Mental health in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused immediate and far-reaching disruption to society, the economy, and health-care services. We synthesised evidence on the effect of the pandemic on mental health and mental health care in high-income European countries. We included 177 longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies comparing prevalence or incidence of mental health problems, mental health symptom severity in people with pre-existing mental health conditions, or mental health service use before versus during the pandemic, or between different timepoints of the pandemic. We found that epidemiological studies reported higher prevalence of some mental health problems during the pandemic compared with before it, but that in most cases this increase reduced over time. Conversely, studies of health records showed reduced incidence of new diagnoses at the start of the pandemic, which further declined during 2020. Mental health service use also declined at the onset of the pandemic but increased later in 2020 and through 2021, although rates of use did not return to pre-pandemic levels for some services. We found mixed patterns of effects of the pandemic on mental health and social outcome for adults already living with mental health conditions.

Perceived sustainability of psychosocial treatment in low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is an evidence-based, generic, cost-saving and easily deliverable psychosocial intervention, adaptable to clinicians' personal manner of interaction with patients. It was implemented in mental health services in five low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe during a 12-month randomised-controlled trial (IMPULSE) to improve the effectiveness of out-patient treatment for people with psychotic disorders. AIMS: To investigate barriers and facilitators to the perceived sustainability of DIALOG+ that has been successfully implemented as a part of the IMPULSE project. METHOD: Three months after the IMPULSE trial's end, perceived sustainability of the DIALOG+ intervention was assessed via a short survey of clinicians and patients who took part in the trial. Quantitative data collected from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; content analysis assessed qualitative survey data. The views and experiences of key informants (patients, clinicians and healthcare policy influencers) regarding the sustainability and scale-up of DIALOG+ were further explored through semi-structured interviews. These data were explored using framework analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians mostly appreciated the comprehensiveness of DIALOG+, and patients described DIALOG+ meetings as empowering and motivating. The barrier most commonly identified by key informants was availability of financial resources; the most important facilitators were the clinically relevant structure and comprehensiveness of the DIALOG+ intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Participants showed a willingness to sustain the implementation of DIALOG+. It is important to maintain collaboration with healthcare policy influencers to improve implementation of DIALOG+ across different levels of healthcare systems and ensure availability of resources for implementing psychosocial interventions such as DIALOG+.

Maintenance Therapy of Psychosis Spectrum Disorders in a Real-World Setting: Antipsychotics Prescription Patterns and Long-Term Benzodiazepine Use.

Background: Maintenance therapy of patients with primary psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in the Western Balkans has received limited interest so far. The present study aimed to investigate long-term prescription patterns among outpatients with PSD. Methods: Information about prescription of antipsychotics (AP), benzodiazepines (BZD) and other psychotropic medication over a 6-month period was collected from outpatients (n = 134; ICD-10 diagnosis F20-29) recruited by a larger multi-site study, to find mean daily number of psychotropic drugs, AP prescription patterns (including AP daily dose, route of administration, monotherapy vs. polypharmacy) and BZD utilization (long-term add-on BZD therapy). Additionally, sex-differences in the variables were explored. Results: Clinically stable outpatients (age 41.7 ± 11.0; male 62.7%; duration of untreated illness 12.7 ± 8.7 years; mean number of lifetime hospitalizations 2.6 ± 0.7) were prescribed 2.8 ± 1.1 psychotropic medications daily. The mean 6-month AP dose was 14.2 ± 7.8 mg olanzapine equivalents. Long-acting injectable AP was prescribed to 25.2% of the patients. Long-term AP monotherapy was found in 52.7% patients and most of them were prescribed second generation AP (65.2%). Long-term AP polypharmacy (42.7%) was more common in males (p = 0.015). The most frequent co-prescription patterns were first generation AP plus clozapine. The highest rate of long-term AP co-prescription was found for BZD (in 42.7% cases, average 6-months daily dose of 2.8 ± 2.7 mg lorazepam equivalents) and anticholinergics (33.6%). Conclusion: Existing appropriately designed interventions aiming to safely switch the inappropriate therapeutic regimens, i.e. very high prevalence of long-term AP polypharmacy and non-rational BZD co-prescription, should be implemented in the region of Western Balkans.

Physical health of individuals with psychosis - a mixed method study.

People with psychosis have poorer physical health than the general population and this aspect of care delivery has largely been neglected. The IMPULSE trial (ISRCTN 11913964) investigated a psychosocial intervention prompting people with psychosis to discuss their physical health concerns with mental health clinicians. This mixed-method study explored a series of clinical meetings over 6 months to understand how physical health is discussed, what actions are taken, and if these translated into benefits for the participating individuals with psychosis. 221 individuals with psychosis were included, attending 847 clinical meetings over 6 months. Results show that, when prompted, most participants (54%) took up the opportunity to discuss their physical health at least once. These individuals were keen to make changes such as adopt healthy diet, stop smoking, lose weight, etc. Despite taking steps to achieve these goals, after 6 months no improvement was detected in subjective satisfaction with physical health, severity of physical health problems or satisfaction with services. Adopting healthier lifestyle behaviours is difficult even in motivated individuals. Future research is needed to determine innovative approaches to promote lifestyle change in individuals with psychosis.

Implementing a digital mental health intervention for individuals with psychosis - a multi-country qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources. METHODS: Thirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants' accounts. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers' involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention's implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists' time constrains. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe - a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research.