Locked and lonely? A longitudinal assessment of loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

AIMS: There are concerns that lockdown measures taken during the current COVID-19 pandemic lead to a rise in loneliness, especially in vulnerable groups. We explore trends in loneliness before and during the pandemic and differences across population subgroups. METHODS: Data were collected via online questionnaires in June 2020 and four to eight months prior in two Norwegian counties (N=10,740; 54% women; age 19-92 years). Baseline data come from the Norwegian Counties Public Health Survey (participation rate 46%, of which 59% took part in a COVID-19 follow-up study). RESULTS: Overall loneliness was stable or falling during the lockdown. However, some subgroups, single individuals and older women, reported slightly increased loneliness during lockdown. Interestingly, individuals with low social support and high levels of psychological distress and loneliness before the pandemic experienced decreasing loneliness during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although data limitations preclude strong conclusions, our findings suggest that, overall, Norwegians seem to have managed the lockdown without alarming increases in loneliness. It is important to provide support and to continue investigating the psychological impact of the pandemic over time and across regions differentially affected by the pandemic.

Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): work participation and functional status at 12 months post-treatment.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are associated with substantial functional impairment. Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), the Norwegian adaptation of IAPT is currently piloted across Norway, as a means to improve access to evidence-based care for adults with anxiety disorders (including subthreshold cases) and minor to moderate depression. The aims of the current paper were to examine the change in work status and functional status from pre- to post-treatment and 12 months post-treatment among clients at the first 12 PMHC pilot sites, and whether degree of change differed across sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: A prospective cohort design was used, including working age clients receiving treatment between October 2014 and December 2016 (n = 1446, participation rate = 61%). Work status and functional status were self-reported, the latter by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Changes in work status and WSAS score were examined through multilevel models based on maximum likelihood estimation. Likelihood ratio tests were performed to determine whether the interaction between time and the respective background variables were statistically significant. RESULTS: A substantial increase in regular work participation was observed from pre- to post-treatment, which further had increased at 12 months post-treatment. The increase was driven by a corresponding reduction in proportion of clients working and receiving benefits (OR 0.38 [0.29-0.50] baseline to final treatment, OR = 0.19 [0.12-0.32] final treatment to 12-months post-treatment), while no statistically significant change was observed in proportion out of work. Large improvement (ES = - 0.89) in WSAS score was observed from pre- to post treatment. WSAS score at 12 months post-treatment remained at the post-treatment level. CONCLUSIONS: Previous research has shown substantial symptom improvement among clients receiving treatment in PMHC. The current findings indicate that PMHC might also be able to aid adults struggling with mild to moderate anxiety and depression in returning to usual level of functioning. The degree to which the observed improvements are attributable to the treatment need nonetheless to be confirmed in a trial including a control group and with more complete follow-up data from registries.

Effectiveness of Prompt Mental Health Care, the Norwegian Version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The innovative treatment model Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) and its Norwegian adaptation, Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), have been evaluated by cohort studies only. Albeit yielding promising results, the extent to which these are attributable to the treatment thus remains unsettled. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of the PMHC treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) at 6-month follow-up. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with parallel assignment was performed in two PMHC sites (Sandnes and Kristiansand) and enrolled clients between November 9, 2015 and August 31, 2017. Participants were 681 adults (aged ≥18 years) considered for admission to PMHC due to anxiety and/or mild to moderate depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] scores above cutoff). These were randomly assigned (70:30 ratio; n = 463 to PMHC, n = 218 to TAU) with simple randomization within each site with no further constraints. The main outcomes were recovery rates and changes in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) between baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome data were available for 73/67% in PMHC/TAU. Sensitivity analyses based on observed patterns of missingness were also conducted. Secondary outcomes were work participation, functional status, health-related quality of life, and mental well-being. RESULTS: A reliable recovery rate of 58.5% was observed in the PMHC group and of 31.9% in the TAU group, equaling a between-group effect size of 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.85, p < 0.001). The differences in degree of improvement between PMHC and TAU yielded an effect size of -0.88 (95% CI -1.23 to -0.43, p < 0.001) for PHQ-9 and -0.60 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.30, p < 0.001) for GAD-7 in favor of PMHC. All sensitivity analyses pointed in the same direction, with small variations in point estimates. Findings were slightly more robust for depressive than anxiety symptoms. PMHC was also more effective than TAU in improving all secondary outcomes, except for work participation (z = 0.415, p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: The PMHC treatment was substantially more effective than TAU in alleviating the burden of anxiety and depression. This adaptation of IAPT is considered a viable supplement to existing health services to increase access to effective treatment for adults who suffer from anxiety and mild to moderate depression. A potential effect on work participation needs further examination.

