Invisible experts: a systematic review & thematic synthesis of informal carer experiences of inpatient mental health care.

BACKGROUND: The negative impact of caregiving on carers' physical and psychological wellbeing is well documented. Carers of mental health inpatients have particularly negative experiences and largely report being dissatisfied with how they and their loved one are treated during inpatient care. It remains unclear why, despite policies intended to improve inpatient experiences. A comprehensive review of carers' inpatient experiences is needed to understand carer needs. As such, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of carer experiences of inpatient mental health care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL for qualitative studies examining carer experiences of mental health inpatient care. Searches were supplemented by reference list screening and forward citation tracking of included studies. Results were synthesised using thematic synthesis. Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020197904) and our review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. FINDINGS: Twelve studies were included from 6 countries. Four themes were identified: the emotional journey of inpatient care; invisible experts; carer concerns about quality of care for their loved one; and relationships and partnership between carers, service users and staff. INTERPRETATION: Greater attention should be paid to ensure carers are well-supported, well-informed, and included in care. More emphasis must be placed on fostering positive relationships between carers, service users and staff and in facilitating continuity of care across inpatient and community services to provide carers with a sense of security and predictability. Further research is needed to explore differences in experiences based on carer and service user characteristics and global context, alongside co-production with carers to develop and evaluate future guidelines and policies.

'The phoenix that always rises from the ashes': an exploratory qualitative study of the experiences of an initiative informed by principles of psychological first aid following the Beirut blast.

Background: On 4 August 2020, an explosion occurred in Beirut, Lebanon. Hundreds of people were killed, thousands injured and displaced. An initiative was rapidly initiated to provide remote support informed by psychological first aid for the mental health of Lebanese young adults affected by the blast. However, little is known about recipients' experiences of such initiatives.Objective: This study aimed to qualitatively explore the experiences of supporters and recipients in the community-led initiative following the blast.Method: We recruited a diverse sample of four supporters and four Lebanese recipients who took part in the Beirut initiative. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data.Results: We developed five themes from the qualitative interviews, which highlighted ideas around accessibility, alienation, the relationship, elements of the safe space created by the initiative, and unmet needs and areas for improvement. Recipients described the detrimental impact of the blast on their mental health within the Lebanese context and beyond. Recipients and supporters elucidated complex experiences of the support and its impact.Conclusions: Our findings suggest remote support has the potential to be acceptable for young adults in Lebanon. Further research into support informed by psychological first aid after similar crisis events is warranted.

Following the Beirut blast on 4 August 2020, an initiative was implemented to provide remote mental health support to Lebanese young adults.Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data from interviews with supporters and recipients after support sessions were completed to identify themes across diverse experiences and views.Participants described a feeling of alienation after the blast, the development of a meaningful relationship between supporter and recipients, and gratitude for having a safe space to process and share difficult feelings. Possible avenues for improvement and implementation were suggested.

Effectiveness, acceptability and potential harms of peer support for self-harm in non-clinical settings: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many people who have self-harmed prefer informal sources of support or support from those with lived experience. However, little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people who have self-harmed or about the risks of peer support interventions in non-clinical settings. AIMS: The aims of this review were to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and potential risks of peer support for self-harm, and how these risks might be mitigated. METHOD: We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature for papers published since 2000. We included peer support for self-harm that occurred in voluntary-sector organisations providing one-to-one or group support, or via moderated online peer support forums. RESULTS: Eight of the ten papers included focused on peer support that was delivered through online media. No study compared peer support with other treatments or a control group, so limited conclusions could be made about its effectiveness. Peer support for self-harm was found to be acceptable and was viewed as having a range of benefits including a sense of community, empowerment, and access to information and support. The most commonly perceived risk associated with peer support was the potential for triggering self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted a range of benefits of being part of a group with very specific shared experiences. Mitigations for potential risks include organisations using professional facilitators for groups, trigger warnings for online forums, and providing regular supervision and training so that peers are prepared and feel confident to support vulnerable people while maintaining their own emotional health.

Shared sources and mechanisms of healthcare worker distress in COVID-19: a comparative qualitative study in Canada and the UK.

