Search

BackgroundAlthough the military is considered to be a stressful occupation, there are remarkably few studies that compare the prevalence of common mental disorder (CMD) between the military and the general population. This study examined the prevalence of probable CMD in a serving UK military sample compared to a general population sample of employed individuals.MethodData for the general population was from the 2003 and 2008 collections for the Health Survey for England (HSE) and for the serving military from phases 1 (2004–2006) and 2 (2007–2009) of the King's Centre for Military Health Research (KCMHR) cohort study. Probable CMD was assessed by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The datasets were appended to calculate the odds of CMD in the military compared to the general population.ResultsThe odds of probable CMD was approximately double in the military, when comparing phase 1 of the military study to the 2003 HSE [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1–2.7], and phase 2 to the 2008 HSE (OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.0–2.6) after adjustment for sex, age, social class, education and marital status.ConclusionsServing military personnel are more likely to endorse symptoms of CMD compared to those selected from a general population study as employed in other occupations, even after accounting for demographic characteristics. This difference may be partly explained by the context of the military study, with evidence from previous research for higher reports of symptoms from the GHQ in occupational compared to population studies, in addition to the role of predisposing characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns have been raised about the quantity and quality of research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly related to the mental health and wellbeing of health care workers (HCWs). For understanding the volume, source, methodological rigour and degree of overlap in COVID-19, studies were conducted among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK). Mixed methods approach, literature review and audit. First, a literature review of published research studies and second, an audit of studies HCWs have been invited to complete. For the literature review, we searched Medline, PsycINFO and Nexis, webpages of three medical organisations (Royal Society of Medicine, Royal College of Nursing and British Medical Association), and the YouGov website. For the audit, a non-random purposive sample of six HCWs from different London NHS Trusts reviewed email, WhatsApp and SMS messages they received for study invitations. The literature review identified 27 studies; the audit identified 70 study invitations. Studies identified by the literature review were largely of poor methodological rigour: only eight studies (30%) provided response rate, one study (4%) reported having ethical approval, and one study (4%) reported funding details. There was substantial overlap in the topics measured. In the audit, volunteers received a median of 12 invitations. The largest number of study invitations were for national surveys (n = 23), followed by local surveys (n = 16) and research surveys (n = 8). HCWs have been asked to complete numerous surveys that frequently have methodological shortcomings and overlapping aims. Many studies do not follow scientific good-practice and generate questionable, non-generalisable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, concern has been raised about suicide risk among healthcare workers (HCWs). We investigated the incidence risk and prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviour (STB), and their relationship with occupational risk factors, among National Health Service HCWs in England between April 2020 and August 2021., Methods: In this longitudinal study, we analysed online survey data completed by 22,501 HCWs from 17 NHS Trusts at baseline (Time 1) and six months (Time 2). The primary outcome measures were suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury. We used logistic regression to investigate the relationship between these outcomes and demographic characteristics and occupational factors. Results were stratified by occupational role (clinical/non-clinical)., Results: Time 1 and Time 2 surveys were completed by 12,514 and 7,160 HCWs, respectively. At baseline, 10.8% (95% CI = 10.1%, 11.6%) of participants reported having experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous two months, whilst 2.1% (95% CI = 1.8%, 2.5%) of participants reported having attempted suicide over the same period. Among HCWs who had not experienced suicidal thoughts at baseline (and who completed the Time 2 survey), 11.3% (95%CI = 10.4%, 12.3%) reported such thoughts six months later. Six months after baseline, 3.9% (95% CI = 3.4%, 4.4%) of HCWs reported attempting suicide for the first time. Exposure to potentially morally injurious events, lack of confidence about raising safety concerns and these concerns being addressed, feeling unsupported by managers, and providing a reduced standard of care were all associated with increased suicidal ideation among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. At six months, among clinicians, a lack of confidence about safety concerns being addressed, independently predicted suicidal ideation., Conclusion: Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers could be reduced by improving managerial support and enhancing the ability of staff to raise safety concerns., Competing Interests: MH, RR, and SW are senior NIHR Investigators. SW has received speaker fees from Swiss Re for two webinars on the epidemiological impact of COVID 19 pandemic on mental health. SW is a Non Executive Director of NHS-England. RR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; & grants from