Multicentre, England-wide randomised controlled trial of the 'Foundations' smartphone application in improving mental health and well-being in a healthcare worker population.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated. AIMS: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the 'Foundations' application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity. METHOD: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD). RESULTS: Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34-53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = -1.39, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Identifying the Key Risk Factors for Adverse Psychological Outcomes Among Police Officers: A Systematic Literature Review.

It is well established that police work is highly stressful; however, a paucity of evidence limits our knowledge and understanding of the factors that may lead to, compromise, and/or compound psychological distress for this unique population. To address this lack, the current systematic review was conducted to reveal the individual, organizational, and operational risk factors that have been identified in the research literature to date and their associations with depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and burnout. We performed searches on literature published between January 2008 and January 2018 and identified a total of 20 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The results indicated that individual factors, including high levels of neuroticism, low social support, and engaging in passive or avoidant coping strategies, were associated with adverse psychological outcomes. This review identified low social support from colleagues as the most common risk factor linked to adverse psychological outcomes. Other organizational risk factors associated with such outcomes included high work demands, low resources, and low reward. This article demonstrates that individual, organizational, and operational factors all impact the negative psychological outcomes of police officers to some degree. In particular, the current review suggests that certain negative psychological outcomes are likely a result of a combination of risk factors across the three domains of risk, highlighting the necessity to observe psychological risk of police in a more comprehensive way.

Spanish Abstracts by Asociación Chilena de Estrés Traumático (ACET) Identificando los factores de riesgo claves para las consecuencias psicológicas adversas en la población policial: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura. REVISIÓN DE FACTORES DE RIESGO PSICOLÓGICO PARA LA POLICÍA Está bien establecido que el trabajo policial es altamente estresante; sin embargo, la escasez de evidencia limita nuestro conocimiento y comprensión de los factores que pueden conducir, comprometer, y/o constituir el malestar psicológico en esta población única. Para abordar esta escasez, se condujo esta revisión sistemática para revelar los factores de riesgo individuales, organizacionales y operativos que han sido identificados hasta la fecha en la literatura científica y sus asociaciones con depresión, ansiedad, trastorno de estrés postraumático (TEPT) y burnout. Realizamos una búsqueda de los artículos publicados entre Enero de 2008 a Enero de 2018 y se identificaron un total de 20 estudios que cumplían nuestros criterios de inclusión. Los resultados indicaron que los factores de riesgo individuales, incluyendo altos niveles de neuroticismo, bajo apoyo social, y engancharse en estrategias de afrontamiento pasivas o evitativas, estuvieron asociadas con resultados psicológicos adversos. Esta revisión identificó el bajo apoyo social de los colegas como el factor de riesgo más común relacionado a los resultados psicológicos adversos. Otros factores de riesgo organizacional asociados a tales resultados incluyeron alta demanda laboral, pocos recursos y baja gratificación. Este artículo demuestra que los factores individuales, organizacionales y operacionales impactan los resultados psicológicos negativos de los oficiales de policía en algún grado. En particular, la revisión actual sugiere que ciertos resultados psicológicos negativos son probablemente el resultado de una combinación de factores de riesgo en los tres dominios de riesgo, enfatizando la necesidad de observar el riesgo psicológico de los policías en una forma más integral.

'You get looked at like you're failing': A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff.

Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) are under considerable strain, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. We interviewed 48 healthcare workers from 18 NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking, such as manager training and peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours, but this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. METHODS: We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. FINDINGS: The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL.

'It hurts your heart': frontline healthcare worker experiences of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someone's moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) [Nash et al., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646-652] at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement. HIGHLIGHTS Clinical frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) have been exposed to an accumulation of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling betrayed by both government and NHS leaders as well as feeling unable to provide duty of care to patients.HCWs described the significant adverse impact of this exposure on their mental health, including increased anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep disturbance.Most HCWs interviewed believed that organisational change within the NHS was necessary to prevent excess PMIE exposure and promote resolution of moral distress.

Antecedentes: El daño moral se define como las fuertes reacciones emocionales y cognitivas que siguen a los eventos que chocan con el código moral de una persona, sus valores o expectativas. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19, el aumento de la exposición a Eventos Potencialmente Dañinos para la Moral (PMIEs, por su sigla en inglés) ha puesto a los trabajadores de la salud (HCWs, por su sigla en inglés) en riesgo de daño moral. Aún se conoce poco sobre la experiencia vivida de la exposición acumulada a PMIE y cómo el personal del Servicio Nacional de Salud de Inglaterra (NHS en su sigla en inglés) responde a esto.Objetivo: Buscamos rectificar esta brecha de conocimiento a través de la exploración cualitativa de las experiencias vividas y perspectivas del personal clínico de primera línea de NHS que respondió al COVID-19.Métodos: Reclutamos una muestra diversa de 30 HCWs clínicos de primera línea de la cohorte del estudio CHECK del NHS, para entrevistas cualitativas de una sola vez. Todos los participantes aprobaron al menos un ítem de los 9 de la Escala de Eventos de Daño Moral (MIES) [Nash y cols., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646­652] en el seguimiento a los 6 meses. Las entrevistas siguieron una guía semi-estructurada y fueron analizadas utilizando análisis temático reflexivo.Resultados: Los HCWs describieron estar expuestos de forma rutinaria a conflictos éticos, creados por exacerbación de problemas sistémicos pre-existentes que incluían falta de personal y de recursos. Encontramos que los HCWs experimentaron un rango de síntomas de salud mental primariamente relacionados a percepciones de traición institucional y al sentirse incapaces de cumplir con su deber de cuidado hacia los pacientes.Conclusión: Estos resultados sugieren que se requiere una estrategia organizacional multifacética para preparar para la exposición a PMIE fomentar oportunidades de resolución de los síntomas asociados al daño moral y prevenir la separación organizacional.

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.

NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) HCWs, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, and investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All staff, students and volunteers working in the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow-up surveys sent 6 months and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational/organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), and constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a sample of HCWs. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are collected via Qualtrics online survey software, pseudonymised and held on secure university servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services if participants feel they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in further components. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts, and via academic publications in due course.