Background: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the wellbeing of healthcare workers, with quantitative studies identifying increased stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and PTSD in a wide range of settings. Limited qualitative data so far has offered in-depth details concerning what underlies these challenges, but none provide comprehensive comparison across different healthcare systems. Objective: To explore qualitative findings relating to healthcare worker distress from two different countries to understand the nuanced similarities and differences with respect to the sources and impact of distress relating to COVID-19. Method: A comparative interpretive thematic analysis was carried out between two qualitative data sets examining healthcare workers' experiences of distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from Canada and the UK were collected in parallel and analyzed in an iterative, collaborative process. Results: A number of sources of distress cut across both study settings including concerns about safety and patient care, challenges at home or in one's personal life, communication issues, work environment, media and public perception, and government responses to the pandemic. These sit on a spectrum from individual to institutional sources and were mutually reinforcing. Our analysis also suggested that common mechanisms such as exacerbations in uncertainty, hypervigilance, and moral injury underpinned these sources, which contributed to how they were experienced as distressing. Conclusion: This is the first international collaboration utilising qualitative data to examine this pressing issue. Despite differences in the political, social, health service, and pandemic-related context, the sources and mechanisms of distress experienced by healthcare workers in Canada and the UK were remarkably similar. HIGHLIGHTS This international comparative qualitative study explores how mechanisms that lead to distress are shared across different geographies and cultures, even as the local context shapes the sources of distress themselves.

Antecedentes: La COVID-19 ha tenido un impacto significativo en el bienestar de los trabajadores de la salud, con estudios cuantitativos que identifican un aumento del estrés, la ansiedad, la depresión, el insomnio, y el TEPT en una amplia variedad de entornos. Hasta ahora, los datos cualitativos son limitados y han ofrecido un profundo detalle sobre lo que subyace a estos desafíos, pero ninguno proporciona una comparación exhaustiva entre los diferentes sistemas de atención de salud.Objetivo: Explorar los hallazgos cualitativos relacionados con la angustia de los trabajadores de la salud de dos países diferentes para comprender las sutiles similitudes y diferencias con respecto a las fuentes y el impacto de la angustia relacionada con la COVID-19.Método: Se llevó a cabo un análisis temático interpretativo comparativo entre dos conjuntos de datos cualitativos que examinaron las experiencias de angustia de los trabajadores de la salud durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Los datos de Canadá y el Reino Unido se recopilaron en paralelo y se analizaron en un proceso colaborativo iterativo.Resultados: Una serie de fuentes de angustia atraviesan ambos entornos de estudio, incluidas las preocupaciones sobre la seguridad y el cuidado del paciente, los desafíos en el hogar o en la vida personal, los problemas de comunicación, el entorno laboral, la percepción pública y de los medios de comunicación, y las respuestas gubernamentales a la pandemia. Estos se ubican en un espectro desde fuentes individuales hasta institucionales y se reforzaron mutuamente. Nuestro análisis también sugirió que mecanismos comunes como las exacerbaciones de la incertidumbre, la hipervigilancia, y el daño moral sustentaban estas fuentes, lo que contribuyó a que se experimentaran como angustiosas.Conclusión: Esta es la primera colaboración internacional que utiliza datos cualitativos para examinar este apremiante problema. A pesar de las diferencias en el contexto político, social, de servicios de salud y relacionado con la pandemia, las fuentes y los mecanismos de angustia experimentados por los trabajadores de la salud en Canadá y el Reino Unido fueron notablemente similares.

What support do frontline workers want? A qualitative study of health and social care workers' experiences and views of psychosocial support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant burden on the mental health and wellbeing of frontline health and social care workers. The need to support frontline staff has been recognised. However, there is to date little research specifically on how best to support the mental health needs of frontline workers, and none on their own experiences and views about what might be most helpful. AIMS: We set out to redress this research gap by qualitatively exploring UK frontline health and social care workers' own experiences and views of psychosocial support during the pandemic. METHOD: Frontline health and social care workers were recruited purposively through social media and by snowball sampling via healthcare colleagues. Workers who volunteered to take part in the study were interviewed remotely following a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed by the research team following the principles of Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 25 interviews with frontline workers from a variety of professional groups working in health and social care settings across the UK. Themes derived from our analysis showed that workers' experiences and views about psychosocial support were complex. Peer support was many workers' first line of support but could also be experienced as a burden. Workers were ambivalent about support shown by organisations, media and the public. Whilst workers valued psychological support services, there were many disparities in provision and barriers to access. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that frontline health and social care workers are likely to need a flexible system of support including peer, organisational and professional support. More research is needed to fully unpack the structural, systemic and individual barriers to accessing psychosocial support. Greater collaboration, consultation and co-production of support services and their evaluation is warranted.