Longitudinal Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stress and Occupational Well-Being of Mental Health Professionals: An International Study.

BACKGROUND: Increased levels of occupational stress among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have been documented. Few studies have examined the effects of the pandemic on mental health professionals despite the heightened demand for their services. METHOD: A multilingual, longitudinal, global survey was conducted at 3 time points during the pandemic among members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network. A total of 786 Global Clinical Practice Network members from 86 countries responded to surveys assessing occupational distress, well-being, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. RESULTS: On average, respondents' well-being deteriorated across time while their posttraumatic stress symptoms showed a modest improvement. Linear growth models indicated that being female, being younger, providing face-to-face health services to patients with COVID-19, having been a target of COVID-related violence, and living in a low- or middle-income country or a country with a higher COVID-19 death rate conveyed greater risk for poor well-being and higher level of stress symptoms over time. Growth mixed modeling identified trajectories of occupational well-being and stress symptoms. Most mental health professions demonstrated no impact to well-being; maintained moderate, nonclinical levels of stress symptoms; or showed improvements after an initial period of difficulty. However, some participant groups exhibited deteriorating well-being approaching the clinical threshold (25.8%) and persistently high and clinically significant levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (19.6%) over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that although most mental health professionals exhibited stable, positive well-being and low stress symptoms during the pandemic, a substantial minority of an already burdened global mental health workforce experienced persistently poor or deteriorating psychological status over the course of the pandemic.

An international survey examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telehealth use among mental health professionals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has profoundly affected the work of mental health professionals with many transitioning to telehealth to comply with public health measures. This large international study examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health clinicians' telehealth use. METHODS: This survey study was conducted with mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists and psychologists, registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN). 1206 clinicians from 100 countries completed the telehealth section of the online survey in one of six languages between June 4 and July 7, 2020. Participants were asked about their use, training (i.e., aspects of telehealth addressed), perceptions, and concerns. OUTCOMES: Since the pandemic onset, 1092 (90.5%) clinicians reported to have started or increased their telehealth services. Telephone and videoconferencing were the most common modalities. 592 (49.1%) participants indicated that they had not received any training. Clinicians with no training or training that only addressed a single aspect of telehealth practice were more likely to perceive their services as somewhat ineffective than those with training that addressed two or more aspects. Most clinicians indicated positive perceptions of effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Quality of care compared to in-person services and technical issues were the most common concerns. Findings varied by WHO region, country income level, and profession. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest a global practice change with providers perceiving telehealth as a viable option for mental health care. Increasing local training opportunities and efforts to address clinical and technological concerns is important for meeting ongoing demands.

A global field study of the international classification of diseases (ICD-11) mood disorders clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines.

BACKGROUND: We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mood disorders. Accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 guidelines to standardized case vignettes was assessed as well as perceived clinical utility. METHODS: 1357 clinician members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in English, Spanish, Japanese or Russian. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of eleven pairs of case vignettes. RESULTS: Clinicians using the ICD-11 and ICD-10 guidelines achieved similar levels of accuracy in diagnosing mood disorders depicted in vignettes. Those using the ICD-11 were more accurate in identifying depressive episode in recurrent depressive disorder. There were no statistically significant differences detected across classifications in the accuracy of identifying dysthymic or cyclothymic disorder. Circumscribed problems with the proposed ICD-11 guidelines were identified including difficulties differentiating bipolar type I from bipolar type II disorder and applying revised severity ratings to depressive episodes. Clinical utility of ICD-11 bipolar disorders was found to be significantly lower than for ICD-10 equivalent categories. LIMITATIONS: Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to evaluate specific changes. The degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments may not reflect clinical decision-making with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment of the ICD-11 with current research appears to have been achieved without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility though specific training may be necessary as ICD-11 is implemented worldwide. Areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended resulted in further revisions.