26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic

        1 , 2 , 3
      QJM: An International Journal of Medicine
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          During any outbreak of an infectious disease, the population’s psychological reactions play a critical role in shaping both spread of the disease and the occurrence of emotional distress and social disorder during and after the outbreak. Despite this fact, sufficient resources are typically not provided to manage or attenuate pandemics’ effects on mental health and wellbeing. 1 While this might be understandable in the acute phase of an outbreak, when health systems prioritize testing, reducing transmission and critical patient care, psychological and psychiatric needs should not be overlooked during any phase of pandemic management. There are many reasons for this. It is known that psychological factors play an important role in adherence to public health measures (such as vaccination) and in how people cope with the threat of infection and consequent losses. 1 These are clearly crucial issues to consider in the management of any infectious disease, including Covid-19. Psychological reactions to pandemics include maladaptive behaviours, emotional distress and defensive responses. 1 People who are prone to psychological problems are especially vulnerable. All of these features are in clear evidence during the current Covid-19 pandemic. One study of 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China in January and February 2020 found that 54% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the Covid-19 outbreak as moderate or severe; 29% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 17% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms. 2 Notwithstanding possible response bias, these are very high proportions—and it is likely that some people are at even greater risk. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak (‘swine flu’), a study of mental health patients found that children and patients with neurotic and somatoform disorders were significantly over-represented among those expressing moderate or severe concerns. 3 Against this background, and as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread around the world, we hypothesize a number of psychological impacts that merit consideration now rather than later. In the first instance, it should be recognized that, even in the normal course of events, people with established mental illness have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. 4 As a result, people with pre-existing mental health and substance use disorders will be at increased risk of infection with Covid-19, increased risk of having problems accessing testing and treatment and increased risk of negative physical and psychological effects stemming from the pandemic. Second, we anticipate a considerable increase in anxiety and depressive symptoms among people who do not have pre-existing mental health conditions, with some experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder in due course. There is already evidence that this possibility has been under-recognized in China during the current pandemic. 5 Third, it can be anticipated that health and social care professionals will be at particular risk of psychological symptoms, especially if they work in public health, primary care, emergency services, emergency departments and intensive or critical care. The World Health Organization has formally recognized this risk to healthcare workers, 6 so more needs to be done to manage anxiety and stress in this group and, in the longer term, help prevent burnout, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. There are several steps that can and should be taken now to minimize the psychological and psychiatric effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. First, while it might be ostensibly attractive to re-deploy mental health professionals to work in other areas of healthcare, this should be avoided. Such a move would almost certainly worsen outcomes overall and place people with mental illness at disproportionate risk of deteriorations in physical and mental health. If anything, this group needs enhanced care at this time. Second, we recommend the provision of targeted psychological interventions for communities affected by Covid-19, particular supports for people at high risk of psychological morbidity, enhanced awareness and diagnosis of mental disorders (especially in primary care and emergency departments) and improved access to psychological interventions (especially those delivered online and through smartphone technologies). 7 These measures can help diminish or prevent future psychiatric morbidity. Finally, there is a need for particular focus on frontline workers including, but not limited to, healthcare staff. In the USA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offer valuable advice for healthcare workers in order to reduce secondary traumatic stress reactions, including increased awareness of symptoms, taking breaks from work, engaging in self-care, taking breaks from media coverage and asking for help. 8 This kind of advice needs to be underpinned by awareness of this risk among employers, enhanced peer-support and practical assistance for healthcare workers who find themselves exhausted, stressed and feeling excessive personal responsibility for clinical outcomes during what appears to be the largest pandemic of our times. Even in this emergency circumstance, or especially in this emergency circumstance, we neglect mental health at our peril and to our long-term detriment. Conflict of interest: None declared.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China

          Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is a public health emergency of international concern and poses a challenge to psychological resilience. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts and psychiatric symptoms during the epidemic. The aim of this study was to survey the general public in China to better understand their levels of psychological impact, anxiety, depression, and stress during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The data will be used for future reference. Methods: From 31 January to 2 February 2020, we conducted an online survey using snowball sampling techniques. The online survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms in the past 14 days, contact history with COVID-19, knowledge and concerns about COVID-19, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and additional information required with respect to COVID-19. Psychological impact was assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: This study included 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China. In total, 53.8% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 16.5% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 28.8% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 8.1% reported moderate to severe stress levels. Most respondents spent 20–24 h per day at home (84.7%); were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 (75.2%); and were satisfied with the amount of health information available (75.1%). Female gender, student status, specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, coryza), and poor self-rated health status were significantly associated with a greater psychological impact of the outbreak and higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Specific up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g., treatment, local outbreak situation) and particular precautionary measures (e.g., hand hygiene, wearing a mask) were associated with a lower psychological impact of the outbreak and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Conclusions: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, more than half of the respondents rated the psychological impact as moderate-to-severe, and about one-third reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. Our findings identify factors associated with a lower level of psychological impact and better mental health status that can be used to formulate psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic

            The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has now spread across China for over a month. The National Health Commission has issued guidelines for emergency psychological crisis intervention for people affected by COVID-19. 1 Medical institutions and universities across China have opened online platforms to provide psychological counselling services for patients, their family members, and other people affected by the epidemic. However, Xiang and colleagues, 2 claim that the mental health needs of patients with confirmed COVID-19, patients with suspected infection, quarantined family members, and medical personnel have been poorly handled. The organisation and management models for psychological interventions in China must be improved. Several countries in the west (eg, the UK and USA) have established procedures for psychological crisis interventions to deal with public health emergencies. 3 Theoretical and practical research on psychological crisis interventions in China commenced relatively recently. In 2004, the Chinese Government issued guidelines on strengthening mental health initiatives, 4 and psychological crisis interventions have dealt with public health emergencies—eg, after the type A influenza outbreak and the Wenchuan earthquake—with good results.5, 6 During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, several psychological counselling telephone helplines were opened for the public, and quickly became important mechanisms in addressing psychological issues. However, the organisation and management of psychological intervention activities have several problems. First, little attention is paid to the practical implementation of interventions. Overall planning is not adequate. When an outbreak occurs, no authoritative organisation exists to deploy and plan psychological intervention activities in different regions and subordinate departments. Hence, most medical departments start psychological interventional activities independently without communicating with each other, thereby wasting mental health resources, and failing patients in terms of a lack of a timely diagnosis, and poor follow-up for treatments and evaluations. Second, the cooperation between community health services and mental-health-care institutions in some provinces and cites in China has been decoupled. After the assessment of the mental health states of individuals affected by the epidemic, patients cannot be assigned according to the severity of their condition and difficulty of treatment to the appropriate department or professionals for timely and reasonable diagnosis and treatment. And after remission of the viral infection, patients cannot be transferred quickly from a hospital to a community health service institution to receive continuous psychological treatment. Finally, owing to a shortage of professionals, the establishment of psychological intervention teams in many areas is not feasible. Teams might consist of psychological counsellors, nurses, volunteers, or teachers majoring in psychology and other related fields, with no professional and experienced psychologists and psychiatrists. One individual often has multiple responsibilities, which can reduce the effectiveness of interventions. This situation can be resolved by improving relevant policies, strengthening personnel training, optimising organisational and management policies, and constantly reviewing experiences in practice. In the National Health Commission guidelines, 1 key points were formulated for different groups, including patients with confirmed and suspected infections, medical care and related personnel, those who had close contacts with patients (eg, family members, colleagues, friends), people who refused to seek medical treatment, susceptible groups (eg, older people, children, and pregnant women), and the general public. With disease progression, clinical symptoms become severe and