RESUMEN
Objectives: This study presents the process evaluation of an effective stepped-care programme of eHealth interventions (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress [DWM] and Problem Management Plus [PM+]) for healthcare workers (HCWs) with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs trial) conducted in Spain. The aim is to analyse the context in which the programme was delivered, assess key implementation outcomes and explore mechanisms of action. Methods: We used mixed methods. Quantitative data came from routine randomised control trial monitoring and structured observation, and qualitative data were collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with trial participants (n = 12) and decision-makers (n = 7) and a focus group discussion with intervention providers (n = 7). We conducted a descriptive analysis of quantitative data using R software and a thematic analysis of qualitative data using NVivo. Results: Context analysis revealed implementation barriers, including unrealistic expectations of participants about the programme and mental health-related stigma. The flexibility of interventions and the opportunity for mental health actions were enabling factors. Implementation outcomes showed that the trial was feasible, appropriate and timely, and that the intervention was delivered with minimal protocol deviations and good acceptance among participants. Mechanisms of action included confidence in the positive effect of the intervention, a good therapeutic relationship and specific intervention components. Conclusions: These results supplement the outcome evaluation and can help inform large-scale implementation in similar settings. Specific recommendations include increasing mental health awareness and reducing stigma in the implementation setting, including a short orientation session and ensuring flexibility in schedules and peer support. Trial registration number: NCT04980326.
RESUMEN
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for the treatment of depression is widely followed and has international influence. According to these guidelines, antidepressant medications are recommended for moderate to severe depression. Nonetheless, antidepressants are increasingly prescribed, including for cases of subthreshold and mild depression. This may indicate that a proportion of depressed patients uses pharmacological interventions with unclear evidence-base, though other factors such as physical and mental health comorbidities need to be accounted for. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and trends of antidepressant prescriptions among community-dwelling adults diagnosed with depression according to NICE recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of PsycInfo, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases. Observational studies reporting on the prevalence of antidepressant treatments in UK adults diagnosed with depression were sought. Fifteen studies were included. The prevalence of antidepressants for depression treatment ranged from 30.8 to 95% and mainly concerned selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) among classes of antidepressant drugs. Little information about depression severity as well as comorbid conditions was reported. High prevalence rates of antidepressant drug use highlight the widespread adoption of pharmacological interventions, while also raising concerns about compliance with NICE guidelines. Careful assessment of depressive illness severity and comorbidities is needed to ensure the delivery of adequate care to people with depression. Systematic Review Registration Number (PROSPERO) CRD42023448152.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Long-term deterioration in the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) has been reported during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Determining the impact of COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates on the mental health of HCWs is essential to prepare for potential new pandemics. This study aimed to investigate the association of COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates with depressive symptoms over 2 years among HCWs in 20 countries during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a multi-country serial cross-sectional study using data from the first and second survey waves of the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) global study. The HEROES study prospectively collected data from HCWs at various health facilities. The target population included HCWs with both clinical and non-clinical roles. In most countries, healthcare centers were recruited based on convenience sampling. As an independent variable, daily COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates were calculated using confirmed cases and deaths reported by Johns Hopkins University. These rates represent the average for the 7 days preceding the participants' response date. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms, assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. A multilevel linear mixed model (LMM) was conducted to investigate the association of depressive symptoms with the average incidence and mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 32,223 responses from the participants who responded to all measures used in this study on either the first or second survey, and on both the first and second surveys in 20 countries were included in the analysis. The mean age was 40.1 (SD = 11.1), and 23,619 responses (73.3%) were from females. The 9323 responses (28.9%) were nurses and 9119 (28.3%) were physicians. LMM showed that the incidence rate was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms (coefficient = 0.008, standard error 0.003, p = 0.003). The mortality rate was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms (coefficient = 0.049, se = 0.020, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show an association between COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates with depressive symptoms among HCWs during the first 2 years of the outbreak in multiple countries. This study's findings indicate that additional mental health support for HCWs was needed when the COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates increase during and after the early phase of the pandemic, and these findings may apply to future pandemics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04352634.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Depresión , Personal de Salud , Humanos , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/psicología , Estudios Transversales , Personal de Salud/psicología , Depresión/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Incidencia , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Suicide is one of the main external causes of death worldwide. People who have already attempted suicide are at high risk of new suicidal behavior. However, there is a lack of information on the risk factors that facilitate the appearance of reattempts. The aim of this study was to calculate the risk of suicide reattempt in the presence of suicidal history and psychosocial risk factors and to estimate the effect of each individual risk factor. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA-2020 guidelines. Studies on suicide reattempt that measured risk factors were searched from inception to 2022. The risk factors studied were those directly related to suicide history: history of suicide prior to the index attempt, and those that mediate the transition from suicidal ideation to attempt (alcohol or drug misuse, impulsivity, trauma, and non-suicidal self-injury). RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 11 905 articles. Of these, 34 articles were selected for this meta-analysis, jointly presenting 52 different effect sizes. The pooled effect size across the risk factors was significant (OR 2.16). Reattempt risk may be increased in presence of any of the following risk factors: previous history, active suicidal ideation, trauma, alcohol misuse, and drug misuse. However, impulsivity, and non-suicidal self-injury did not show a significant effect on reattempt. CONCLUSION: Most of the risk factors traditionally associated with suicide are also relevant when talking about suicide reattempts. Knowing the traits that define reattempters can help develop better preventive and intervention plans.
