Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. FINDINGS: Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04980326.

Role of medical comorbidity in the association between psychiatric disorders and mortality among patients with COVID-19.

We examined whether excess chronic medical comorbidity mediated excess COVID-19 inpatient mortality among people with mental disorders in the early phase of the pandemic, a question with important implications for public health and clinical decision-making. Using records of 2599 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, we conducted a formal causal mediation analysis to estimate the extent to which chronic comorbidity mediates the association between mental disorders and COVID-19 mortality. The Odds Ratio (95% CI) for Natural Indirect Effect and Controlled Direct Effect were 1.07(1.02, 1.14) and 1.40 (1.00, 1.95), respectively, suggesting that a large proportion of excess COVID-19 mortality among people with mental disorders may be explained by factors other than comorbidity.

Prospective Analysis Between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio on Admission and Development of Delirium Among Older Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Objective: To examine any prospective association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at hospital admission and subsequent delirium in older COVID-19 hospitalized patients comparing by sex and age groups. Methods: The sample consisted of 1,785 COVID-19 adult inpatients (minimum sample size required of 635 participants) admitted to a public general hospital in Madrid (Spain) between March 16th and April 15th, 2020. Variables were obtained from electronic health records. Binary logistic regression models were performed between baseline NLR and delirium adjusting for age, sex, medical comorbidity, current illness severity, serious mental illness history and use of chloroquine and dexamethasone. An NLR cut-off was identified, and stratified analyses were performed by age and sex. Also, another biomarker was tested as an exposure (the systemic immune-inflammation index -SII). Results: 55.3% of the patients were men, with a mean age of 66.8 years. Roughly 13% of the patients had delirium during hospitalization. NLR on admission predicted subsequent delirium development (adjusted OR = 1.02, 95 percent CI: 1.00-1.04, p = 0.024). Patients between 69 and 80 years with NLR values > 6.3 presented a twofold increased risk for delirium (p = 0.004). There were no sex differences in the association between baseline NLR and delirium (p > 0.05) nor SII predicted delirium development (p = 0.341). Conclusion: NLR is a good predictor of delirium during hospitalization, especially among older adults, independently of medical comorbidity, illness severity, and other covariates. Routine blood tests on admission might provide valuable information to guide the decision-making process to be followed with these especially vulnerable patients.

Association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes among health workers during the initial COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, health systems faced unprecedented organizational stress. Meanwhile, reports of episodes of discrimination and violence towards healthcare workers increased globally. This study explores the association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes in a large sample of healthcare workers in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare workers from inpatient and outpatient facilities (N=2,053) filled an on-line questionnaire in May or June 2020. Mental health outcomes included depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire [GHQ-12]) and death thoughts (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]). We also measured perceived discrimination and/or stigmatization due to being a healthcare worker since pandemic onset. Regression models adjusted for potential confounding sources (age, sex, history of a mental health diagnosis and type of job) were fitted. RESULTS: Thirty percent of the respondents reported discrimination and/or stigmatization. Perceived discrimination was associated with higher depression (B=2.4, 95 percent CI: 1.8, 2.9) and psychological distress (B=1.1, 95 percent CI: 0.7, 1.4) scores, and with a 2-fold increase in risk of reporting death thoughts (OR=2.0, 95 percent CI: 1.4, 3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived discrimination is a modifiable driver of mental health problems among healthcare workers. Mass media, legislators, and healthcare institutions must put in place prevention and restoration strategies to limit discrimination towards healthcare workers and reduce its mental health impact.

Clinical trials of psychological interventions cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak: how should we respond?

The measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak have no precedent in the recent history of many countries. Around 2,000 million people in the world are in isolation or quarantine, and gatherings of people have been expressly banned in many countries. In Spain, this prohibition affects workplaces, schools, and the national health system, where most of the healthcare is being provided either on the phone or online.

Implementation of a Mindfulness-Based Crisis Intervention for Frontline Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak in a Public General Hospital in Madrid, Spain.

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak is having an impact on the well-being of healthcare workers. Mindfulness-based interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing stress and fostering resilience and recovery in healthcare workers. There are no studies examining the feasibility of brief mindfulness-based interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: This is an exploratory study with a post intervention assessment. We describe an on-site brief mindfulness intervention and evaluate its helpfulness, safety, and feasibility. Results: One thousand out of 7,000 (14%) healthcare workers from La Paz University Hospital in Madrid (Spain) participated in at least one session. One hundred and fifty out of 1,000 (15%) participants filled out a self-report questionnaire evaluating the helpfulness of the intervention for on-site stress reduction. Ninety two subjects (61%) participated in more than one session. Most of the participants were women (80%) with a mean age of 38.6 years. Almost half of the sample were nurses (46%). Sessions were perceived as being helpful with a mean rating of 8.4 on a scale from 0 to 10. Only 3 people (2%) reported a minor adverse effect (increased anxiety or dizziness). Discussion: Our data supports the utility, safety and feasibility of an on-site, brief mindfulness-based intervention designed to reduce stress for frontline health workers during a crisis. There is a need to continue testing this type of interventions, and to integrate emotion regulation strategies as an essential part of health workers' general training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04555005.