Search

BackgroundHealth and social care workers(HSCWs) are at risk of experiencing adverse mental health (MH) outcomes (e.g., higher levels of anxiety and depression) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This can have a detrimental impact on quality of care, the national response to the pandemic and its aftermath.AimsA longitudinal design provided follow-up evidence on the MH(changes in the prevalence of disease over time) of NHS staff working in a remote health board in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic and investigated the determinants of MH outcomes over time.MethodA two-wave longitudinal study was conducted from July to September 2020. Participants self-reported levels of depression(PHQ-9), anxiety(GAD-7), and mental well-being(WEMWBS) at baseline and again 1.5 months later.ResultsThe analytic sample of 169 participants, working in community(43%) and hospital(44%) settings reported substantial levels of probable clinical depression, anxiety and low mental well-being(MWB) at baseline(depression:30.8%, anxiety:20.1%, low-MWB:31.9%). Whilst the MH of participants remained mostly constant over time, the proportion of participants meeting the threshold for clinical anxiety increased to 27.2% at follow-up. Multivariable modelling indicated that working with, and disruption due to COVID-19 were associated with adverse MH changes over time.ConclusionsHSCWs working in a remote area with low COVID-19 prevalence, reported similar levels of substantial anxiety and depression as those working in areas of the UK with high rates of COVID-19 infections. Efforts to support HSCW MH must remain a priority and should minimize the adverse effects of working with, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Approximately 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) cases are attributable to lifestyle risk factors. Despite widespread education, personal knowledge, and efficacy, many individuals fail to adequately modify these risk factors, even after a cardiovascular event. Digital technology interventions have been suggested as a viable equivalent and potential alternative to conventional cardiac rehabilitation care centers. However, little is known about the clinical effectiveness of these technologies in bringing about behavioral changes in patients with CVD at an individual level. Objective The aim of this study is to identify and measure the effectiveness of digital technology (eg, mobile phones, the internet, software applications, wearables, etc) interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and determine which behavior change constructs are effective at achieving risk factor modification in patients with CVD. Methods This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs designed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement standard. Mixed data from studies extracted from selected research databases and filtered for RCTs only were analyzed using quantitative methods. Outcome hypothesis testing was set at 95% CI and P=.05 for statistical significance. Results Digital interventions were delivered using devices such as cell phones, smartphones, personal computers, and wearables coupled with technologies such as the internet, SMS, software applications, and mobile sensors. Behavioral change constructs such as cognition, follow-up, goal setting, record keeping, perceived benefit, persuasion, socialization, personalization, rewards and incentives, support, and self-management were used. The meta-analyzed effect estimates (mean difference [MD]; standard mean difference [SMD]; and risk ratio [RR]) calculated for outcomes showed benefits in total cholesterol SMD at −0.29 [−0.44, −0.15], P Conclusions Digital interventions may improve healthy behavioral factors (PA, healthy diet, and medication adherence) and are even more potent when used to treat multiple behavioral outcomes (eg, medication adherence plus). However, they did not appear to reduce unhealthy behavioral factors (smoking, alcohol intake, and unhealthy diet) and clinical outcomes (BMI, triglycerides, diastolic and systolic BP, and HbA1c).

BackgroundHealth and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and in the challenge to control the virus have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues therefore to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to identify whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis. The review also sought to identify a participant population for the trial of a digital intervention to support HSCW’s psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. MethodsWe undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the COVID-19 Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on health and care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. ResultsThe 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the social care or primary care workforce. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Resilience was identified as a factor protecting against adverse mental health outcomes. ConclusionsThe evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from psychological interventions. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological wellbeing in health and social care workers. Psychological interventions aimed at enhancing psychological resilience and utilising innovative methods to personalise treatments without excluding groups may be of benefit.