Asunto(s)
Ideación Suicida , Intento de Suicidio , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Suicidio/estadística & datos numéricos , Suicidio/psicología , Intento de Suicidio/estadística & datos numéricos , Intento de Suicidio/psicologíaRESUMEN
Healthcare workers (HCWs) were at increased risk for mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic, with prior data suggesting women may be particularly vulnerable. Our global mental health study aimed to examine factors associated with gender differences in psychological distress and depressive symptoms among HCWs during COVID-19. Across 22 countries in South America, Europe, Asia and Africa, 32,410 HCWs participated in the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) study between March 2020 and February 2021. They completed the General Health Questionnaire-12, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and questions about pandemic-relevant exposures. Consistently across countries, women reported elevated mental health problems compared to men. Women also reported increased COVID-19-relevant stressors, including insufficient personal protective equipment and less support from colleagues, while men reported increased contact with COVID-19 patients. At the country level, HCWs in countries with higher gender inequality reported less mental health problems. Higher COVID-19 mortality rates were associated with increased psychological distress merely among women. Our findings suggest that among HCWs, women may have been disproportionately exposed to COVID-19-relevant stressors at the individual and country level. This highlights the importance of considering gender in emergency response efforts to safeguard women's well-being and ensure healthcare system preparedness during future public health crises.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with impaired cognitive function in adult life in the general population as well as in people living with schizophrenia (PLS). Research on cognitive function in PLS in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is, however, limited. The objectives of this study were to investigate the association between ACE types and various cognitive domains in a sample of PLS and matched medical controls, and to determine the moderating effect of group membership (PLS vs. medical controls) on these associations, in the South African setting. METHODS: Participants (n PLS = 520; n medical controls = 832) completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I), and the University of Pennsylvania Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PennCNB). An efficiency or speed score was used to assess performance across 9 cognitive domains. The association between exposure to different ACE types and 9 cognitive domains was examined using partial correlations and multiple linear regression models, adjusting for sex, age and education years. Finally, potential moderating effects of group membership (PLS vs. medical controls) on the association between ACEs and cognitive domains were tested. RESULTS: In the entire sample, emotional and physical abuse predicted worse performance on sensorimotor and emotion identification domains. Also, emotional abuse was negatively associated with motor function, physical abuse was negatively associated with spatial processing, and physical neglect was negatively associated with face memory and emotion identification. In contrast, emotional neglect was related to better performance on abstraction and mental flexibility. No moderating effect of group membership was found on any of these associations. CONCLUSION: Exposure to ACEs was associated with social and non-social cognition in adulthood, although the magnitude of these relationships was small and similar between PLS and matched medical controls. The nature of these associations differed across ACE subtype, suggesting the need for a nuanced approach to studying a range of mechanisms that may underlie different associations. However, a number of ACE subtypes were associated with worse performance on emotional identification, indicating that some underlying mechanisms may have more transversal impact. These findings contribute to the sparse body of literature on ACEs and cognition in PLS in LMIC.
