Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.

Background: People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care. Objectives: The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration. Design: This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach. Setting: The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust. Participants: Participants in the cohort study (n = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (n = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (n = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (n = 19). Outcomes: Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes. Results: Psychiatric decision units have the potential to reduce informal psychiatric admissions, mental health presentations and wait times at emergency department. Cost savings are largely marginal and do not offset the cost of units. First-time referrals to psychiatric decision units use more inpatient and community care and less emergency department-based liaison psychiatry in the months following the first visit. Psychiatric decision units work best when configured to reduce either informal psychiatric admissions (longer length of stay, higher staff-to-patient ratio, use of psychosocial interventions), resulting in improved quality of crisis care or demand on the emergency department (higher capacity, shorter length of stay). To function well, psychiatric decision units should be integrated into the crisis care pathway alongside a range of community-based support. Limitations: The availability and quality of data imposed limitations on the reliability of some analyses. Future work: Psychiatric decision units should not be commissioned with an expectation of short-term financial return on investment but, if appropriately configured, they can provide better quality of care for people in crisis who would not benefit from acute admission or reduce pressure on emergency department. Study registration: The systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019151043. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/49/70) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who experience mental health crises often go to a hospital emergency department and can be admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Emergency departments and psychiatric wards are not always the best environments for supporting people in a crisis. Emergency departments are overcrowded and waits can be very long; psychiatric wards are also very busy. Psychiatric decision units have been introduced to reduce pressure and improve experiences of crisis care. Psychiatric decision units are short-stay hospital-based units where people can be assessed and signposted to the most appropriate care. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of psychiatric decision units on emergency department visits, psychiatric admissions and the cost of mental health care, and to consider the best way for psychiatric decision units to be structured. We looked at research on similar units internationally and identified all psychiatric decision units in England. We evaluated the impact of psychiatric decision units four mental health NHS trusts on emergency department visits and psychiatric admissions by examining electronic patient records in the 2 years before and after units opened, and by comparing records in areas with and without psychiatric decision units using data from NHS Digital. We compared mental health services used by people in the 9 months before and after their first psychiatric decision unit stay. We interviewed people about their experiences of the psychiatric decision unit and crisis care. We also interviewed staff working on and referring people to psychiatric decision units. There were some reductions in psychiatric admissions, emergency department visits and wait times following opening of psychiatric decision units. The resulting cost savings were small and did not outweigh the costs of running psychiatric decision units. People mostly found units safe, calming and supportive, except where they were discharged too quickly. Psychiatric decision units worked best to reduce psychiatric admissions and improve quality of crisis care where stays were longer and staffing levels higher. Psychiatric decision units had more impact on emergency departments where they were larger and stays were shorter.

Addressing mental health problems among persons without stable housing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomised trial. RESPOND - France.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on population-wide mental health and well-being. Although people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may be especially vulnerable, they experience barriers in accessing mental health care. To overcome these barriers, the World Health Organization (WHO) designed two scalable psychosocial interventions, namely the web-based Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and the face-to-face Problem Management Plus (PM+), to help people manage stressful situations. Our study aims to test the effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among individuals experiencing unstable housing in France - a majority of whom are migrant or have sought asylum. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among persons with psychological distress and experiencing unstable housing, in comparison to enhanced care as usual (eCAU). Participants (N = 210) will be randomised to two parallel groups: eCAU or eCAU plus the stepped-care program. The main study outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). DISCUSSION: This randomised controlled trial will contribute to a better understanding of effective community-based scalable strategies that can help address the mental health needs of persons experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, whose needs are high yet who frequently have limited access to mental health care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this randomised trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05033210.

