"Don't Just Study our Distress, Do Something": Implementing and Evaluating a Modified Stepped-Care Model for Health Care Worker Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been concerns about the mental health of health care workers (HCW). Although numerous studies have investigated the level of distress among HCW, few studies have explored programs to improve their mental well-being. In this paper, we describe the implementation and evaluation of a program to support the mental health of HCW at University Health Network (UHN), Canada's largest healthcare network. METHODS: Using a quality improvement approach, we conducted a needs assessment and then created and evaluated a modified stepped-care model to address HCW mental health during the pandemic. This included: online resources focused on psychoeducation and self-management, access to online support and psychotherapeutic groups, and self-referral for individual care from a psychologist or psychiatrist. We used ongoing mixed-methods evaluation, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, to improve program quality. RESULTS: The program is ongoing, running continuously throughout the pandemic. We present data up to November 30, 2021. There were over 12,000 hits to the UHN's COVID mental health intranet web page, which included self-management resources and information on group support. One hundred and sixty-six people self-referred for individual psychological or psychiatric care. The mean wait time from referral to initial appointment was 5.4 days, with an average of seven appointments for each service user. The majority had moderate to severe symptoms of depression and anxiety at referral, with over 20% expressing thoughts of self-harm or suicide. Post-care user feedback, collected through self-report surveys and semistructured interviews, indicated that the program is effective and valued. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a high-quality internal mental health support for HCW program is feasible, effective, and highly valued. By using early and frequent feedback from multiple perspectives and stakeholders to address demand and implement changes responsively, the program was adjusted to meet HCW mental health needs as the pandemic evolved.

Identity, politics, and the pandemic: Why is COVID-19 a disaster for feminism(s)?

COVID-19 has been called "a disaster for feminism" (Lewis in The coronavirus is a disaster for feminism, 2020) for numerous reasons. In this short piece, we make sense of this claim, drawing on intersectional feminism(s) to understand why an analysis that considers gender alone is inadequate to address both the risks and consequences of COVID-19.

Identity, Subjectivity, and Disorders of Self in Psychosis.

Alterations in self-experience are increasingly attended to as relevant and important aspects of schizophrenia, and psychosis more broadly, through a burgeoning self-disorders (SD) literature. At the same time, issues of self, subject, and subjectivity within schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses have also gained attention from researchers across the social sciences and humanities, and from ethnographic research especially. This paper examines the subjective experience of disruptions in self-identity within a cohort of first episode psychosis (FEP) service users, critically engaging with the SD literature and bringing it into conversation with social sciences and humanities scholarship on self and schizophrenia. Drawing findings from an ongoing ethnographic study of young peoples' experiences with psychosis, we explore meanings of mental distress relating to psychotic episodes and attend to issues of self, identity, and subjectivity. We critique the division between "normal" and "pathological" self-experience that is endorsed within the SD literature, arguing against the notion that fragmentation of self-experience in schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses is indicative of psychopathology. We highlight how experiences categorized as psychosis are also important and complete aspects of one's social world and inner life and explore the ways in which at least some aspects of disruptions of self-identity stem from clinical situations themselves-in particular, from asymmetries of power within the mental health system. Relating our findings to feminist, postcolonial, and disability studies' approaches to the "self," we emphasize the complex interplay between interpersonal, cultural, and structural aspects of self-experience within FEP.

Paradigm shift? Purity, progress and the origins of first-episode psychosis.

First-episode psychosis has garnered significant attention and resources within mental health services in North America, Europe and Australia/New Zealand since the 1990s. Despite this widespread embrace, little scholarship exists that examines underlying concepts, ideologies and imagery embedded within the early intervention paradigm. In this paper, I offer a sociohistorical analysis of the emergence of first-episode psychosis and early intervention as entities in psychiatry, drawing on contemporary philosophical thought to explore various concepts embedded in them. Although scattered references to 'prodrome' and 'incipient cases' exist in the historic psychiatric literature, the notion of first-episode psychosis as a distinct chronological stage emerged in the late 1980s. This occurred in response to a desire for a homogeneous, medication-naive population within schizophrenia research. Thematically, concerns regarding 'purity' as well as notions of 'progress' can be read off of the body of work surrounding the creation of the term and its development into a clinical organising concept. Furthermore, examining the sociohistorical context of the term demonstrates its entanglement with the course of atypical antipsychotic drug development, the expansion of clinical rating scales and wider neoliberal biopolitics within healthcare. Within psychiatry, the early intervention model has been termed a 'paradigm shift,' with the promise that earlier interventions will translate into shorter durations of untreated illness, improved utilisation of services and better prognoses for recovery. While these are laudable goals, they are tied to assumptions about biomedical progress and idealisations of clinical populations that feminist and disability critiques problematise.

Understanding gender inequity in brain health outcomes: missed stroke as a case study for intersectionality.

Recent attention into sex and gender-based inequities surrounding outcomes for brain health disorders has generated momentum toward addressing what has been called the "brain health gap." Importantly though, "women" are not uniform demographic group. In this perspective piece, we discuss misdiagnosis in stroke as an aspect of access and quality of care within brain health. Drawing on narrative data from a mixed methods study of young stroke survivors we suggest that while missed stroke isn't only an issue of gender, if we are going to understand gender-based gaps in access and navigation through stroke care, we have to understand how intersections of gender with age, ethnoracial identity, nationality, language, (dis)ability, and other aspects of social identity come together to create affordances as well as biases that contribute to stroke outcomes.

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.

Individual- and Institutional-level Concerns of Health Care Workers in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis.

Importance: Mental health and coping difficulties among health care workers (HCWs) have been reported during pandemics and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To examine sources of distress and concern for HCWs in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, a critical discourse analysis was performed of questions posed by HCWs to hospital senior leadership between March 16, 2020, and December 1, 2020, through an online employee forum as part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of a stepped-care mental health support program for HCWs at 1 of Canada's largest health care institutions. Questions could be submitted online anonymously in advance of the virtual forums on COVID-19 by any of the University Health Network's 21 555 employees, and staff members were able to anonymously endorse questions by upvoting, indicating that an already posed question was of interest. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes, text structure, and rhetorical devices used within the questions were analyzed, taking into consideration their larger institutional and societal context. Results: Unique individual views of the forums ranged from 2062 to 7213 during the study period. Major individual-level concerns related to risks of contamination and challenges coping with increased workloads as a result of the pandemic intersected with institutional-level challenges, such as feeling or being valued within the health care setting and long-standing stratifications between types of HCWs. Concerns were frequently reported in terms of calls for clarity or demands for transparency from the institutional leadership. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that larger institutional-level and structural concerns need to be addressed if HCWs are to be engaged in support and coping programs. Potential service users may be dissuaded from seeing their needs as being met by workplace mental health interventions that solely relate to individual-level concerns.