Asunto(s)
Experiencias Adversas de la Infancia , Pruebas Psicológicas , Esquizofrenia , Autoinforme , Pueblo del Sur de África , Adulto , Humanos , Esquizofrenia/complicaciones , Esquizofrenia/diagnóstico , Estudios Transversales , CogniciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the mental health of international migrant workers (IMWs). IMWs experience multiple barriers to accessing mental health care. Two scalable interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) were adapted to address some of these barriers: Doing What Matters in times of stress (DWM), a guided self-help web application, and Problem Management Plus (PM +), a brief facilitator-led program to enhance coping skills. This study examines whether DWM and PM + remotely delivered as a stepped-care programme (DWM/PM +) is effective and cost-effective in reducing psychological distress, among Polish migrant workers with psychological distress living in the Netherlands. METHODS: The stepped-care DWM/PM + intervention will be tested in a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) among adult Polish migrant workers with self-reported psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15.9). Participants (n = 212) will be randomized into either the intervention group that receives DWM/PM + with psychological first aid (PFA) and care-as-usual (enhanced care-as-usual or eCAU), or into the control group that receives PFA and eCAU-only (1:1 allocation ratio). Baseline, 1-week post-DWM (week 7), 1-week post-PM + (week 13), and follow-up (week 21) self-reported assessments will be conducted. The primary outcome is psychological distress, assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Secondary outcomes are self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resilience, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. In a process evaluation, stakeholders' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DWM/PM + will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the first RCTs that combines two scalable, psychosocial WHO interventions into a stepped-care programme for migrant populations. If proven to be effective, this may bridge the mental health treatment gap IMWs experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register NL9630, 20/07/2021, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/27052.
Asunto(s)
Distrés Psicológico , Migrantes , Adulto , Humanos , Países Bajos , Polonia , Psicoterapia/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on population-wide mental health and well-being. Although people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may be especially vulnerable, they experience barriers in accessing mental health care. To overcome these barriers, the World Health Organization (WHO) designed two scalable psychosocial interventions, namely the web-based Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and the face-to-face Problem Management Plus (PM+), to help people manage stressful situations. Our study aims to test the effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among individuals experiencing unstable housing in France - a majority of whom are migrant or have sought asylum. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among persons with psychological distress and experiencing unstable housing, in comparison to enhanced care as usual (eCAU). Participants (N = 210) will be randomised to two parallel groups: eCAU or eCAU plus the stepped-care program. The main study outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). DISCUSSION: This randomised controlled trial will contribute to a better understanding of effective community-based scalable strategies that can help address the mental health needs of persons experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, whose needs are high yet who frequently have limited access to mental health care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this randomised trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05033210.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Salud Mental , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vivienda , Pandemias , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Although healthcare workers (HCWs) have reported mental health problems since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, they rarely use psychological support. Here, we described the use of psychological support among HCWs in Spain over the 2-year period following the initial pandemic outbreak and explore its association with workplace- and COVID-19-related factors measured at baseline, in 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study on HCWs working in Spain. We used an online survey to collect information on sociodemographic characteristics, depressive symptoms, workplace- and COVID-19-related variables, and the use of psychological support at three time points (2020, 2021, and 2022). Data was available for 296, 294, and 251 respondents, respectively at time points 1, 2, and 3. RESULTS: Participants had a median age of 43 years and were mostly females (n = 242, 82%). The percentage of HCWs using psychological support increased from 15% in 2020 to 23% in 2022. Roughly one in four HCWs who did not use psychological support reported symptoms compatible with major depressive disorder at follow up. Baseline predictors of psychological support were having to make decisions about patients' prioritisation (OR 5.59, 95% CI 2.47, 12.63) and probable depression (wave 2: OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06, 1.19; wave 3: OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04, 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is call for implementing mental health promotion and prevention strategies at the workplace, along with actions to reduce barriers for accessing psychological support.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastorno Depresivo Mayor , Femenino , Humanos , Adulto , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios Longitudinales , Intervención Psicosocial , Pandemias , Personal de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. FINDINGS: Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04980326.