Search

Objective:To explore whether negative emotions mediate the effect of diabetes cognitions on diabetes self-care and conversely whether diabetes cognitions mediate the effect of negative emotions on diabetes self-care. Design:Longitudinal observational study in adults with type 2 diabetes. Main outcome measures:Self-reported depression and anxiety (Diabetes Wellbeing Questionnaire), cognitions (Illness Perceptions Questionnaire-Revised; Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire), and diabetes self-care (Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Scale) were completed at baseline and six months. Analyses used structural equation modelling. Results:Baseline medication concerns were associated with elevated symptoms of depression and anxiety at follow-up, but emotions did not mediate medication concern’s effect on diabetes self-care. Baseline depression and anxiety symptoms were associated with specific diabetes cognitions over time, but these cognition domains did not mediate emotion’s effect on diabetes self-care. Personal control remained independent of emotions and was associated with diabetes self-care over time. Conclusions:Negative emotions did not act directly or alongside cognitions to influence diabetes self-care. The reciprocal relationship between diabetes cognitions and emotions suggests cognitive restructuring, in addition to other mood management intervention techniques would likely improve the emotional wellbeing of adults with type 2 diabetes. Likewise, personal control beliefs are likely important intervention targets for improving self-care. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: A limitation of service delivery in primary care in the United Kingdom is that services are often organised to manage discrete long-term conditions, using guidelines related to single conditions, and managed in clinics organised around single conditions. However, many older patients have more than one condition (so called multimorbidity). Qualitative research suggests that these patients experience 'hassles' in their care, including multiple appointments, poor co-ordination, and conflicting recommendations. However, there is limited quantitative evidence on the 'hassles' that patients with multimorbidity experience, or factors predicting 'hassles' in patients with multimorbidity. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional study, mailing questionnaires to 1460 patients with multimorbidity identified from the disease registers of four general practices in the UK. Patients were asked to complete a range of self-report measures including measures of multimorbidity, measures of their experience of multimorbidity and service delivery. Data were analysed using regression modelling to assess the factors predicting 'hassles' in patients with multimorbidity. Results: In total 33 % (n=486) of patients responded to the baseline survey. The 'hassles' most often reported by patients related to lack of information about conditions and treatment options, poor communication among health professionals, and poor access to specialist care. There was a significant relationship between numbers of conditions, and reports of 'hassles'. In multivariate analysis, 5 variables predicted more 'hassles': more long-term conditions, symptoms of anxiety and depression, younger age, being in paid employment, and not having a discussion with their GP in the last 12 months. Conclusion: Hassles are frequently reported by patients with multimorbidity in primary care. A priority for future research should be on the development of new models of care that better cater for these patients. This research highlights core hassles that need to be addressed, and the patient groups that are most at risk, which may aid in the design of these new models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental–physical multimorbidity (the co-existence of mental and physical ill health) is highly prevalent and associated with significant impairments and high healthcare costs. While the sociology of chronic illness has developed a mature discourse on coping with long term physical illness the impact of mental and physical health have remained analytically separated, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the day-to-day complexities encountered by people living with mental–physical multimorbidity. We used the phenomenological paradigm of the lived body to elucidate how the experience of mental–physical multimorbidity shapes people's lifeworlds. Nineteen people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and depression (defined as a score ≥8 on depression scale of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were recruited from secondary NHS care and interviewed at their homes. Data were analysed phenomenologically using van Manen's lifeworld existential framework of the lived body, lived time, lived space, lived relations. Additionally, we re-analysed data (using the same framework) collected from 13 people recruited from secondary NHS care with either COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, or type 1 or type 2 diabetes and depression. The phenomenology of mental–physical multimorbidity was articulated through embodied and emotional encounters with day-to-day life in four ways: [a] participants' perception of lived time and lived space contracted; [b] time and [c] space were experienced as liminal categories, enforcing negative mood and temporal and spatial contraction; and [d] time and space could also be customised to reinstate agency and self-determination. Mental–physical multimorbidity negatively impacts on individuals' perceptions of lived time and lived space, leading to a loss of agency, heightened uncertainty, and poor well-being. Harnessing people's capacity to modify their experience of time and space may be a novel way to support people with mental–physical multimorbidity to live well with illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the creation of a regional genetic service in Manchester, England. Ways in which hereditary diseases were managed and investigated by the National Health Service of Great Britain in 1948-68; Emergence of genetics as a medical specialism; Linking of laboratory service and counseling; Integration of molecular genetics into key regional centers.

Background: Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19., Objectives: We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions., Methods: Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness., Findings: The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was -0.70 (95% CI -2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was -0.39 (95% CI -1.43 to 0.65).The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.31, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.11) and loneliness (SMD=-0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; depression SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.07)., Discussion: We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression; achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway., Clinical Implications: Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. DE and CCG were committee members for the NICE Depression Guideline (update) Development Group between 2015 and 2022, and SiG was a member between 2015 and 2018. SiG, PC and DM are supported by the NIHR Yorkshire and Humberside Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) and DE is supported by the North East and North Cumbria ARCs. CCG is part funded by West Midland ARC., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to "shield" to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed., Methods and Findings: We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months -0.87 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (-1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (-1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (-4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (-4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (-2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (-2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Trial Registration: ISRCTN94091479., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: DE and CCG are current committee members for the NICE Depression Guideline (update) Development Group, and SG was a member between 2015-18. SG, PC and DMcM are supported by the NIHR Yorkshire and Humberside Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) and DE is supported by the North East and North Cumbria ARCs.

Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity as a consequence of climate change and pose a significant threat to population mental health. This is the case even in temperate regions such as the United Kingdom (UK) where flooding and heat waves are forecast to become more common. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the prevalence and describe the causes of common mental health problems in populations exposed to extreme weather events in the UK. We searched Web of Science, EMBASE and PsycINFO for studies that measured the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in populations exposed to extreme weather events in the UK, published up to 12 December 2019. We included 17 studies, four of which were included in meta-analyses to determine the point prevalence of common mental health problems in the period within 12 months following extreme weather events. The point prevalence was 19.8% for anxiety (k = 4; n = 1458; 95% CI 7.42 to 32.15), 21.35% for depression (k = 4; n = 1458; 95% CI 9.04 to 33.65) and 30.36% for PTSD (k = 4; n = 1359; 95% CI 11.68 to 49.05). Key factors that affected mental ill health in people exposed to flooding were water depth and absence of flood warnings. Displacement from home underscored the narratives associated with people's perceptions of the impact of flooding. The high prevalence of common mental health problems suggests that the prevention of mental ill health in populations at risk or exposed to extreme weather events should be a UK public health priority.