Search

The need for consultation-liaison psychiatry on COVID-19 wards has substantially increased since the start of the pandemic. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to summarize the characteristics of patients admitted to the post-COVID-19 ward of the American University of Beirut Medical Center who received a psychiatric consultation. We collected relevant sociodemographic and medical data, information about past psychiatric history, psychiatry consultation details, hospital course, and disposition outcome. We also conducted chi-square and binary logistic regression analyses to assess the association between the different variables and disposition outcome. A total of 52 patients (mean age 57.33 years; equal gender distribution) were seen by the psychiatry consult-liaison team. Most had medical comorbidities and 21.2% required intubation. The most prevalent psychiatric diagnoses were delirium (30.8%), major depressive episode (15.4%), and other anxiety disorder (15.4%). Pharmacological management was implemented in 90.4% of cases and mainly included second-generation antipsychotics (36.5%). Non-pharmacological interventions consisted of those related to delirium and therapy for anxiety. Only intubation was significantly associated with disposition outcome (p = 0.004). This study highlights the various psychiatric themes emerging during the acute and post-acute periods of hospitalization for COVID-19. Hospitalized individuals recovering from the infection should be diligently screened and referred to the psychiatry consultation-liaison team to ensure the implementation of appropriate interventions., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The global crisis of COVID-19 and its consequential strict public health measures placed around the world have impacted mental health. New scales and tools have been developed to measure these mental health effects. This narrative review assesses the psychometric properties of these scales and tools and methodological aspects of their development., Methods: PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from 15 May 2020 to 15 August 2020. This search used three groups of terms ("tool" OR "scale" AND "mental" OR "psychological"; AND "COVID-19" OR "coronavirus"). The identified scales were further evaluated for their psychometric properties and methodological aspects of their development., Results: Though the studies developing these scales ( n = 12) have demonstrated their robust psychometric properties, some methodological concerns are noteworthy. Most of the scales were validated using internet-based surveys, and detailed descriptions of the mode of administration, sampling process, response rates, and augmentation strategies were missing., Conclusions: The heterogeneous and inadequate reporting of methods adopted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the identified scales can limit their utility in clinical and research settings. We suggest developing guidelines and checklists to improve the design and testing, and result in reporting of online-administered scales to assess the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The emergence of mental health (MH) problems during a pandemic is extremely common, though difficult to address due to the complexities of pandemics and the scarcity of evidence about the epidemiology of pandemic-related MH problems and the potential interventions to tackle them. Little attention has been devoted so far to this topic from policymakers, stakeholders and researchers, resulting in a lack of replicable, scalable and applicable frameworks to help plan, develop and deliver MH care during pandemics. As a response, we have attempted to develop a conceptual framework (CF) that could guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of MH interventions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This CF was developed by early career psychiatrists from 16 countries that cover all the WHO regions. Their opinions were elicited via a semi-structured questionnaire. They were asked to provide their views about the current MH situation in their countries and to elaborate on existing 'myths' and misinformation. They were also asked to name the resources available and to propose solutions and approaches to provide accessible and affordable care. The CF was prepared based on the extant literature and the views discussed in this group; it illustrates the epidemiology of MH problems, preparedness plans, stage-specific plans or innovative solutions, opportunities to integrate those plans and possible outcomes at policy level. This CF can serve as a technical guide for future research regarding pandemics. It can be used to monitor trends and to optimize efforts, and to develop evidence based MH interventions. Still, further research focusing on the individual components of this framework is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)