Media consumption and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown: a UK cross-sectional study across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Aim: As individuals adjust to new 'norms' and ways of living during the COVID-19 lockdown, there is a continuing need for up-to-date information and guidance. Evidence suggests that frequent media exposure is related to a higher prevalence of mental health problems, especially anxiety and depression. The aim of this study was to determine whether COVID-19 related media consumption is associated with changes in mental health outcomes. Methods: This paper presents baseline data from the COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study. The cross-sectional study data was collected using an online survey following the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with some other basic information collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the influence of socio-demographic and media specific factors on anxiety and depression. Results: The study suggested that media usage is statistically significantly associated with anxiety and depression on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales with excessive media exposure related to higher anxiety and depression scores. Conclusion: This study indicated that higher media consumption was associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression. Worldwide it should be acknowledged that excessive media consumption, particularly social media relating to COVID-19, can have an effect on mental health. However, as this was a cross-sectional study we cannot infer any directionality as we cannot infer cause and effect; therefore, future research involving longitudinal data collection and analyses of variables over time is warranted.

Decreasing Wellbeing and Increasing Use of Negative Coping Strategies: The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the UK Health and Social Care Workforce.

Many health and social care (HSC) professionals have faced overwhelming pressures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. As the current situation is constantly changing, and some restrictions across the UK countries such as social distancing and mask wearing in this period (May-July 2021) began to ease, it is important to examine how this workforce has been affected and how employers can help rebuild their services. The aim of this study was to compare cross-sectional data collected from the HSC workforce in the UK at three time points during the COVID-19 pandemic: Phase 1 (May-July 2020), Phase 2 (November 2020-January 2021) and Phase 3 (May-July 2021). Respondents surveyed across the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) consisted of nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, social care workers and social workers. Wellbeing and work-related quality of life significantly declined from Phase 1 to 3 (p < 0.001); however, no significant difference occurred between Phases 2 and 3 (p > 0.05). Respondents increasingly used negative coping strategies between Phase 1 (May-July 2020) and Phase 3 (May-July 2021), suggesting that the HSC workforce has been negatively impacted by the pandemic. These results have the potential to inform HSC employers' policies, practices, and interventions as the workforce continues to respond to the COVID-19 virus and its legacy.

Self-Reported Experiences of Midwives Working in the UK across Three Phases during COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Maternity services cannot be postponed due to the nature of this service, however, the pandemic resulted in wide-ranging and significant changes to working practices and services. This paper aims to describe UK midwives' experiences of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study forms part of a larger multiple phase research project using a cross-sectional design based on an online survey. The online survey used validated psychometric tools to measure work-related quality of life, wellbeing, coping, and burnout as well as open-ended questions to further understand the experiences of staff working during the pandemic. This paper reports the qualitative data collected from the open-ended questions. The qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis and the four main themes that emerged were 'relentless stress/pressure', 'reconfiguration of services', 'protection of self and others', and 'workforce challenges'. The key conclusions were that midwives experienced a reduction in quality of working life and significant stress throughout the pandemic due to a range of factors including staffing shortages, restrictions placed on women's partners, changes to services and management support, all of which compounded workforce pressures that existed prior to the pandemic. This research recommends consultation of front-line midwives in relation to possible changes in practice and workforce planning in preparation for crises such as a pandemic and to ensure equitable and supportive management with access to practical and psychological support.

Wellbeing and coping of UK nurses, midwives and allied health professionals during COVID-19-a cross-sectional study.

Nurse, Midwives and Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), along with other health and social care colleagues are the backbone of healthcare services. They have played a key role in responding to the increased demands on healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper compares cross-sectional data on quality of working life, wellbeing, coping and burnout of nurses, midwives and AHPs in the United Kingdom (UK) at two time points during the COVID-19 pandemic. An anonymous online repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted at two timepoints, Phase 1 (7th May 2020-3rd July 2020); Phase 2 (17th November 2020-1st February 2021). The survey consisted of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, the Work-Related Quality of Life Scale, and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Phase 2 only) to measure wellbeing, quality of working life and burnout. The Brief COPE scale and Strategies for Coping with Work and Family Stressors scale assessed coping strategies. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regressions examined the effects of coping strategies and demographic and work-related variables on wellbeing and quality of working life. A total of 1839 nurses, midwives and AHPs responded to the first or second survey, with a final sample of 1410 respondents -586 from Phase 1; 824 from Phase 2, (422 nurses, 192 midwives and 796 AHPs). Wellbeing and quality of working life scores were significantly lower in the Phase 2 sample compared to respondents in Phase 1 (p<0.001). The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant effect on psychological wellbeing and quality of working life which decreased while the use of negative coping and burnout of these healthcare professionals increased. Health services are now trying to respond to the needs of patients with COVID-19 variants while rebuilding services and tackling the backlog of normal care provision. This workforce would benefit from additional support/services to prevent further deterioration in mental health and wellbeing and optimise workforce retention.

A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Mental Wellbeing, Coping and Quality of Working Life in Health and Social Care Workers in the UK at Two Time Points of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve around the world, it is important to examine its effect on societies and individuals, including health and social care (HSC) professionals. The aim of this study was to compare cross-sectional data collected from HSC staff in the UK at two time points during the COVID-19 pandemic: Phase 1 (May-July 2020) and Phase 2 (November 2020-January 2021). The HSC staff surveyed consisted of nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, social care workers and social workers from across the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland). Multiple regressions were used to examine the effects of different coping strategies and demographic and work-related variables on participants' wellbeing and quality of working life to see how and if the predictors changed over time. An additional multiple regression was used to directly examine the effects of time (Phase 1 vs. Phase 2) on the outcome variables. Findings suggested that both wellbeing and quality of working life deteriorated from Phase 1 to Phase 2. The results have the potential to inform interventions for HSC staff during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, other infectious outbreaks or even other circumstances putting long-term pressures on HSC systems.

Group based video-conferencing for adults with depression: findings from a user-led qualitative data analysis using participatory theme elicitation.

BACKGROUND: Accessing support services for depression has been historically difficult given the societal stigma that exists regarding the condition. Recent advances in digital technologies continue to be postulated as a potential panacea yet the results from research trials have been mixed with a range of effect sizes. METHODS: This article offers a different perspective by presenting a panel of end users (co-researchers) with qualitative interview data (n = 8) taken from a feasibility RCT of a group based video-conferencing service for depressed adults. The co-researcher panel were introduced to a new method of participatory data analysis known as Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). This method involves using network analysis techniques to create groupings and visual diagrams in order to support the generation of themes and minimise scientific researcher input/influence. RESULTS: Co-researchers reported that while VC based interventions appeared convenient, accessible and relatively low cost - additional training and support should be offered to improve uptake and retention. In addition, co-researchers suggested that further exploration is needed regarding the level of self-awareness one feels in a group based VC environment and whether this facilitates disclosure (through disinhibition) or increases anxiety. CONCLUSION: The findings presented here appear to support existing (researcher and academic-led) literature in the field as well as suggest new areas for investigation. By presenting data generated solely by co-researchers, this article also adds to the evidence surrounding participatory analysis methods - particularly the growing need for robust approaches that are accessible and less time-consuming than those currently available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03288506 (Clinicaltrials.gov) 20th Sept 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03288506.