Effectiveness of a scalable, remotely delivered stepped-care intervention to reduce symptoms of psychological distress among Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands: study protocol for the RESPOND randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the mental health of international migrant workers (IMWs). IMWs experience multiple barriers to accessing mental health care. Two scalable interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) were adapted to address some of these barriers: Doing What Matters in times of stress (DWM), a guided self-help web application, and Problem Management Plus (PM +), a brief facilitator-led program to enhance coping skills. This study examines whether DWM and PM + remotely delivered as a stepped-care programme (DWM/PM +) is effective and cost-effective in reducing psychological distress, among Polish migrant workers with psychological distress living in the Netherlands. METHODS: The stepped-care DWM/PM + intervention will be tested in a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) among adult Polish migrant workers with self-reported psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15.9). Participants (n = 212) will be randomized into either the intervention group that receives DWM/PM + with psychological first aid (PFA) and care-as-usual (enhanced care-as-usual or eCAU), or into the control group that receives PFA and eCAU-only (1:1 allocation ratio). Baseline, 1-week post-DWM (week 7), 1-week post-PM + (week 13), and follow-up (week 21) self-reported assessments will be conducted. The primary outcome is psychological distress, assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Secondary outcomes are self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resilience, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. In a process evaluation, stakeholders' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DWM/PM + will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the first RCTs that combines two scalable, psychosocial WHO interventions into a stepped-care programme for migrant populations. If proven to be effective, this may bridge the mental health treatment gap IMWs experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register NL9630, 20/07/2021, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/27052.

Making an economic argument for investment in global mental health: The case of conflict-affected refugees and displaced people.

Mental health expenditure accounts for just 2.1% of total domestic governmental health expenditure per capita. There is an economic, as well as moral, imperative to invest more in mental health given the long-term adverse impacts of mental disorders. This paper focuses on how economic evidence can be used to support the case for action on global mental health, focusing on refugees and people displaced due to conflict. Refugees present almost unique challenges as some policy makers may be reluctant to divert scarce resources away from the domestic population to these population groups. A rapid systematic scoping review was also undertaken to identify economic evaluations of mental health-related interventions for refugees and displaced people and to look at how this evidence base can be strengthened. Only 11 economic evaluations focused on the mental health of refugees, asylum seekers and other displaced people were identified. All but two of these intervention studies potentially could be cost-effective, but only five studies reported cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, a metric allowing the economic case for investment in refugee mental health to be compared with any other health-focused intervention. There is a need for more consistent collection of data on quality of life and the longer-term impacts of intervention. The perspective adopted in economic evaluations may also need broadening to include intersectoral benefits beyond health, as well as identifying complementary benefits to host communities. More use can be also made of modelling, drawing on existing evidence on the effectiveness and resource requirements of interventions delivered in comparable settings to expand the current evidence base. The budgetary impact of any proposed strategy should be considered; modelling could also be used to look at how implementation might be adapted to contain costs and take account of local contextual factors.

Potential mechanisms by which cash transfer programmes could improve the mental health and life chances of young people: A conceptual framework and lines of enquiry for research and policy.

Mental health is inextricably linked to both poverty and future life chances such as education, skills, labour market attachment and social function. Poverty can lead to poorer mental health, which reduces opportunities and increases the risk of lifetime poverty. Cash transfer programmes are one of the most common strategies to reduce poverty and now reach substantial proportions of populations living in low- and middle-income countries. Because of their rapid expansion in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, they have recently gained even more importance. Recently, there have been suggestions that these cash transfers might improve youth mental health, disrupting the cycle of disadvantage at a critical period of life. Here, we present a conceptual framework describing potential mechanisms by which cash transfer programmes could improve the mental health and life chances of young people. Furthermore, we explore how theories from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology could be used to more specifically target these mechanisms and optimise the impact of cash transfers on youth mental health and life chances. Based on this, we identify several lines of enquiry and action for future research and policy.

The identification of economically relevant health and social care services for mental disorders in the PECUNIA project.

BACKGROUND: Health economic research is still facing significant problems regarding the standardization and international comparability of health care services. As a result, comparative effectiveness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are often not comparable. This study is part of the PECUNIA project, which aimed to improve the comparability of economic evaluations by developing instruments for the internationally standardized measurement and valuation of health care services for mental disorders. The aim of this study was to identify internationally relevant services in the health and social care sectors relevant for health economic studies for mental disorders. METHODS: A systematic literature review on cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations was conducted to identify relevant services, complemented by an additional grey literature search and a search of resource use measurement (RUM) questionnaires. A preliminary long-list of identified services was explored and reduced to a short-list by multiple consolidation rounds within the international research team and an external international expert survey in six European countries. RESULTS: After duplicate removal, the systematic search yielded 15,218 hits. From these 295 potential services could be identified. The grey literature search led to 368 and the RUM search to 36 additional potential services. The consolidation process resulted in a preliminary list of 186 health and social care services which underwent an external expert survey. A final consolidation step led to a basic list of 56 services grouped into residential care, daycare, outpatient care, information for care, accessibility to care, and self-help and voluntary care. CONCLUSIONS: The initial literature searches led to an extensive number of potential service items for health and social care. Many of these items turned out to be procedures, interventions or providing professionals rather than services and were removed from further analysis. The resulting list was used as a basis for typological coding, the development of RUM questionnaires and corresponding unit costs for international mental health economic studies in the PECUNIA project.

