Have the COVID-19 outbreak and related restrictions affected the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions?

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, and the restrictions implemented by governments to limit its public health impact, may have determined a reduction of the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions, that is a limitation to adequate, human, and value-based mental healthcare, with rising inequalities in comparison with the general population. This systematic review was, therefore, conducted to collate evidence on the impact of the pandemic period on the mental health of individuals with pre-existing severe mental health conditions. Of 3,774 retrieved citations, we selected 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of the included studies assessed trends in psychological symptoms over the pandemic period, then arguing that symptoms worsened for a number of reasons, including the risk of contracting the virus, the disruption of mental health services, and the feelings of loneliness and isolation associated with the restriction measures. Even though studies provided somewhat contradictory results, the majority of evidence indicates that people with pre-existing mental health conditions were more likely to report greater self-isolation distress, anxiety, depression, COVID-19-related perceived stress, and were more likely to voluntarily self-isolate than those without a mental health condition. These findings appeared to suggest that a combination of factors related to the pandemic itself and to the prevention and mitigation strategies were responsible for a reduction of the right to mental health of people with mental health conditions, with increased inequalities in comparison with the general population.

Remote mental health care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review.

Mitigating the COVID-19 related disruptions in mental health care services is crucial in a time of increased mental health disorders. Numerous reviews have been conducted on the process of implementing technology-based mental health care during the pandemic. The research question of this umbrella review was to examine what the impact of COVID-19 was on access and delivery of mental health services and how mental health services have changed during the pandemic. A systematic search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted up to August 12, 2022, and 38 systematic reviews were identified. Main disruptions during COVID-19 were reduced access to outpatient mental health care and reduced admissions and earlier discharge from inpatient care. In response, synchronous telemental health tools such as videoconferencing were used to provide remote care similar to pre-COVID care, and to a lesser extent asynchronous virtual mental health tools such as apps. Implementation of synchronous tools were facilitated by time-efficiency and flexibility during the pandemic but there was a lack of accessibility for specific vulnerable populations. Main barriers among practitioners and patients to use digital mental health tools were poor technological literacy, particularly when preexisting inequalities existed, and beliefs about reduced therapeutic alliance particularly in case of severe mental disorders. Absence of organizational support for technological implementation of digital mental health interventions due to inadequate IT infrastructure, lack of funding, as well as lack of privacy and safety, challenged implementation during COVID-19. Reviews were of low to moderate quality, covered heterogeneously designed primary studies and lacked findings of implementation in low- and middle-income countries. These gaps in the evidence were particularly prevalent in studies conducted early in the pandemic. This umbrella review shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners and mental health care institutions mainly used synchronous telemental health tools, and to a lesser degree asynchronous tools to enable continued access to mental health care for patients. Numerous barriers to these tools were identified, and call for further improvements. In addition, more high quality research into comparative effectiveness and working mechanisms may improve scalability of mental health care in general and in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Long-term effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: As refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of developing mental disorders, we assessed the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH + ), a psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, in reducing the risk of developing any mental disorders at 12-month follow-up in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe. METHODS: Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 ⩾ 3) but without a mental disorder according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) were randomised to either SH + or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The frequency of mental disorders at 12 months was measured with the M.I.N.I., while secondary outcomes included self-identified problems, psychological symptoms and other outcomes. RESULTS: Of 459 participants randomly assigned to SH + or ETAU, 246 accepted to be interviewed at 12 months. No difference in the frequency of any mental disorders was found (relative risk [RR] = 0.841; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.389-1.819; p-value = 0.659). In the per protocol (PP) population, that is in participants attending at least three group-based sessions, SH + almost halved the frequency of mental disorders at 12 months compared to ETAU, however so few participants and events contributed to this analysis that it yielded a non-significant result (RR = 0.528; 95% CI 0.180-1.544; p-value = 0.230). SH + was associated with improvements at 12 months in psychological distress (p-value = 0.004), depressive symptoms (p-value = 0.011) and wellbeing (p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show any long-term preventative effect of SH + in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western European countries. Analysis of the PP population and of secondary outcomes provided signals of a potential effect of SH + in the long-term, which would suggest the value of exploring the effects of booster sessions and strategies to increase SH + adherence.

Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19

IntroductionPeople with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but the underlying medical condition and possible interaction with medical treatments might pose serious safety issues.ObjectivesTo review the direct and indirect evidence on the safety of psychotropic drugs in people with COVID-19 and provide practical recommendations for frontline clinicians.MethodsAn international, multi-disciplinary working group was established with the aim of producing evidence-based recommendations on the management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, following the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines methodology in the context of a public health emergency. Evidence retrieved was focused on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications. Furthermore, drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19 was reviewed and critically discussed by the working group.ResultsThe analysis of available evidence, although indirect, showed that all classes of psychotropic medications might carry relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. The working group produced a set of 12 recommendations to support clinicians in the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavourable events, and how to practically manage this risk, including when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication.ConclusionsThe present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations.

AIMS: To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials. METHODS: Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO 'Evidence to Decision' framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677). RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.