NIHR outside the submitted work MH reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL Partners rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, and an NIHR Advanced Fellowship [ref: NIHR 300592] during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; he is the managing director of March on Stress Ltd which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations. NG is not aware if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts, as he is not involved in commissioning specific pieces of work. DL is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ARC North Thames. PM reports grants from NIHR and the Cassell Hospital Charitable Trust outside the submitted work. PM is part-funded by the NIHR ARC West. PP and PM report a grant from Bristol and Weston Hospitals Charity outside the submitted work. PP was funded by the Medical Research Council Addiction Research Clinical Training programme (MR/N00616X/1). Other authors report no competing interests. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Padmanathan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated., Aims: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the 'Foundations' application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity., Method: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD)., Results: Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34-53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = -1.39, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported., Conclusions: The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) HCWs, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, and investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available., Methods and Analysis: All staff, students and volunteers working in the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow-up surveys sent 6 months and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational/organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), and constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a sample of HCWs. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are collected via Qualtrics online survey software, pseudonymised and held on secure university servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services if participants feel they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in further components. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts, and via academic publications in due course., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH, RoR and SW are senior NIHR Investigators. This paper represents independent research part-funded by the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre Trust and King’s College London (MH, SW, SS). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. RoR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from University College London (UCL) (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; and grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL Partners rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; and is the managing director of March on Stress Ltd which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations, although it is not clear if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts or not as NG is not directly involved in commissioning specific pieces of work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Staff working in intensive care units (ICUs) have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic which have the potential to adversely affect their mental health., Aims: To identify the rates of probable mental health disorder in staff working in ICUs in nine English hospitals during June and July 2020., Methods: An anonymized brief web-based survey comprising standardized questionnaires examining depression, anxiety symptoms, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), well-being and alcohol use was administered to staff., Results: Seven hundred and nine participants completed the surveys comprising 291 (41%) doctors, 344 (49%) nurses and 74 (10%) other healthcare staff. Over half (59%) reported good well-being; however, 45% met the threshold for probable clinical significance on at least one of the following measures: severe depression (6%), PTSD (40%), severe anxiety (11%) or problem drinking (7%). Thirteen per cent of respondents reported frequent thoughts of being better off dead, or of hurting themselves in the past 2 weeks. Within the sample used in this study, we found that doctors reported better mental health than nurses across a range of measures., Conclusions: We found substantial rates of probable mental health disorders, and thoughts of self-harm, amongst ICU staff; these difficulties were especially prevalent in nurses. Whilst further work is needed to better understand the real level of clinical need amongst ICU staff, these results indicate the need for a national strategy to protect the mental health, and decrease the risk of functional impairment, of ICU staff whilst they carry out their essential work during COVID-19., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and disabling condition that may lead to functional impairment and reduced productivity. Psychological interventions have been shown to be effective in its management. