COVID-19-Related Outcomes Among Group Home Residents with Serious Mental Illness in Massachusetts in the First Year of the Pandemic.

This study examined COVID-19 infection and hospitalizations among people with serious mental illness who resided in residential care group homes in Massachusetts during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors analyzed data on 2261 group home residents and COVID-19 data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Outcomes included positive COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 hospitalizations March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2). Associations between hazard of outcomes and resident and group home characteristics were estimated using multi-level Cox frailty models including home- and city-level frailties. Between March 2020 and March 2021, 182 (8%) residents tested positive for COVID-19, and 51 (2%) had a COVID-19 hospitalization. Compared with the Massachusetts population, group home residents had age-adjusted rate ratios of 3.0 (4.86 vs. 1.60 per 100) for COVID infection and 13.5 (1.99 vs. 0.15 per 100) for COVID hospitalizations during wave 1; during wave 2, the rate ratios were 0.5 (4.55 vs. 8.48 per 100) and 1.7 (0.69 vs. 0.40 per 100). In Cox models, residents in homes with more beds, higher staff-to-resident ratios, recent infections among staff and other residents, and in cities with high community transmission risk had greater hazard of COVID-19 infection. Policies and interventions that target group home-specific risks are needed to mitigate adverse communicable disease outcomes in this population.Clinical Trial Registration Number This study provides baseline (i.e., pre-randomization) data from a clinical trial study NCT04726371.

Group Home Staff Experiences With Work and Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Massachusetts.

Importance: Direct reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy. Objective: To gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served. Results: The study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.

Best practices to reduce COVID-19 in group homes for individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities: Protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population. METHODS: We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization. CONCLUSIONS: This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04726371.

COVID-19 Emergency Reforms in Massachusetts to Support Behavioral Health Care and Reduce Mortality of People With Serious Mental Illness.

People with serious mental illness are at disproportionate risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality because of high rates of risk factors that directly parallel those related to poor coronavirus outcomes, including smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, along with housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and poverty. Community-based behavioral health organizations are also at risk of adverse outcomes because of dramatic declines in revenues and a diminished workforce. The State of Massachusetts has responded to this crisis by rapidly implementing a variety of policy, regulatory, and payment reforms. This column describes some of these reforms, which are designed to enhance remote telehealth delivery of care, ensure access to needed medications and residential care staff, and support the financial livelihood of community-based behavioral health services.

Pragmatic replication trial of health promotion coaching for obesity in serious mental illness and maintenance of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies targeting obesity in serious mental illness have reported clinically significant risk reduction, and none have been replicated in community settings or demonstrated sustained outcomes after intervention withdrawal. The authors sought to replicate positive health outcomes demonstrated in a previous randomized effectiveness study of the In SHAPE program across urban community mental health organizations serving an ethnically diverse population. METHOD: Persons with serious mental illness and a body mass index (BMI) >25 receiving services in three community mental health organizations were recruited and randomly assigned either to the 12-month In SHAPE program, which included membership in a public fitness club and weekly meetings with a health promotion coach, or to fitness club membership alone. The primary outcome measures were weight and cardiorespiratory fitness (as measured with the 6-minute walk test), assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: Participants (N=210) were ethnically diverse (46% were nonwhite), with a mean baseline BMI of 36.8 (SD=8.2). At 12 months, the In SHAPE group (N=104) had greater reduction in weight and improved fitness compared with the fitness club membership only group (N=106). Primary outcomes were maintained at 18 months. Approximately half of the In SHAPE group (51% at 12 months and 46% at 18 months) achieved clinically significant cardiovascular risk reduction (a weight loss ≥5% or an increase of >50 meters on the 6-minute walk test). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first replication study confirming the effectiveness of a health coaching intervention in achieving and sustaining clinically significant reductions in cardiovascular risk for overweight and obese persons with serious mental illness.

Long-term outcomes of a randomized trial of integrated skills training and preventive healthcare for older adults with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: This report describes 1-, 2-, and 3-year outcomes of a combined psychosocial skills training and preventive healthcare intervention (Helping Older People Experience Success [HOPES]) for older persons with serious mental illness. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial compared HOPES with treatment as usual (TAU) for 183 older adults (age ≥ 50 years [mean age: 60.2]) with serious mental illness (28% schizophrenia, 28% schizoaffective disorder, 20% bipolar disorder, 24% major depression) from two community mental health centers in Boston, Massachusetts, and one in Nashua, New Hampshire. HOPES comprised 12 months of weekly skills training classes, twice-monthly community practice trips, and monthly nurse preventive healthcare visits, followed by a 1-year maintenance phase of monthly sessions. Blinded evaluations of functioning, symptoms, and service use were conducted at baseline and at a 1-year (end of the intensive phase), 2-year (end of the maintenance phase), and 3-year (12 months after the intervention) follow-up. RESULTS: HOPES compared with TAU was associated with improved community living skills and functioning, greater self-efficacy, lower overall psychiatric and negative symptoms, greater acquisition of preventive healthcare (more frequent eye exams, visual acuity, hearing tests, mammograms, and Pap smears), and nearly twice the rate of completed advance directives. No differences were found for medical severity, number of medical conditions, subjective health status, or acute service use at the 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Skills training and nurse facilitated preventive healthcare for older adults with serious mental illness was associated with sustained long-term improvement in functioning, symptoms, self-efficacy, preventive healthcare screening, and advance care planning.

Somatic panic-attack equivalents in a community sample of Rwandan widows who survived the 1994 genocide.

The present study is the first to attempt to determine rates of panic attacks, especially 'somatically focused' panic attacks, panic disorder, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression levels in a population of Rwandans traumatized by the 1994 genocide. The following measures were utilized: the Rwandan Panic-Disorder Survey (RPDS); the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ); and the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Forty of 100 Rwandan widows suffered somatically focused panic attacks during the previous 4 weeks. Thirty-five (87%) of those having panic attacks suffered panic disorder, making the rate of panic disorder for the entire sample 35%. Rwandan widows with panic attacks had greater psychopathology on all measures. Somatically focused panic-attack subtypes seem to constitute a key response to trauma in the Rwandan population. Future studies of traumatized non-Western populations should carefully assess not only somatoform disorder but also somatically focused panic attacks.

Panic probes and the identification of panic: a historical and cross-cultural perspective.

This article reviews the historical development of the category of panic disorder in the United States, particularly the shifting perspectives on both what causes panic and how the presence of panic should be determined. The notion that panic attacks of a panic-disorder type must be "out of the blue" and "unexpected," except in the case of triggering by a particular place (i.e., agoraphobia), is critiqued. The authors illustrate that a meaningful epidemiological determination of panic rates in other cultural groups must be preceded by a detailed ethnography that ascertains the catastrophic cognitions, core symptoms, and typical cues of panic attacks in that particular context.