psychological problems in infected patients will change; therefore, psychological intervention measures should be targeted and adapted as appropriate. Studies have confirmed that individuals who have experienced public health emergencies still have varying degrees of stress disorders, even after the event is over, or they have been cured and discharged from hospital, indicating these individuals should not be ignored.7, 8 Therefore, we should consider the disease course, severity of clinical symptoms, place of treatment (eg, isolated at home, ordinary isolation ward, intensive care unit), and other factors to classify individuals who need psychological intervention and to formulate specific measures to improve the effectiveness of these interventions. Under strict infection measures, non-essential personnel such as clinical psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health social workers, are strongly discouraged from entering isolation wards for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, frontline health-care workers become the main personnel providing psychological interventions to patients in hospitals. For individuals with a suspected infection who are under quarantine or at home, community health service personnel should provide primary medical care and mental health care. However, because of complicated work procedures, heavy workloads, and a lack of standardised training in psychiatry or clinical psychology, community health service personnel do not always know how to mitigate the psychological distress of patients. A professional team comprising mental health personnel is a basic tenet in dealing with emotional distress and other mental disorders caused by epidemics and other public health emergencies. The national mental health working plan (2015–20) reported that 27 733 licensed psychiatrists (1·49 per 100 000 population), 57 591 psychiatric nurses, and more than 5 000 psychotherapists worked in China in 2015. 9 By the end of 2017, the number of licensed psychiatrists had increased to 33 400, and the number of psychotherapists, social workers, and psychological counsellors was also increasing year by year, 10 but their numbers were still too few to meet the needs of patients with mental disorders. Hence, training of mental health professionals at different levels is urgently required by the Chinese Government. Interventions should be based on a comprehensive assessment of risk factors leading to psychological issues, including poor mental health before a crisis, bereavement, injury to self or family members, life-threatening circumstances, panic, separation from family and low household income. 11 Any major epidemic outbreak will have negative effects on individuals and society. Lessons learned from terrorist events at the Pentagon and anthrax attacks in the USA showed the importance of pre-establishing community coalitions to mobilise resources efficiently and effectively and to respond successfully to the disaster-related mental health needs of affected individuals. 12 Planning of psychological interventions in China is usually done passively; few preventive measures are implemented before the occurrence of serious psychological issues caused by acute emergency events. The outbreak of COVID-19 has shown many problems with the provision of psychological intervention in China. Here we have suggested ways that the government could establish and improve the intervention system based on sound scientific advice, to effectively deal with the mental health problems caused by public health emergencies. © 2020 Pasieka 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Integrated Care to Address the Physical Health Needs of People with Severe Mental Illness: A Mapping Review of the Recent Evidence on Barriers, Facilitators and Evaluations

              People with mental health conditions have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. Evidence suggests this is due to a combination of clinical risk factors, socioeconomic factors, and health system factors, notably a lack of integration when care is required across service settings. Several recent reports have looked at ways to better integrate physical and mental health care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). We built on these by conducting a mapping review that looked for the most recent evidence and service models in this area. This involved searching the published literature and speaking to people involved in providing or using current services. Few of the identified service models were described adequately and fewer still were evaluated, raising questions about the replicability and generalisability of much of the existing evidence. However, some common themes did emerge. Efforts to improve the physical health care of people with SMI should empower staff and service users and help remove everyday barriers to delivering and accessing integrated care. In particular, there is a need for improved communication among professionals and better information technology to support them, greater clarity about who is responsible and accountable for physical health care, and greater awareness of the effects of stigmatisation on the wider culture and environment in which services are delivered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                QJM: An International Journal of Medicine
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1460-2725
                1460-2393
                May 2020
                May 01 2020
                March 30 2020
                May 2020
                May 01 2020
                March 30 2020
                : 113
                : 5
                : 311-312
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
                [2 ]Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Tallaght University Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin 24 D24 NR0A, Ireland
                Article
                10.1093/qjmed/hcaa110
                2e7a40ae-c724-4e30-bce4-dd33cb60e258
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article