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.

Addressing Loneliness in Older People Through a Personalized Support and Community Response Program.

Loneliness is increasingly viewed from a public health perspective given its association with poor physical and mental health. This includes tackling loneliness as an element of policy to promote mental health and wellbeing recovery post Covid. Facilitating participation of older people in social activities is part of the cross-governmental strategy to address loneliness in England. Such interventions have more chance of being effective if they resonate with and sustain engagement with their intended target audience. This study explored experiences of a personalized support and community response service to loneliness in Worcestershire, England. It involved interviews with 41 participants, gaining insights on routes into the program, perceived impacts, suitability and appeal. Results indicate multiple entry pathways, reaching individuals who would otherwise never have initiated engagement. Many participants felt the program promoted their confidence and self-esteem, as well as reengagement in social activities. Volunteers were pivotal to positive experiences. The program did not have universal appeal; some would have preferred a befriending service, whilst others desired opportunities to engage in intergenerational activities. Early identification and better understanding of determinants of loneliness, as well as co-creation, flexibility in form, regular feedback and volunteer support would help strengthen program appeal.

Views and experiences of migrants and stakeholders involved in social and health care for migrants in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.

Peer-provided psychological intervention for Syrian refugees: results of a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of Problem Management Plus.

BACKGROUND: The mental health burden among refugees in high-income countries (HICs) is high, whereas access to mental healthcare can be limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a peer-provided psychological intervention (Problem Management Plus; PM+) in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders (CMDs) among Syrian refugees in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, randomised controlled trial among adult Syrian refugees recruited in March 2019-December 2021 (No. NTR7552). Individuals with psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) >15) and functional impairment (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) >16) were allocated to PM+ in addition to care as usual (PM+/CAU) or CAU only. Participants were reassessed at 1-week and 3-month follow-up. Primary outcome was depression/anxiety combined (Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HSCL-25) at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included depression (HSCL-25), anxiety (HSCL-25), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition; PCL-5), impairment (WHODAS 2.0) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS; Psychological Outcomes Profiles). Primary analysis was intention-to-treat. FINDINGS: Participants (n=206; mean age=37 years, 62% men) were randomised into PM+/CAU (n=103) or CAU (n=103). At 3-month follow-up, PM+/CAU had greater reductions on depression/anxiety relative to CAU (mean difference -0.25; 95% CI -0.385 to -0.122; p=0.0001, Cohen's d=0.41). PM+/CAU also showed greater reductions on depression (p=0.0002, Cohen's d=0.42), anxiety (p=0.001, Cohen's d=0.27), PTSD symptoms (p=0.0005, Cohen's d=0.39) and self-identified problems (p=0.03, Cohen's d=0.26), but not on impairment (p=0.084, Cohen's d=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: PM+ effectively reduces symptoms of CMDs among Syrian refugees. A strength was high retention at follow-up. Generalisability is limited by predominantly including refugees with a resident permit. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Peer-provided psychological interventions should be considered for scale-up in HICs.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM.

BACKGROUND: Measuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project. METHODS: For the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization. RESULTS: The selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process.

Service use preceding and following first referral for psychiatric emergency care at a short-stay crisis unit: A cohort study across three cities and one rural area in England.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments. AIMS: To assess changes to service use following a service user's first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units. METHODS: A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021. RESULTS: The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5-13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%-82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables. CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge.

