Reductions in inpatient and outpatient mental health care in germany during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic - What can we learn for a better crisis preparedness?

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, reports from several European mental health care systems hinted at important changes in utilization. So far, no study examined changes in utilization in the German mental health care inpatient and outpatient mental health care system comprehensively. METHODS: This longitudinal observational study used claims data from two major German statutory health insurances, AOK PLUS and BKK, covering 162,905 inpatients and 2,131,186 outpatients with mental disorders nationwide. We analyzed changes in inpatient and outpatient mental health service utilization over the course of the first two lockdown phases (LDPs) of the pandemic in 2020 compared to a pre-COVID-19 reference period dating from March 2019 to February 2020 using a time series forecast model. RESULTS: We observed significant decreases in the number of inpatient hospital admissions by 24-28% compared to the reference period. Day clinic admissions were even further reduced by 44-61%. Length of stay was significantly decreased for day clinic care but not for inpatient care. In the outpatient sector, the data showed a significant reduction in the number of incident outpatient diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Indirect evidence regarding the consequences of the reductions in both the inpatient and outpatient sector of care described in this study is ambiguous and direct evidence on treatment outcomes and quality of trans-sectoral mental healthcare is sparse. In line with WHO and OECD we propose a comprehensive mental health system surveillance to prepare for a better oversight and thereby a better resilience during future global major disruptions.

Outpatient mental health care during high incidence phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany - changes in utilization, challenges and post-COVID care.

BACKGROUND: As only a few studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health outpatient system so far, the aim of the COVID Ψ Outpatient Survey was to gain insight from outpatient providers in Germany regarding changes in utilization; associated problems and challenges; telemedicine services; interactions with inpatient and nursing home services; and experiences with post-COVID syndromes. METHODS: Between July and September 2021, we invited 351 randomly selected outpatient mental health specialists to take part in the online survey via e-mail. Additionally, we extended an invitation to professional associations to encourage their members to participate. N = 105 physicians of most regions of Germany took part in the survey. RESULTS: Survey participants reported changes in utilization during the high incidence phases (HIP) of the pandemic using pre-formulated categories: For the first HIP in spring 2020, 31% of the survey participants reported a decrease > 20% and 5% an increase > 20% of patient contacts. For the third HIP in spring 2021, 4% reported a decrease > 20% of contacts, while 30% an increase > 20%. Participants chose "patient's fears of infection" and "providers protection measures" as reasons for decreases, and "pandemic related anxieties", "economic stressors", and "capacity reductions of the inpatient system" as reasons for increases of patient contact. Many providers introduced telemedicine services. A majority reported consultations for post-COVID syndromes already in spring 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The survey hinted at changes in utilization, multiple problems but as well good-practice-solutions in the mental health outpatient system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Psychometric properties of the German version of the brief resilience scale in persons with mental disorders.

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed to assess individual differences in the ability to recover from stress despite adversity and has been translated into several languages. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties (i.e., item characteristics, reliability, factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity) of the German version of the BRS in persons with mental disorders. A total of N = 5,986 persons admitted to inpatient treatment completed the German version of the BRS and other questionnaires. The discriminating power of the items, the difficulty of the items, and the internal consistency were all sufficient. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure of the BRS, consistent with the findings of the German validation study in a non-clinical sample. The BRS also had strict measurement invariance across diagnostic groups for mental disorders according to ICD-10. Validity was examined using a network analysis, in which the BRS demonstrated positive correlations with life satisfaction, self-efficacy and optimism and negative correlations with somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and depression. The BRS can serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing resilience in clinical settings, facilitating the identification of persons with potentially lower psychosocial resources.

Remote Exercise Training Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Societal measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 (eg, lockdown and contact restrictions) have been associated with decreased health and well-being. A multitude of prepandemic studies identified the beneficial effects of physical exercise on both physical and mental health. OBJECTIVE: We report on the feasibility of a remote physical exercise intervention and its stress-buffering potential in 2 untrained cohorts: a pre-COVID-19 cohort that completed the intervention in 2019 and a lockdown cohort that started the intervention shortly before pandemic-related restrictions were implemented. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to either an intervention group (IG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=7 and lockdown cohort: n=9) or a control group (CG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=6 and lockdown cohort: n=6). IG participants received weekly individualized training recommendations delivered via web-based support. The intervention period was initially planned for 8 weeks, which was adhered to in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (mean 8.3, SD 0.5 weeks) but was extended to an average of 17.7 (SD 2.0) weeks in the lockdown cohort. Participants' health parameters were assessed before and after the intervention: aerobic capacity was measured as peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) via cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Depressive symptoms were scored via the depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18. RESULTS: Dropout rates were low in both cohorts in the IG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 16.7%) and the CG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 20%). The mean adherence to the training sessions of the IG for both cohorts was 84% (pre-COVID-19 cohort: SD 5.5% and lockdown cohort: SD 11.6%). Aligned rank transform ANOVAs in the lockdown cohort indicated deterioration of VO2peak and depressive symptoms from before to after the intervention in the CG but no longitudinal changes in the IG. Analyses in the pre-COVID-19 cohort revealed significant increases in VO2peak for the IG compared to the CG (P=.04) but no intervention effects on depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: With low dropout rates and high adherence, the remote intervention was feasible for healthy adults under regular conditions and in the face of pandemic-related stressors. Moreover, our results hint at a stress-buffering effect as well as a buffering of a lockdown-induced deconditioning of remote physical exercise interventions in the pandemic scenario, which can be used in future studies to overcome equally stressful periods of life. However, due to limited statistical power, these findings should be replicated in similar scenarios. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00018078; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00018078.

Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study.