Background Health and social care staff are at high risk of experiencing adverse mental health (MH) outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, there is a need to prioritize and identify ways to effectively support their psychological well-being (PWB). Compared to traditional psychological interventions, digital psychological interventions are cost-effective treatment options that allow for large-scale dissemination and transcend social distancing, overcome rurality, and minimize clinician time. Objective This study reports MH outcomes of a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-compliant parallel-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the potential usefulness of an existing and a novel digital psychological intervention aimed at supporting psychological health among National Health Service (NHS) staff working through the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods NHS Highland (NHSH) frontline staff volunteers (N=169) were randomly assigned to the newly developed NHSH Staff Wellbeing Project (NHSWBP), an established digital intervention (My Possible Self [MPS]), or a waitlist (WL) group for 4 weeks. Attempts were made to blind participants to which digital intervention they were allocated. The interventions were fully automated, without any human input or guidance. We measured 5 self-reported psychological outcomes over 3 time points: before (baseline), in the middle of (after 2 weeks), and after treatment (4 weeks). The primary outcomes were anxiety (7-item General Anxiety Disorder), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). The secondary outcomes included mental toughness (Mental Toughness Index) and gratitude (Gratitude Questionnaire-6). Results Retention rates mid- and postintervention were 77% (n=130) and 63.3% (n=107), respectively. Postintervention, small differences were noted between the WL and the 2 treatment groups on anxiety (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.07, 95% CI –0.20 to 0.33; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.06, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.31), depression (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.37, 95% CI 0.07-0.66; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.18, 95% CI –0.11 to 0.46), and mental well-being (vs MPS: Cohen d=–0.04, 95% CI –0.62 to –0.08; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=–0.15, 95% CI –0.41 to 0.10). A similar pattern of between-group differences was found for the secondary outcomes. The NHSWBP group generally had larger within-group effects than the other groups and displayed a greater rate of change compared to the other groups on all outcomes, except for gratitude, where the rate of change was greatest for the MPS group. Conclusions Our analyses provided encouraging results for the use of brief digital psychological interventions in improving PWB among health and social care workers. Future multisite RCTs, with power to reliably detect differences, are needed to determine the efficacy of contextualized interventions relative to existing digital treatments. Trial Registration ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN) ISRCTN18107122; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18107122

South Africa is a middle-income country with serious socioeconomic risk factors for mental illness. Of its population of 52 million, 53% live below the poverty line, 24% are unemployed and 11% live with HIV/AIDS, all of which are factors associated with an increased burden of neuropsychiatric disease. The negative social implications due to the mortality caused by AIDS are immense: thousands of children are being orphaned, increasing the risk of intergenerational mental illness. Ensuring sufficient mental health human resources has been a challenge, with South Africa displaying lower workforce numbers than many low- and middle-income countries. It is in South Africa's public rural primary healthcare (PRPHC) areas where access to mental healthcare services, especially medical prescribers, is most dire. In 1994, primary healthcare (PHC) was mainstreamed into South Africa's public healthcare system as an inclusive, people-orientated healthcare system. Nurses provide for the majority of the human resources at PHC level and are therefore seen as the backbone of this sector. Efforts to decentralize mental healthcare and integrate it into the PHC system rely on the availability of mental health nurses (MHNs), to whom the task of diagnosing mental illness and prescribing psychotropic medications can be shifted. The goal of this situation analysis was to fill knowledge gaps with regard to MHN human resources in South Africa's PRPHC settings, where an estimated 40% of South Africa's population reside.Both primary and secondary data were analysed. Primary data was collected by inviting 160 (98%) of South African rural hospitals' clinical heads to participate in an interview schedule regarding mental health human resources at their institutions. Primary data were collated and then analysed using descriptive quantitative analysis to produce lists of MHNs per institution and per province. Secondary data was obtained from an extensive literature review of MHNs in South Africa, but also of mental healthcare services in other low- and middle-income countries. The literature review included reports by the National Department of Health and the South African Nursing Council, academic publications and dissertations as well as census data from Statistics South Africa, including findings from the 2011 general household survey. International secondary data was obtained from the WHO's most recent reports on global mental health.The findings suggest a distressing shortage of MHNs in South Africa's rural public areas. Only 62 (38.7%) of the 160 facilities employ MHNs, a total of 116 MHNs. These MHNs serve an estimated population of more than 17 million people, suggesting that MHNs are employed at a rate of 0.68 per 100 000 population in South Africa's PRPHC areas.Secondary data analysis indicates that MHNs are practicing in South Africa at a national rate of 9.7 per 100 000 population. This unequal distribution calls for a redistribution of MHNs to PRPHC areas. Further recommendations are made to address the mental healthcare workforce crisis by upscaling human resources in PRPHC areas. Revisiting policy surrounding training programs and the current evidence-based approach of task shifting is advised. Innovative approaches such as extending mental healthcare professions' roles and scopes of practice at PHC level are necessary to ensure adequate mental health care for all South Africans.