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a range of interventions for adults with PTSD., Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 10 interventions and no treatment for adults with PTSD, from the perspective of the National Health Service and personal social services in England. Effectiveness data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published sources, supplemented by expert opinion., Results: Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) appeared to be the most cost-effective intervention for adults with PTSD (with a probability of 0.34 amongst the 11 evaluated options at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/QALY), followed by combined somatic/cognitive therapies, self-help with support, psychoeducation, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), self-help without support, non-TF-CBT and combined TF-CBT/SSRIs. Counselling appeared to be less cost-effective than no treatment. TF-CBT had the largest evidence base., Conclusions: A number of interventions appear to be cost-effective for the management of PTSD in adults. EMDR appears to be the most cost-effective amongst them. TF-CBT has the largest evidence base. There remains a need for well-conducted studies that examine the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of a range of treatments for adults with PTSD., Competing Interests: IM, OMV, SS and SP received support from the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health and the National Guideline Alliance, which were in receipt of funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), for the submitted work. CD, SD and NJW received support from the NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit, University of Bristol, with funding from the Centre for Clinical Practice (NICE). SD and NJW were co-applicants on a grant (unrelated to this work) from the MRC Methodology Research Programme which included an MRC Industry Collaboration Agreement with Pfizer Ltd, who part-funded a researcher to work on statistical methodology in a project underlated to this work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. GB is a coinvestigator on a NIHR RfPB grant, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy in Early Psychosis (EYES): A feasibility randomised controlled trial. NGreenberg is the Royal College of Psychiatrists Lead for Military and Veterans’ Health and is a trustee of two military charities. He is also a senior researcher with King’s College London working on a number of military mental health r studies. NGrey is a member of the Wellcome Trust Anxiety Disorders Group developing, testing and disseminating Cognitive Therapy for PTSD (CT-PTSD), a trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT). He has published papers and book chapters on CT-PTSD, and facilitates teaching workshops for which payment is received. As editor, he receives royalties from sales of a trauma book, A Casebook of Cognitive Therapy for Traumatic Stress Reactions. CK is Medical Director of the Helen Bamber Foundation (a human rights charity) and refugee and asylum mental health lead for the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He writes expert psychiatric reports in the context of asylum mental health. JL is NHS England Medical Director for Military and Veterans Health. SP receives funding from NICE for the development of clinical guidelines and is also supported by the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Background: Disasters are becoming more prevalent across the world and people are frequently exposed to them as part of their occupational groups. It is important for organisations to understand how best to support employees who have experienced a trauma such as a disaster. The purpose of this study was to explore employees' perceptions of workplace support and help-seeking in the context of a disaster., Methods: Forty employees in England took part in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to extract recurring themes from the data., Results: Participants reported both positive and negative psychological outcomes of experiencing a disaster or emergency at work. Most had little training in how to prepare for, and cope with, the psychological impact. They perceived stigma around mental health and treatment for psychological issues which often made them reluctant to seek help. Many reported that the psychological support available in the workplace was insufficient and tended to be reactive rather than proactive. Interpersonal relationships at work were viewed as being important sources of support, particularly support from managers. Participants suggested that psychosocial training in the workplace could be beneficial in providing education about mental health, encouraging supportive workplace relationships, and developing listening skills and empathy., Conclusions: Organisations can take steps to reduce the psychological impact of disasters on employees. This could be done through provision of training workshops incorporating mental health education to reduce stigma, and team-building exercises to encourage supportive workplace relationships.

Following several terrorist attacks in 2015 and 2016, a national program was set up to identify and support residents of England whose mental health had been affected. We report the outcomes of the program's screening and assessment components. Questionnaires and information about the program were mailed to 483 people and 49 families known to the police. Individuals who screened positive on an assessment for posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, increased smoking, or problematic alcohol consumption were offered clinical assessment and referred to an appropriate National Health Service (NHS) service, if required. Of the 195 eligible people who returned our questionnaires, 179 (91.8%) screened positive on one or more measure. Following clinical assessment, 78 adults and three children were referred for treatment. The program was broadly successful in facilitating access to services. However, most people who had been directly exposed to the attacks did not participate and data protection issues limited communication with those who were affected. Further discussion of data protection concerns may help future programs operate more efficiently., (© 2018 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.)

