Evaluation of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic across service users, carers and clinicians: an international mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide uptake of telepsychiatry accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evaluation of the opinions, preferences and attitudes to telepsychiatry from service users, carers and clinicians in order to understand how telepsychiatry can be best used in the peri/post-COVID-19 era. METHODS: This mixed-methods, multicentre, international study of telepsychiatry was set in two sites in England and two in Italy. Survey questionnaires and focus group topic guides were co-produced for each participant group (service users, carers and clinicians). FINDINGS: In the UK, 906 service users, 117 carers and 483 clinicians, and in Italy, 164 service users, 56 carers and 72 clinicians completed the surveys. In all, 17 service users/carers and 14 clinicians participated in focus groups. Overall, telepsychiatry was seen as convenient in follow-ups with a specific purpose such as medication reviews; however, it was perceived as less effective for establishing a therapeutic relationship or for assessing acutely disturbed mental states. In contrast to clinicians, most service users and carers indicated that telepsychiatry had not improved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most service users and carers reported that the choice of appointment modality was most often determined by the service or clinician. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There were circumstances in which telepsychiatry was seen as more suitable than others and clear differences in clinician, carer and service user perspectives on telepsychiatry. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: All stakeholders should be actively engaged in determining a hybrid model of care according to clinical features and service user and carer preferences. Clinicians should be engaged in training programmes on telepsychiatry.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Delivery of Mental Health Services and Telemental Health: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country's COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government's response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time. RESULTS: Of the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries' face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients' preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

COVID-19 and substance use disorders: a review of international guidelines for frontline healthcare workers of addiction services.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders may be at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 infection and developing medical complications. Several institutional and governmental health agencies across the world developed ad hoc guidance for substance use disorder services and care of individuals misusing substances. We aimed to synthesise the best available recommendations on management and care of people with or at risk of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic from existing guidelines published in UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore. METHODS: We systematically searched existing guidelines and websites from 28 international institutions and governmental bodies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 4th 2021). We summarized the extracted data as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS: We organised the available recommendations from 19 sources in three sections. First, we focused on general advice and recommendations for people who misuse alcohol or drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design of contingency plans, safeguarding issues for children and families of service users and advice to the public, patients, and carers. Then, we summarised specific guidelines for people who use illicit drugs and related services, such as opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes. Finally, we provided a synthesis on specific recommendations for services supporting people who misuse alcohol and key topics in the field, such as management of alcohol detoxification and safe transition between supervised and unsupervised consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Available guidance reflected different approaches, ranging from being extremely cautious in providing recommendations other than generic statements to proposing adaptation of previously available guidelines to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the early phase, guidance focused on reduction of infection transmission and service delivery. Guidance did not provide advice on infection prevention via vaccination programmes and service access strategies tailored to individuals with substance use disorders.

Gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, anxiety states, and insomnia: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and rationale.

The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the α2δ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.