Search

Discussions about user involvement in the mental health services tend to throw up four major areas of concern: the capacity of service users to participate, their lack of participation skills, the need for a positive organisational culture and the need for arenas of participation. This article presents evidence from participatory action research with Irish mental health service users which explored how they could more equally participate in advisory committees. Participants identified barriers to their equal participation due to unequal cultural, physical, mental and economic resources, time, power, 'stigma' (prejudice) and lack of respect for their experiential knowledge and emotional expression. These barriers fall within the 'equality of condition framework' developed by Baker and colleagues. Enabling equal user involvement in strategic decision-making requires more than arenas of participation -- it requires comprehensively addressing service users' structural disadvantages throughout the process of involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organisation declared the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic on 11th March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in its grip. At the time of writing, there were more than 767,972,961 million confirmed cases and over 6,950,655 million deaths. While the main policy focus has been on controlling the virus and ensuring vaccine roll-out and uptake, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be long-term, with certain population groups affected more than others., Methods: The overall objectives of our 'Coronavirus: Mental Health and the Pandemic' study were to explore UK adults' experiences of the Coronavirus pandemic and to gain insights into the mental health impacts, population-level changes over time, current and future mental health needs, and how these can best be addressed. The wider mixed-methods study consisted of repeated cross-sectional surveys and embedded qualitative sub-studies including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with the wider UK adult population. For this particular inequalities and mental health sub-study, we used mixed methods data from our cross-sectional surveys and we carried out three Focus Group Discussions with a maximum variation sample from across the UK adult population. The discussions covered the broader topic of 'Inequalities and mental health during the Coronavirus pandemic in the UK' and took place online between April and August 2020. Focus Groups transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in NVIVO. Cross-sectional survey data were analysed using STATA for descriptive statistics., Results: Three broad main themes emerged, each supporting a number of sub-themes: (1) Impacts of the pandemic; (2) Moving forward: needs and recommendations; (3) Coping mechanisms and resilience. Findings showed that participants described their experiences of the pandemic in relation to its impact on themselves and on different groups of people. Their experiences illustrated how the pandemic and subsequent measures had exacerbated existing inequalities and created new ones, and triggered various emotional responses. Participants also described their coping strategies and what worked and did not work for them, as well as support needs and recommendations for moving forward through, and out of, the pandemic; all of which are valuable learnings to be considered in policy making for improving mental health and for ensuring future preparedness., Conclusions: The pandemic is taking a long-term toll on the nations' mental health which will continue to have impacts for years to come. It is therefore crucial to learn the vital lessons learned from this pandemic. Specific as well as whole-government policies need to respond to this, address inequalities and the different needs across the life-course and across society, and take a holistic approach to mental health improvement across the UK., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic increased multiple risk factors for mental health. Evidence-based, intersectoral public mental health responses are therefore critical. The primary aim of this study was to collate public mental health responses from across Europe., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in March 2021. Participants were public and mental health professionals from across Europe. We developed an online instrument exploring five domains: changes in mental health supports during the pandemic; mental health support for vulnerable groups; multi-sectoral and service-user involvement; published mental health response plans; and perceived quality of overall country response., Results: Fifty-two individuals from 20 European nations responded. Reported changes in mental health supports included an increase in online mental health supports (n = 18); but no change in long-term mental health funding (n = 13); and a decrease in access to early interventions (n = 9). Responses indicated mental health support for vulnerable groups was limited, as was multi-sectoral and service-user involvement. Few national mental health response plans existed (n = 9) and 48% of respondents felt their countries mental health response had been 'poor' or 'very poor'., Conclusions: Our results give insights into the changes in mental health support at a country level across Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. They indicate countries were not prepared to respond and people with existing vulnerabilities were often neglected in response planning. To be prepared for future pandemics and environmental disasters Public Mental Health preparedness plans are highly needed. These must be developed cross-departmentally, and through the meaningful inclusion of vulnerable groups., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Background: Worldwide, the Coronavirus pandemic has had a major impact on people's health, lives, and livelihoods. However, this impact has not been felt equally across various population groups. People from ethnic minority backgrounds in the UK have been more adversely affected by the pandemic, especially in terms of their physical health. Their mental health, on the other hand, has received less attention. This study aimed to explore the mental health experiences of UK adults from ethnic minorities during the Coronavirus pandemic. This work forms part of our wider long-term UK population study "Mental Health in the Pandemic.", Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with people from ethnic minority communities across the UK. A series of in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 women, 14 men and 1 non-binary person from ethnic minority backgrounds, aged between 18 and 65 years old (mean age = 40). We utilized purposefully selected maximum variation sampling in order to capture as wide a variety of views, perceptions and experiences as possible. Inclusion criteria: adults (18+) from ethnic minorities across the UK; able to provide full consent to participate; able to participate in a video- or phone-call interview. All interviews took place via MS Teams or Zoom. The gathered data were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke carried out using NVivo 12 software., Results: The qualitative data analysis yielded seven overarching themes: (1) pandemic-specific mental health and wellbeing experiences; (2) issues relating to the media; (3) coping mechanisms; (4) worries around and attitudes toward vaccination; (5) suggestions for support in moving forward; (6) best and worst experiences during pandemic and lockdowns; (7) biggest areas of change in personal life. Generally, participants' mental health experiences varied with some not being affected by the pandemic in a way related to their ethnicity, some sharing positive experiences and coping strategies (exercising more, spending more time with family, community cohesion), and some expressing negative experiences (eating or drinking more, feeling more isolated, or even racism and abuse, especially toward Asian communities). Concerns were raised around trust issues in relation to the media, the inadequate representation of ethnic minorities, and the spread of fake news especially on social media. Attitudes toward vaccinations varied too, with some people more willing to have the vaccine than others., Conclusion: This study's findings highlight the diversity in the pandemic mental health experiences of ethnic minorities in the UK and has implications for policy, practice and further research. To enable moving forward beyond the pandemic, our study surfaced the need for culturally appropriate mental health support, financial support (as a key mental health determinant), accurate media representation, and clear communication messaging from the Governments of the UK., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Van Bortel, Lombardo, Guo, Solomon, Martin, Hughes, Weeks, Crepaz-Keay, McDaid, Chantler, Thorpe, Morton, Davidson, John and Kousoulis.)

