Purpose Research is beginning to quantify the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental health conditions. Our paper addresses a lack of in-depth qualitative research exploring their experiences and perceptions of how life has changed at this time. Methods We used qualitative interviews (N = 49) to explore experiences of the pandemic for people with pre-existing mental health conditions. In a participatory, coproduced approach, researchers with lived experiences of mental health conditions conducted interviews and analysed data as part of a multi-disciplinary research team. Results Existing mental health difficulties were exacerbated for many people. People experienced specific psychological impacts of the pandemic, struggles with social connectedness, and inadequate access to mental health services, while some found new ways to cope and connect to the community. New remote ways to access mental health care, including digital solutions, provided continuity of care for some but presented substantial barriers for others. People from black and ethnic minority (BAME) communities experienced heightened anxiety, stigma and racism associated with the pandemic, further impacting their mental health. Conclusion There is a need for evidence-based solutions to achieve accessible and effective mental health care in response to the pandemic, especially remote approaches to care. Further research should explore the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental health conditions. Particular attention should be paid to understanding inequalities of impact on mental health, especially for people from BAME communities.
BackgroundCrisis Concordat was established to improve outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Crisis Concordat sets out four stages of the crisis care pathway: (1) access to support before crisis point; (2) urgent and emergency access to crisis care; (3) quality treatment and care in crisis; and (4) promoting recovery.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the models of care for improving outcomes at each stage of the care pathway.Data sourcesElectronic databases were searched for guidelines, reviews and, where necessary, primary studies. The searches were performed on 25 and 26 June 2014 for NHS Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and PROSPERO databases, and on 11 November 2014 for MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Relevant reports and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.Study selectionWhen guidelines covered a topic comprehensively, further literature was not assessed; however, where there were gaps, systematic reviews and then primary studies were assessed in order of priority.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsSystematic reviews were critically appraised using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews assessment tool, trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, studies without a control group were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prognostic studies tool and qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for each stage of the care pathway structured according to the type of care model assessed. The type and range of evidence identified precluded the use of meta-analysis.Results and limitationsOne review of reviews, six systematic reviews, nine guidelines and 15 primary studies were included. There was very limited evidence for access to support before crisis point. There was evidence of benefits for liaison psychiatry teams in improving service-related outcomes in emergency departments, but this was often limited by potential confounding in most studies. There was limited evidence regarding models to improve urgent and emergency access to crisis care to guide police officers in their Mental Health Act responsibilities. There was positive evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of crisis resolution teams but variability in implementation. Current work from the Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention study aims to improve fidelity in delivering these models. Crisis houses and acute day hospital care are also currently recommended by NICE. There was a large evidence base on promoting recovery with a range of interventions recommended by NICE likely to be important in helping people stay well.Conclusions and implicationsMost evidence was rated as low or very low quality, but this partly reflects the difficulty of conducting research into complex interventions for people in a mental health crisis and does not imply that all research was poorly conducted. However, there are currently important gaps in research for a number of stages of the crisis care pathway. Particular gaps in research on access to support before crisis point and urgent and emergency access to crisis care were found. In addition, more high-quality research is needed on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mental health crisis care, including effective components of inpatient care, post-discharge transitional care and Community Mental Health Teams/intensive case management teams.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013279.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
ObjectivesTo explore temporal associations between planned antibiotic stewardship and infection control interventions and the molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).DesignRetrospective ecological study and time-series analysis integrating typing data from the Scottish MRSA reference laboratory.SettingRegional hospital and primary care in a Scottish Health Board.ParticipantsGeneral adult (N=1 051 993) or intensive care (18 235) admissions and primary care registrations (460 000 inhabitants) between January 1997 and December 2012.InterventionsHand-hygiene campaign; MRSA admission screening; antibiotic stewardship limiting use of macrolides and ‘4Cs’ (cephalosporins, coamoxiclav, clindamycin and fluoroquinolones).Outcome measuresPrevalence density of MRSA clonal complexes CC22, CC30 and CC5/Other in hospital (isolates/1000 occupied bed days, OBDs) and community (isolates/10 000 inhabitant-days).Results67% of all clinical MRSA isolates (10 707/15 947) were typed. Regional MRSA population structure was dominated by hospital epidemic strains CC30, CC22 and CC45. Following declines in overall MRSA prevalence density, CC5 and other strains of community origin became increasingly important. Reductions in use of ‘4Cs’ and macrolides anticipated declines in sublineages with higher levels of associated resistances. In multivariate time-series models (R2=0.63–0.94) introduction of the hand-hygiene campaign, reductions in mean length of stay (when >4 days) and bed occupancy (when >74 to 78%) predicted declines in CC22 and CC30, but not CC5/other strains. Lower importation pressures, expanded MRSA admission screening, and reductions in macrolide and third generation cephalosporin use (thresholds for association: 135–141, and 48–81 defined daily doses/1000 OBDs, respectively) were followed by declines in all clonal complexes. Strain-specific associations with fluoroquinolones and clindamycin reflected resistance phenotypes of clonal complexes.ConclusionsInfection control measures and changes in population antibiotic use were important predictors of MRSA strain dynamics in our region. Strategies to control MRSA should consider thresholds for effects and strain-specific impacts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.