How should recruitment to public health surveys be conducted? / Hvordan bør rekrutteringen til folkehelseundersøkelsene gjennomføres?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the public health survey in the Norwegian counties is to obtain information that is useful for public health work. In 2018, two parallel data collection processes were undertaken in Hordaland county. Both samples were drawn randomly from the National Population Register, but one of these was limited to users of the helsenorge.no website. The purpose of this article is to investigate the degree to which limiting users to the helsenorge.no website leads to selection bias beyond the selection that occurs through ordinary non-participation. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Services for Sensitive Data (TSD) was used in the data collection for the sample drawn from the National Population Register (n = 36 000), and the helsenorge.no platform was used in the data collection for the sample limited to users of helsenorge.no (n = 30 000). The response rate was 40.8 % and 41.5 %, respectively. RESULTS: For some outcome measures, the differences between the two datasets were modest (gender distribution, age, education and health habits). For variables that were more directly related to health, the differences were greater. In the helsenorge.no sample a higher proportion reported generally poorer health (29.4 vs. 24.0 %), mental health problems (13.6 vs. 11.6 %), disability pension (10.5 vs. 7.8 %) and long-term illness (13.3 vs. 9.3 %). Analyses of subgroups showed more pronounced differences in the proportion with generally poorer health and mental health problems between those with low education in the helsenorge.no sample and the corresponding group in the sample from the National Population Register. INTERPRETATION: Systematic and pronounced differences between the samples show that limiting recruitment to users of helsenorge.no's services results in further selection problems.

Prompt mental health care, the Norwegian version of IAPT: clinical outcomes and predictors of change in a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prompt mental health care (PMHC) is a Norwegian initiative, inspired by the English 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapy' (IAPT), aimed to provide low-threshold access to primary care treatment for persons with symptoms of anxiety and depression. The objectives of the present study are to describe the PMHC service, to examine changes in symptoms of anxiety and depression following treatment and to identify predictors of change, using data from the 12 first pilot sites. METHODS: A prospective cohort design was used. All participants were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, before each treatment session and at the end of treatment. Effect sizes (ES) for pre-post changes and recovery rates were calculated based on the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. Multiple imputation (MI) was used in order to handle missing data. We examined predictors through latent difference score models and reported the contribution of each predictor level in terms of ES. RESULTS: In total, N = 2512 clients received treatment at PMHC between October 2014 and December 2016, whereof 61% consented to participate. The changes from pre- to post-treatment were large for symptoms of both depression (ES = 1.1) and anxiety (ES = 1.0), with an MI-based reliable recovery rate of 58%. The reliable recovery rate comparable to IAPT based on last-observation-carried-forward was 48%. The strongest predictors for less improvement were having immigrant background (ES change depression - 0.27, ES change anxiety - 0.26), being out of work at baseline (ES change depression - 0.18, ES change anxiety - 0.35), taking antidepressants (ES change anxiety - 0.36) and reporting bullying as cause of problems (ES change depression - 0.29). Taking sleep medication did on the other hand predict more improvement (ES change depression 0.23, ES change anxiety 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Results in terms of clinical outcomes were promising, compared to both the IAPT pilots and other benchmark samples. Though all groups of clients showed substantial improvements, having immigrant background, being out of work, taking antidepressant medication and reporting bullying as cause stood out as predictors of poorer treatment response. Altogether, PMHC was successfully implemented in Norway. Areas for improvement of the service are discussed.

Registry-based analysis of participator representativeness: a source of concern for sickness absence research?

OBJECTIVES: Selective participation can bias results in epidemiological surveys. The importance of health status is often suggested as a possible explanation for non-participation but few empirical studies exist. In a population-based study, explicitly focused on sickness absence, health and work, we examined whether a history of high levels of sickness absence was associated with non-participation. DESIGN: The study is based on data from official sickness absence registers from participants, non-participants and the total target population of the baseline survey of the Health Assets Project (HAP). SETTING: HAP is a population-based cohort study in the Västra Götaland region in South Western Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: HAP included a random population cohort (n=7984) and 2 cohorts with recent sickness absence (employees (n=6140) and non-employees (n=990)), extracted from the same overall general working-age population. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined differences in participation rates between cohorts (2008), and differences in previous sickness absence (2001-2008) between participants (individual-level data) and non-participants or the target population (group-level data) within cohorts. RESULTS: Participants had statistically significant less registered sickness absence in the past than non-participants and the target population for some, but not all, of the years analysed. Yet these differences were not of substantial size. Other factors than sickness absence were more important in explaining differences in participation, whereby participants were more likely to be women, older, born in Nordic countries, married and have higher incomes than non-participants. CONCLUSIONS: Although specifically addressing sickness absence, having such experience did not add any substantial layer to selective participation in the present survey. Detailed measures are needed to gain a better understanding for health selection in health-related surveys such as those addressing sickness absence, for instance in order to discriminate between selection due to ability or motivation for participation.