Objectives: To assess public attitudes towards data sharing to facilitate a mental health screening programme for people caught up in a mass casualty incident., Design: Two, identical, cross-sectional, online surveys, using quotas to ensure demographic representativeness of people aged 18-65 years in England. Participants were randomly allocated to consider a scenario in which they witness a terrorism-related radiation incident or mass shooting, after which a police officer records their contact details., Setting: Participants were drawn from an online panel maintained by a market research company. Surveys were conducted before and immediately after a series of terrorist attacks and a large tower block fire occurred in England., Participants: One thousand people aged 18-65 years participated in each survey., Main Outcome Measures: Three questions asking participants if it would be acceptable for police to share their contact details, without asking first, with 'a health-related government organisation, so they can send you a questionnaire to find out if you might benefit from extra care or support', 'a specialist NHS team, to provide you with information about ways to get support for any physical or mental health issues' and 'your GP, so they can check how you are doing'., Results: A minority of participants reported that it would be definitely not acceptable for their details to be shared with the government organisation (n=259, 13.0%), the National Health Service (NHS) (n=141, 7.1%) and their general practitioner (GP) (n=166, 8.3%). There was a small, but significant increase in acceptability for the radiation incident compared with the mass shooting. No major differences were observed between the preincident and postincident surveys., Conclusions: Although most people believe it is acceptable for their details to be shared in order to facilitate a mental health response to a major incident, care must be taken to communicate with those affected about how their information will be used., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Behavioural Activation (BA) is an evidence-based psychological treatment for depression based on behavioural theory. However, in common with other talking therapies, there is limited evidence about occupational factors related to treatment. This is an important gap in the research given the emphasis placed on employment considerations in recent service initiatives., Aim: A service evaluation to investigate the clinical and fitness to work outcomes of a group BA programme for serving military personnel., Method: 46 patients experiencing moderate to severe depression attended a 12-session Military Behavioural Activation and Rehabilitation Course (MBARC). The primary outcomes were the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a self-report measure of depression and the patient's medical employability category., Results: Clinical and statistically significant changes were found on the PHQ-9 between pre-course and 3-month follow-up. Pretreatment 3 patients (6.5%) were psychologically fit to deploy on full operational duties in their primary role; this increased to 25 (56.8%) and 29 (65.9%) at 3 and 6-months respectively., Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that MBARC is a clinically and occupationally effective treatment for depression in military personnel. Further research is required to identify if BA delivered in a group setting would be effective in non-military settings and whether treatment benefits are maintained in the longer term.

Background: A major incident involving multiple fatalities occurred in Cumbria, England on 2 June 2010. The Cumbrian Constabulary deployed an organizational peer support response for personnel involved known as trauma risk management (TRiM)., Aims: To examine data routinely gathered during the TRiM process to evaluate the relationship of the intervention to sickness absence., Methods: Using incident databases, details were gathered regarding exposure to the murders and type of TRiM intervention, including an assessment of the psychological risk to the individual of developing a trauma-related mental health problem. Sociodemographic information was collated by the occupational health department. Cumulative sickness absence data in the 2 months following the murders were used as a proxy for mental health status., Results: A total of 717 police officers and civilian support staff were identified. High levels of traumatic exposure were associated with subsequent receipt of a TRiM intervention. The majority of psychological risk indices reduced between the initial and subsequent evaluation. Greater traumatic exposure was associated with longer sickness absence lengths. Engagement in the TRiM process was associated with a reduction in sickness absence especially in more junior ranks., Conclusions: In this study, we found that TRiM deployed within a police force responding to a major event offered a way of structuring a response for those involved. Our data suggest that TRiM may offer a way of assessing psychological risk so that officers can be offered early supportive interventions. Our data suggest that TRiM may help to ameliorate some of the negative effects of high trauma exposure.

Background: The health and well-being of military veterans has recently generated much media and political interest. Estimating the current and future size of the veteran population is important to the planning and allocation of veteran support services., Methods: Data from a 2007 nationally representative residential survey of England (the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey) were extrapolated to the whole population to estimate the number of veterans currently residing in private households in England. This population was projected forward in two ten-year blocks up to 2027 using a current life table., Results: It was estimated that in 2007, 3,771,534 (95% CI: 2,986,315-4,910,205) veterans were living in residential households in England. By 2027, this figure was predicted to decline by 50.4 per cent, mainly due to large reductions in the number of veterans in the older age groups (65-74 and 75+ years)., Conclusion: Approximately three to five million veterans are currently estimated to be living in the community in England. As the proportion of National Service veterans reduces with time, the veteran population is expected to halve over the next 20 years.

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is used by police officers to detain persons who they feel might be suffering with mental disorder until a formal Mental Health Act assessment can be undertaken. Previous studies have shown that the outcomes of these assessments result in remarkably different rates of subsequent hospital admissions. Within a rural setting it has also been shown that the rate of use of Section 136 varies considerably. This study examines the use of Section 136 within a family of eight police forces that have been matched to ensure that they cover similar populations. The results show that there are considerable variations in the use of Section 136, with the Devon and Cornwall region using the section over two and a half times the mean for the group. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.