Background In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world instituted various public-health measures. Our project aimed to highlight the most significant similarities and differences in key mental-health indicators between four Western and Northern European countries, and identify the population subgroups with the poorest mental-health outcomes during the first months of the pandemic. Methods We analysed time-series survey data of 205,084 individuals from seven studies from Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the UK to assess the impact of the pandemic and associated lockdowns. All analyses focused on the initial lockdown phase (March–July 2020). The main outcomes were loneliness, anxiety, and COVID-19-related worries and precautionary behaviours. Findings COVID-19-related worries were consistently high in each country but decreased during the gradual reopening phases. While only 7% of the respondents reported high levels of loneliness in the Netherlands, percentages were higher in the rest of the three countries (13–18%). In all four countries, younger individuals and individuals with a history of mental illness expressed the highest levels of loneliness. Interpretation The pandemic and associated country lockdowns had a major impact on the mental health of populations, and certain subgroups should be closely followed to prevent negative long-term consequences. Younger individuals and individuals with a history of mental illness would benefit from tailored public-health interventions to prevent or counteract the negative effects of the pandemic. Individuals across Western and Northern Europe have thus far responded in psychologically similar ways despite differences in government approaches to the pandemic. Funding See the Funding section.

Aims: There is a need to document the mental-health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated societal lockdowns. We initiated a large mixed-methods data collection, focusing on crisis-specific worries and mental-health indicators during the lockdown in Denmark. Methods: The study incorporated five data sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The surveys included a time series of cross-sectional online questionnaires starting on 20 March 2020, in which 300 (3×100) Danish residents were drawn every three days from three population groups: the general population ( N=1046), families with children ( N=1032) and older people ( N=1059). These data were analysed by trend analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 people aged 24–83 throughout Denmark to provide context to the survey results and to gain insight into people’s experiences of the lockdown. Results: Absolute level of worries, quality of life and social isolation were relatively stable across all population groups during the lockdown, although there was a slight deterioration in older people’s overall mental health. Many respondents were worried about their loved ones’ health (74–76%) and the potential long-term economic consequences of the pandemic (61–66%). The qualitative interviews documented significant variation in people’s experiences, suggesting that the lockdown’s effect on everyday life had not been altogether negative. Conclusions: People in Denmark seem to have managed the lockdown without alarming changes in their mental health. However, it is important to continue investigating the effects of the pandemic and various public-health measures on mental health over time and across national contexts.

Background While the field of rehabilitation has determined a common definition of professional practice, legislators and healthcare professionals in various Western countries have struggled to reach consensus about how the newer offer of ‘reablement’ should be organised, operationalised, and understood as a health service for older adults. International research indicates that there is confusion, ambiguity, and disagreement about the terminology and the structure of these programmes, and they may not be adequately supporting older people’s self-identified goals. Could an analysis of the concept’s genealogy illuminate how reablement can be more effective and beneficial in theory and in practice? Methods We conducted a qualitative and quantitative scoping review to determine how reablement has developed through time and space. Eligible articles (N=86) had to focus on any of the defined features of current reablement programmes; there were no restrictions on study designs or publication dates. In articles published from 1947 to 2019, we identified themes and patterns, commonalities, and differences in how various countries described and defined reablement. We also performed an analysis using computer software to construct and visualise term maps based on significant words extracted from the article abstracts. Results The fundamental principles of reablement have a long history. However, these programmes have undergone a widespread expansion since the mid-2000s with an intention to reduce costs related to providing long-term care services and in-home assistance to growing older populations. Despite theoretical aspirations to offer person-centred and goal-directed reablement, few countries have been able to implement programmes that adequately promote older people’s goals, social involvement, or participation in their local community in a safe, culturally sensitive and adaptable way. Conclusions Reablement is meant to support older people in attaining their self-defined goals to be both more physically independent at home and socially involved in their communities. However, until legislators, health professionals, and older people can collectively reach consensus about how person-centred reablement can be more effectively implemented and supported in professional home-care practice, it will be difficult to determine a conceptual description of reablement as a service that is unique, separate, and distinct from standard rehabilitation.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated national lockdowns have been linked to deteriorations in mental health worldwide. A number of studies analysed changes in mental health indicators during the pandemic; however, these studies generally had a small number of timepoints, and focused on the initial months of the pandemic. Furthermore, most studies followed-up the same individuals, resulting in significant loss to follow-up and biased estimates of mental health and its change. Here we report on time trends in key mental health indicators amongst Danish adults over the course of the pandemic (March 2020 - July 2021) focusing on subgroups defined by gender, age, and self-reported previously diagnosed chronic and/or mental illness. Methods We used time-series data collected by Epinion (N=8,261) with 43 timepoints between 20 March 2020 and 22 July 2021. Using a repeated cross-sectional study design, independent sets of individuals were asked to respond to the Copenhagen Corona-Related Mental Health questionnaire at each timepoint, and data was weighted to population proportions. The six mental health indicators examined were loneliness, anxiety, social isolation, quality of life, COVID-19-related worries, and the mental health scale. Gender, age, and the presence of previously diagnosed mental and/or chronic illness were used to stratify the population into subgroups for comparisons. Results Poorer mental health were observed during the strictest phases of the lockdowns, whereas better outcomes occurred during reopening phases. Women, young individuals (<34 yrs), and those with a mental- and/or chronic illness demonstrated poorer mean time-series than others. Those with a pre-existing mental illness further had a less reactive mental health time-series. The greatest differences between women/men and younger/older age groups were observed during the second lockdown. Conclusions People with mental illness have reported disadvantageous but stable levels of mental health indicators during the pandemic thus far, and they seem to be less affected by the factors that result in fluctuating time-series in other subgroups.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions may contribute to a deterioration in mental health; individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may be particularly affected. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects of the current pandemic on people diagnosed with OCD, and whether pandemics may affect the development of OCD symptoms.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search using NCBI PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar on February 9, 2021. Research articles related to OCD and COVID-19 or other pandemics were attempted to be identified using pre-defined search terms. Case reports, clinical guidelines, letters, and clinical research articles including ≥100 participants were included; reviews were excluded. The systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included clinical research articles.ResultsA total of 79 articles were included in the full-text assessment. Of these, 59 were clinical research articles, two were clinical guidelines, six were case reports, and 12 were letters. The research articles examined OCD symptoms in adult patients with diagnosed OCD, the general population, pregnant women, healthcare workers, students, and young adults, children, and adolescents. Only one study on OCD in previous pandemics was identified.ConclusionThis systematic review found that people both with and without diagnosed OCD prior to the pandemic generally experienced a worsened landscape of symptoms of OCD during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the responses are heterogeneous and many factors other than the pandemic seemed to affect the development of OCD symptoms. To prevent the impairment of symptoms and the development of new cases, close monitoring of patients with OCD and education of the general public is essential. Literature is still limited; thus, multinational and cross-cultural, longitudinal studies are warranted to gain further insights on this topic.