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.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs. RESULTS: We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many experts pointed to potential adverse mental health effects for older adults. By contrast, many studies in young to middle-aged adults found older age to be associated with reduced mental burden. However, a systematic review on older adults is missing. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively assess the pandemic's mental health impact on older adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched nine databases from December 2019 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies assessing pre- and/or peri-pandemic mental distress and/or positive mental health indicators (e.g. wellbeing) on at least two occasions. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 108 studies comprising 102,136 participants (≥60 years). After removal of outliers, there was a small increase in mental distress from pre-to-peri-pandemic assessments, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.18]. Furthermore, a small peri-pandemic decrease in anxiety symptoms was observed, whereas other symptoms remained unchanged. For positive mental health indicators, wellbeing and quality of life showed an initial decrease, whereas overall positive mental health increased during the pandemic, SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]. Being female was related to larger peri-pandemic increases in mental distress. CONCLUSIONS: Based on many studies, this review demonstrated small decreases in mental health during early stages of the pandemic in older adults, with evidence for later recovery. These findings are similar to those for younger adults and correct earlier claims that older adults are at particular risk for negative mental health consequences. The results ask for further research into resilience and adaptation processes in older adults.

Prevalence of COVID-19 and Psychotropic Drug Treatment in Psychiatric In-patients in Germany in 2020: Results from a Nationwide Pilot Survey.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with a pre-existing mental disorder, an increased risk for a first manifestation of a psychiatric disorder in COVID-19 patients, a more severe course of COVID-19 and an increased mortality have been described. Conversely, observations of lower COVID-19 incidences in psychiatric in-patients suggested protective effects of psychiatric treatment and/or psychotropic drugs against COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective multi-center study was conducted in 24 German psychiatric university hospitals. Between April and December 2020 (the first and partly second wave of COVID-19), the effects of COVID-19 were assessed on psychiatric in-patient care, the incidence and course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and treatment with psychotropic drugs. RESULTS: Patients (n=36,322) were admitted to the hospitals. Mandatory SARS-CoV-2 tests before/during admission were reported by 23 hospitals (95.8%), while 18 (75%) conducted regular testing during the hospital stay. Two hundred thirty-two (0.6%) patients were tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Thirty-seven (16%) patients were receiving medical treatment for COVID-19 at the psychiatric hospital, ten (4.3%) were transferred to an intermediate/intensive care unit, and three (1.3%) died. The most common prescription for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was for second-generation antipsychotics (n=79, 28.2%) and antidepressants (SSRIs (n=38, 13.5%), mirtazapine (n=36, 12.9%) and SNRIs (n=29, 10.4%)). DISCUSSION: Contrary to previous studies, our results showed a low number of infections and mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive psychiatric patients. Several preventive measures seem effective to protect this vulnerable group. Our observations are compatible with the hypothesis of a protective effect of psychotropic drugs against COVID-19 as the overall mortality and need for specific medical treatment was low.

How do spine surgeons cope with psychological distress: results of a cross-sectional study.

Cross Sectional Study/Online Survey. In this study, we sought to assess stress, psychological distress, resilience, and coping strategies among spine surgeons in German-speaking countries. Recent studies have reported high rates of stress and burnout among surgeons. A survey via Survey Monkey™ was conducted among spine surgeons practicing in German-speaking countries using validated questionnaires for perceived stress, mental burden, resilience, and quality of life. Data on working situation and demographics were also collected. 582 surgeons responded to the survey, representing 15% of those surveyed. 79% of respondents were satisfied with their professional success. Mental burden was higher than in the general population, as was perceived stress. Chairpersons were exposed to the lowest levels of perceived stress and mental burden. Mental distress was high (GHQ ≥ 12) in 59% of residents and 27% chairpersons. Self-reported psychological resilience was higher than levels found in the general population and highest among chairpersons. Quality of life was comparable to levels reported in the general population. There were statistically significant correlations between perceived stress and mental burden scores (r s = 0.65, p < 0.001). Career level (senior physicians vs. residents, OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.66), perceived stress (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.33-1.77), self-reported resilience (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84), and mental composite score (SOR 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.90) were predictors of high mental burden. There was no interaction between perceived stress and resilience on mental burden (p = 0.835). Spine surgeons are exposed to higher levels of stress than the general population, which are associated with higher mental distress. More professional experience and higher levels of psychological resilience are associated with lower levels of stress.

Interventions to build resilience and to ameliorate negative psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The psychosocial health of children and adolescents has been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Containment measures have restricted social development, education and recreational activities, may have increased family conflicts and, in many cases, led to feelings of loneliness, sleep disturbances, symptoms of anxiety and depression. We conducted a systematic review to identify interventions that seek to ameliorate these detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to build resilience in children and adolescents. Literature searches were conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (up to 30 June 2022). The searches retrieved 9557 records of which we included 13 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) for evidence synthesis. Included studies predominantly implemented online group sessions for school-aged children with either a psychological component, a physical activity component, or a combination of both. A meta-analysis of seven studies on anxiety and five on depressive symptoms provided evidence for a positive effect of interventions by reducing anxiety (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) (95% CI): - 0.33 (- 0.59; - 0.06)) and depressive symptoms (SMD (95% CI): - 0.26 (- 0.36; - 0.16)) compared to the control interventions. Studies also showed improvements in positive mental health outcomes, such as resilience (n = 2) and mental and psychological wellbeing (n = 2). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a greater effectiveness of interventions that (i) are of higher frequency and duration, (ii) enable personal interaction (face-to-face or virtually), and (iii) include a physical activity component. Almost all studies were judged to be at high risk of bias and showed considerable heterogeneity. Further research may focus on the contribution of different intervention components or distinct subgroups and settings, and should examine children and adolescents over longer follow-up periods.