Excess resource use and costs of physical comorbidities in individuals with mental health disorders: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Individuals with mental health disorders (MHDs) have worse physical health than the general population, utilise healthcare resources more frequently and intensively, incurring higher costs. We provide a first comprehensive overview and quantitative synthesis of literature on the magnitude of excess resource use and costs for those with MHDs and comorbid physical health conditions (PHCs). This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017075319) searched studies comparing resource use or costs of individuals with MHDs and comorbid PHCs versus individuals without comorbid conditions published between 2007 and 2021. We conducted narrative and quantitative syntheses, using random-effects meta-analyses to explore ranges of excess resource use and costs across care segments, comparing to MHD only, PHC only, or general population controls (GPC). Of 20,075 records, 228 and 100 were eligible for narrative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. Most studies were from the US, covered depression or schizophrenia, reporting endocrine/metabolic or circulatory comorbidities. Frequently investigated healthcare segments were inpatient, outpatient, emergency care and medications. Evidence on lost productivity, long-term and informal care was rare. Substantial differences exist between MHDs, with depressive disorder tending towards lower average excess resource use and cost estimates, while excess resource use ranges between +6% to +320% and excess costs between +14% to +614%. PHCs are major drivers of resource use and costs for individuals with MHDs, affecting care segments differently. Significant physical health gains and cost savings are potentially achievable through prevention, earlier identification, management and treatment, using more integrated care approaches. Current international evidence, however, is heterogeneous with limited geographical representativeness and comparability.

Impact of work arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in France.

•Symptoms of anxiety/depression were found in 28.8% of the participants at least once.•Unemployment and financial difficulties were associated with anxiety/depression.•Targeted mental health support could lessen mental health impact.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial.

Background and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Concomitant Treatment with Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Whiplash Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of Chuna manual therapy combined with usual care to those of usual care alone for treating whiplash injuries. DESIGN: A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Three hospitals in Korea. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 132 participants between 19 and 70 years of age, involved in traffic accidents and treated at three hospitals in Korea, >2 but <13 weeks prior to enrollment, with neck pain consistent with whiplash-associated disorder grades I and II and a numeric rating scale score ≥5 were included. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were equally and randomly allocated to the Chuna manual therapy and usual care (n = 66) or usual care (n = 66) groups and underwent corresponding treatment for three weeks. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days to achieve a 50% pain reduction. Secondary outcomes included areas under the 50% numeric rating scale reduction curve: pain, disability, quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: The Chuna manual therapy + usual care group (23.31 ± 21.36 days; p = 0.01) required significantly fewer days to achieve 50% pain reduction compared to the usual care group (50.41 ± 48.32 days; p = 0.01). Regarding pain severity, functional index, and quality of life index, Chuna manual therapy and usual care were more effective than usual care alone. Safety was acceptable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with subacute whiplash injury, Chuna manual therapy showed a rapid rate of recovery, high effectiveness, and safety.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods: Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results: We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions: In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Economic analyses of supported employment programmes for people with mental health conditions: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Employment is intrinsic to recovery from mental health conditions, helping people live independently. Systematic reviews indicate supported employment (SE) focused on competitive employment, including individual placement and support (IPS), is effective in helping people with mental health conditions into work. Evidence is limited on cost-effectiveness. We comprehensively reviewed evidence on the economic case for SE/IPS programmes. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBSS, Business Source Complete, and EconLit for economic and return on investment analyses of SE/IPS programmes for mental health conditions. Traditional vocational rehabilitation, sheltered work, and return to work initiatives after sickness absence of less than 1 year were excluded. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers. We assessed quality using the Consolidate Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The protocol was preregistered with PROSPERO-CRD42020184359. RESULTS: From 40,015 references, 28 studies examined the economic case for IPS, four IPS augmented by another intervention, and 24 other forms of SE. Studies were very heterogenous, quality was variable. Of 41 studies with quality scores over 50%, 10 reported cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, (8 favourable to SE/IPS), 14 net monetary benefits (12 positive), 5 return on investment (4 positive), and 20 cost per employment outcome (14 favorable, 5 inconclusive, 1 negative). Totally, 24 of these 41 studies had monetary benefits that more than outweighed the additional costs of SE/IPS programmes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong economic case for the implementation of SE/IPS programmes. The economic case is conservative as evidence on long-term impacts of programmes is limited.