Introduction: Amongst its advocates, one of the key arguments for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is its potential to improve population mental health. However, while previous authors have variously examined the potential effects of UBI on income, employment and labour market demand, the direct mental health consequences of previous pilots have been less frequently examined. The purpose of this paper is therefore to conduct a review of the literature on UBI and to re-examine the existing research with a mental health focus., Methods: Six electronic databases were used to conduct a review of the literature. We searched for empirical research studies of any design, conducted since the year 2000 in High Income Countries, exploring the effects of interventions similar to a UBI on the mental health of children or working-age adults. Grey literature and government reports were also included., Results: A total of 1566 articles were screened of which seven peer reviewed studies and eight governmental reports were ultimately selected for inclusion. None of the identified studies directly compared the impact of individual payments with those made on a household basis, or the effects of payments which were truly universal. However, several studies evaluated the mental health outcomes associated with payments provided unconditionally, and consistently reported clear and significant improvements in mental wellbeing. Potential mediating factors included improved time with family and friends, a reduction in perceived stigma and a renewed sense of hope for the future., Conclusions: Our review has produced evidence to suggest that prophesies surrounding the mental health benefits of a UBI are at least partially justified. However, future studies should aim to be conducted at an area level, with an adequately powered sample size, and investigate interventions of a considerable duration using a longitudinal design., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The WHO declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in the grip of the COVID-19. To date, more than 211 730 035 million confirmed cases and more than 4 430 697 million people have died. While controlling the virus and implementing vaccines are the main priorities, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be longer term and are less obvious than the physical health ones. Lockdown restrictions, physical distancing, social isolation, as well as the loss of a loved one, working in a frontline capacity and loss of economic security may have negative effects on and increase the mental health challenges in populations around the world. There is a major demand for long-term research examining the mental health experiences and needs of people in order to design adequate policies and interventions for sustained action to respond to individual and population mental health needs both during and after the pandemic., Methods and Analysis: This repeated cross-sectional mixed-method study conducts regular self-administered representative surveys, and targeted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with adults in the UK, as well as validation of gathered evidence through citizens' juries for contextualisation (for the UK as a whole and for its four devolved nations) to ensure that emerging mental health problems are identified early on and are properly understood, and that appropriate policies and interventions are developed and implemented across the UK and within devolved contexts. STATA and NVIVO will be used to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval for this study has been granted by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge, UK (PRE 2020.050) and by the Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee of De Montfort University, UK (REF 422991). While unlikely, participants completing the self-administered surveys or participating in the virtual focus groups, semi-structured interviews and citizens' juries might experience distress triggered by questions or conversations. However, appropriate mitigating measures have been adopted and signposting to services and helplines will be available at all times. Furthermore, a dedicated member of staff will also be at hand to debrief following participation in the research and personalised thank-you notes will be sent to everyone taking part in the qualitative research.Study findings will be disseminated in scientific journals, at research conferences, local research symposia and seminars. Evidence-based open access briefings, articles and reports will be available on our study website for everyone to access. Rapid policy briefings targeting issues emerging from the data will also be disseminated to inform policy and practice. These briefings will position the findings within UK public policy and devolved nations policy and socioeconomic contexts in order to develop specific, timely policy recommendations. Additional dissemination will be done through traditional and social media. Our data will be contextualised in view of existing policies, and changes over time as-and-when policies change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected people's physical and mental health. Quarantine and other lockdown measures have altered people's daily lives; levels of anxiety, depression, substance use, self-harm and suicide ideation have increased. This commentary assesses how international governments, agencies and organisations are responding to the challenge of the mental health impact of COVID-19 with the aim of informing the ongoing policy and service responses needed in the immediate and longer term. It identifies some of the key themes emerging from the literature, recognises at-risk populations and highlights opportunities for innovation within mental health services, focusing on the published academic literature, international health ministry websites and other relevant international organisations beyond the United Kingdom and Ireland. COVID-19 has challenged, and may have permanently changed, mental health services. It has highlighted and exacerbated pre-existing pressures and inequities. Many decision-makers consider this an opportunity to transform mental health care, and tackling the social determinants of mental health and engaging in prevention will be a necessary part of such transformation. Better data collection, modelling and sharing will enhance policy and service development. The crisis provides opportunities to build on positive innovations: the adaptability and flexibility of community-based care; drawing on lived experience in the design, development and monitoring of services; interagency collaboration; accelerating digital healthcare; and connecting physical and mental health.