequalities in health care among people with multiple conditions (University of Sussex), Advisory Board NHS Race and Health Observatory, Co-Chair Academic Reference Group and Board Member The Royal Foundation, Mental Health Research Group NHS England and NHS Improvement, The Mental Health Equalities Data Quality and Research Subgroup NHS England and NHS Improvement, Patient and Carers Race Equalities Framework Steering Group NHS England and NHS Improvement, Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce Health Education England, Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup Maudsley Learning, Maudsley Learning Advisory Board South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), Independent Advisory Groups, the SLaM Partnership Group, Lambeth Public Health, Serious Youth Violence Public Health Task and Finish Group Thrive London, Thrive London Advisory Board Black Thrive, Black Thrive Advisory Board NHS England and NHS Improvement, The Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup Commissions: Welsh Government's Race Equality Plan; and contributed to the evidence review for Health and Social Care and Employment and Income policy areas. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is having profound mental health consequences for many people. Concerns have been expressed that, at their most extreme, these consequences could manifest as increased suicide rates. We aimed to assess the early effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide rates around the world., Methods: We sourced real-time suicide data from countries or areas within countries through a systematic internet search and recourse to our networks and the published literature. Between Sept 1 and Nov 1, 2020, we searched the official websites of these countries' ministries of health, police agencies, and government-run statistics agencies or equivalents, using the translated search terms "suicide" and "cause of death", before broadening the search in an attempt to identify data through other public sources. Data were included from a given country or area if they came from an official government source and were available at a monthly level from at least Jan 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020. Our internet searches were restricted to countries with more than 3 million residents for pragmatic reasons, but we relaxed this rule for countries identified through the literature and our networks. Areas within countries could also be included with populations of less than 3 million. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to model the trend in monthly suicides before COVID-19 (from at least Jan 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020) in each country or area within a country, comparing the expected number of suicides derived from the model with the observed number of suicides in the early months of the pandemic (from April 1 to July 31, 2020, in the primary analysis)., Findings: We sourced data from 21 countries (16 high-income and five upper-middle-income countries), including whole-country data in ten countries and data for various areas in 11 countries). Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas: New South Wales, Australia (RR 0·81 [95% CI 0·72-0·91]); Alberta, Canada (0·80 [0·68-0·93]); British Columbia, Canada (0·76 [0·66-0·87]); Chile (0·85 [0·78-0·94]); Leipzig, Germany (0·49 [0·32-0·74]); Japan (0·94 [0·91-0·96]); New Zealand (0·79 [0·68-0·91]); South Korea (0·94 [0·92-0·97]); California, USA (0·90 [0·85-0·95]); Illinois (Cook County), USA (0·79 [0·67-0·93]); Texas (four counties), USA (0·82 [0·68-0·98]); and Ecuador (0·74 [0·67-0·82])., Interpretation: This is the first study to examine suicides occurring in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in multiple countries. In high-income and upper-middle-income countries, suicide numbers have remained largely unchanged or declined in the early months of the pandemic compared with the expected levels based on the pre-pandemic period. We need to remain vigilant and be poised to respond if the situation changes as the longer-term mental health and economic effects of the pandemic unfold., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Covid-status certification - certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 - has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime., Method: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity., Results: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing., Conclusions: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 - outside of the context of international travel - has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

Objectives: To investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in Spring 2020., Design: A regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity., Setting and Participants: Mental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers., Outcome Measures: Daily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites., Results: Pooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect., Conclusions: MH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RC consults for Campden Instruments Ltd. and receives royalties from Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Enterprise and Routledge. DB reports royalties from Wiley publishers. AC reports research funding from Angelini Pharma and personal fees from INCiPiT, CARIPLO Foundation and Angelini Pharma. AM reports research funding from The Sackler Trust and personal fees from Janssen and Illumina. PP reports research funding from Novo Nordisk and royalties from John Wiley & Sons. SR reports education support from Janssen, Otsuka and Lundbeck. RS reports research support from Janssen, GSK and Takeda and royalties from Oxford University Press., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To estimate the proportion of ethnic inequalities explained by living in a multi-generational household., Design: Causal mediation analysis., Setting: Retrospective data from the 2011 Census linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (2017-2019) and death registration data (up to 30 November 2020)., Participants: Adults aged 65 years or over living in private households in England from 2 March 2020 until 30 November 2020 (n=10,078,568)., Main Outcome Measures: Hazard ratios were estimated for COVID-19 death for people living in a multi-generational household compared with people living with another older adult, adjusting for geographic factors, socioeconomic characteristics and pre-pandemic health., Results: Living in a multi-generational household was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. After adjusting for confounding factors, the hazard ratios for living in a multi-generational household with dependent children were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30) and 1.21 (95% CI 1.06-1.38) for elderly men and women. The hazard ratios for living in a multi-generational household without dependent children were 1.07 (95% CI 1.01-1.13) for elderly men and 1.17 (95% CI 1.07-1.25) for elderly women. Living in a multi-generational household explained about 11% of the elevated risk of COVID-19 death among elderly women from South Asian background, but very little for South Asian men or people in other ethnic minority groups., Conclusion: Elderly adults living with younger people are at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality, and this is a contributing factor to the excess risk experienced by older South Asian women compared to White women. Relevant public health interventions should be directed at communities where such multi-generational households are highly prevalent.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic increased public use of digital mental health technologies. However, little is known about changes in user engagement with these platforms during the pandemic. This study aims to assess engagement changes with a digital mental healthcare service during COVID-19. Methods: A cohort study based on routinely collected service usage data from a digital mental health support service in the United Kingdom. Returning users aged 14-25 years that interacted for a maximum of two months were included. The study population was divided into pre-COVID and COVID cohorts. Demographic and usage information between cohorts were compared and usage clusters were identified within each cohort. Differences were tested using Chi-squared, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and logit regressions. Results: Of the 624,103 users who joined the service between May 1, 2019, and October 1, 2021, 18,889 (32.81%) met the inclusion criteria: 5,048 in the pre-COVID cohort and 13,841 in the COVID cohort. The COVID cohort wrote more journals; maintained the same focus on messaging practitioners, posting discussions, commenting on posts, and having booked chats; and engaged less in writing journals, setting personal goals, posting articles, and having ad-hoc chats. Four usage profiles were identified in both cohorts: one relatively disengaged, one focused on contacting practitioners through chats/messages, and two broadly interested in writing discussions and comments within the digital community. Despite their broad similarities, usage patterns also exhibited differences between cohorts. For example, all four clusters had over 70% of users attempting to have ad-hoc chats with practitioners in the pre-COVID cohort, compared to one out of four clusters in the COVID cohort. Overall, engagement change patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic were not equal across clusters. Sensitivity analysis revealed varying strength of these defined clusters. Results: Of the 624,103 users who joined the service between May 1, 2019, and October 1, 2021, 18,889 (32.81%) met the inclusion criteria: 5,048 in the pre-COVID cohort and 13,841 in the COVID cohort. The COVID cohort wrote more journals; maintained the same focus on messaging practitioners, posting discussions, commenting on posts, and having booked chats; and engaged less in writing journals, setting personal goals, posting articles, and having ad-hoc chats. Four usage profiles were identified in both cohorts: one relatively disengaged, one focused on contacting practitioners through chats/messages, and two broadly interested in writing discussions and comments within the digital community. Despite their broad similarities, usage patterns also exhibited differences between cohorts. For example, all four clusters had over 70% of users attempting to have ad-hoc chats with practitioners in the pre-COVID cohort, compared to one out of four clusters in the COVID cohort. Overall, engagement change patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic were not equal across clusters. Sensitivity analysis revealed varying strength of these defined clusters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to assess the trajectory of wellbeing and psychological distress in a UK sample by comparing data taken from the first and second UK lockdowns. Wellbeing (indexed via the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) and psychological distress (indexed via the K10) were measured in two surveys in large online samples from Wales, UK. The first survey (n = 12,989) took place 11–16 weeks into the first UK lockdown and the second survey (n = 10,428) took place 4–11 weeks into the second UK lockdown. Levels of wellbeing were lower in the second survey compared to the first survey, which were already low compared to pre-pandemic data (2019). Clinically significant levels of psychological distress were found in 40.4% of participants in the second survey, representing a 9.8% increase in prevalence from the first survey. Poorer mental health was found in women, younger adults, and those from deprived areas. The greatest reduction in mental health was found in the youngest age group (16-24 years old). The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken to curb its spread continue to negatively impact the wellbeing of the UK population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]