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Distrés Psicológico , Humanos , Femenino , Adulto , Masculino , Salud Mental , Pandemias , Personal de Salud/psicologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Migrantes , Adulto , Humanos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Investigación Cualitativa , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de SaludRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Mentalization or reflective functioning (RF) is the capacity to interpret oneself or the others in terms of internal mental states. Its failures have been linked to several mental disorders and interventions improving RF have a therapeutic effect. Mentalizing capacity of the parents influences the children's attachment. The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ-8) is a widely used tool for the assessment of RF. No instrument is available to assess general RF in Spanish-speaking samples. The aim of this study is to develop a Spanish version of the RFQ-8 and to evaluate its reliability and validity in the general population and in individuals with personality disorders. METHODS: 602 non-clinical and 41 personality disordered participants completed a Spanish translation of the RFQ and a battery of self-reported questionnaires assessing several RF related constructs (alexithymia, perspective taking, identity diffusion and mindfulness), psychopathology (general and specific) and interpersonal problems. Temporal stability was tested in a non-clinical sub-sample of 113 participants. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested a one-factor structure in the Spanish version of the RFQ-8. RFQ-8 understood as a single scale was tested, with low scorings reflecting genuine mentalizing, and high scorings uncertainty. The questionnaire showed good internal consistence in both samples and moderate temporal stability in non-clinical sample. RFQ correlated significantly with identity diffusion, alexithymia, and general psychopathology in both samples; and with mindfulness, perspective taking, and interpersonal problems in clinical sample. Mean values of the scale were significantly higher in the clinical group. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence that the Spanish version of the RFQ-8, understood as a single scale, has an adequate reliability and validity assessing failures in reflective functioning (i.e., hypomentalization) in general population and personality disorders.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos de la Personalidad , Traducciones , Niño , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Autoinforme , Trastornos de la Personalidad/diagnósticoRESUMEN
Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Migrantes , Humanos , Intervención Psicosocial , Pandemias , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of suicide attempt repetition among individuals with an index attempt. It also aims to study the role of risk factors and prevention programme in repetition. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in keeping with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies on attempt repetition (both cohort studies and intervention studies) were searched from inception to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 110 studies comprising 248,829 attempters was reviewed. The overall repetition rate was 0.20 (0.17, 0.22). Repetition risk linearly increased over time. A higher risk of attempt repetition was associated with female sex and index attempts in which self-cutting methods were used. Moreover, a mental disorder diagnosis was associated with an increasing repetition risk (OR = 2.02, p < .01). The delivery of a preventive programme reduced the repetition risk, OR = 0.76, p < .05; however, this effect was significant for psychotherapy interventions, OR = 0.38, p < .01. CONCLUSION: One in five suicide attempters will engage in a new suicide attempt. An elevated repetition risk is associated with being female, more severe index methods and psychiatric disorder diagnosis. Preventive programmes, particularly psychotherapy, may contribute to reducing repetition risk and eventually save lives.
Asunto(s)
Psicoterapia , Intento de Suicidio , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Intento de Suicidio/prevención & control , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, health systems faced unprecedented organizational stress. Meanwhile, reports of episodes of discrimination and violence towards healthcare workers increased globally. This study explores the association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes in a large sample of healthcare workers in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare workers from inpatient and outpatient facilities (N=2,053) filled an on-line questionnaire in May or June 2020. Mental health outcomes included depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire [GHQ-12]) and death thoughts (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]). We also measured perceived discrimination and/or stigmatization due to being a healthcare worker since pandemic onset. Regression models adjusted for potential confounding sources (age, sex, history of a mental health diagnosis and type of job) were fitted. RESULTS: Thirty percent of the respondents reported discrimination and/or stigmatization. Perceived discrimination was associated with higher depression (B=2.4, 95 percent CI: 1.8, 2.9) and psychological distress (B=1.1, 95 percent CI: 0.7, 1.4) scores, and with a 2-fold increase in risk of reporting death thoughts (OR=2.0, 95 percent CI: 1.4, 3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived discrimination is a modifiable driver of mental health problems among healthcare workers. Mass media, legislators, and healthcare institutions must put in place prevention and restoration strategies to limit discrimination towards healthcare workers and reduce its mental health impact.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Discriminación Percibida , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Personal de Salud , Brotes de Enfermedades , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Salud Mental , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/psicología , Factores Protectores , Pandemias , Adaptación Psicológica , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Ansiedad/psicología , Depresión/epidemiología , Depresión/psicologíaRESUMEN
â¢Symptoms of anxiety/depression were found in 28.8% of the participants at least once.â¢Unemployment and financial difficulties were associated with anxiety/depression.â¢Targeted mental health support could lessen mental health impact.
RESUMEN
Background and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.