ObjectivesThis study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April–June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.MethodsPreliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale.ResultsAnalyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one’s moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic.

ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of UK ex-service personnel (veterans) before and during the pandemic, and to assess associations of COVID-19 experiences and stressors with mental health, alcohol use and loneliness.DesignAn additional wave of data was collected from a longitudinal cohort study of the UK Armed Forces.SettingOnline survey June–September 2020.ParticipantsCohort members were included if they had completed a questionnaire at phase 3 of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research health and well-being study (2014–2016), had left the Armed Forces after regular service, were living in the UK, had consented to follow-up and provided a valid email address. Invitation emails were sent to N=3547 with a 44% response rate (n=1562).Primary outcome measuresCommon mental health disorders (CMDs) (measured using the General Health Questionnaire, 12 items—cut-off ≥4), hazardous alcohol use (measured using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, 10 items—cut off ≥8) and loneliness (University of California, Los Angeles, Loneliness Scale— 3 items-cut-off ≥6).ResultsVeterans reported a statistically significant decrease in hazardous drinking of 48.5% to 27.6%, while CMD remained stable (non-statistically significant increase of 24.5% to 26.1%). 27.4% of veterans reported feelings of loneliness. The COVID-19 stressors of reporting difficulties with family/social relationships, boredom and difficulties with health were statistically significantly associated with CMD, hazardous drinking and loneliness, even after adjustment for previous mental health/hazardous alcohol use.ConclusionsOur study suggests a COVID-19 impact on veterans’ mental health, alcohol use and loneliness, particularly for those experiencing difficulties with family relationships. Veterans experienced the pandemic in similar ways to the general population and in some cases may have responded in resilient ways. While stable levels of CMD and reduction in alcohol use are positive, there remains a group of veterans who may need mental health and alcohol treatment services.

ObjectivesThis study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and wellbeing outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.MethodsPreliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4,378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts (UK), including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (PCL-6), suicidal ideation (CIS-R), and alcohol use (AUDIT). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale (MIES).ResultsAnalyses showed substantial levels of CMDs (58.9%, 95%CI 58.1 to 60.8), and of PTSD (30.2%, 95%CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95%CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95%CI 21.3 to 25.3), and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95%CI, 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff, and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one’s moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, and alcohol misuse.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic.HighlightsWhat is already known about this subject?Large-scale population studies report increased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.Evidence from previous epidemics indicates a high and persistent burden of adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers.What are the new findings?Substantial levels of probable common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder were found among healthcare workers.Groups at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes included women, nurses, and younger staff, as well as those who reported higher levels of moral injury.How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?The mental health offering to healthcare workers must consider the interplay of demographic, social, and occupational factors.Additional longitudinal research that emphasises methodological rigor, namely with use of standardised diagnostic interviews to establish mental health diagnoses, is necessary to better understand the mental health burden, identify those most at risk, and provide appropriate support without pathologizing ordinary distress responses.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are frontline responders to emergency infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. To avoid the rapid spread of disease, adherence to protective measures is paramount. We investigated rates of correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and physical distancing in UK HCWs who had been to their workplace at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and factors associated with adherence.MethodsWe used an online cross-sectional survey of 1035 UK healthcare professionals (data collected 12–16 June 2020). We excluded those who had not been to their workplace in the previous 6 weeks, leaving us with a sample size of 831. Respondents were asked about their use of PPE, hand hygiene and physical distancing in the workplace. Frequency of uptake was reported descriptively; adjusted logistic regressions were used to separately investigate factors associated with adherence to use of PPE, maintaining good hand hygiene and physical distancing from colleagues.ResultsAdherence to personal protective measures was suboptimal (PPE use: 80.0%, 95% CI 77.3 to 82.8; hand hygiene: 67.8%, 95% CI 64.6 to 71.0; coming into close contact with colleagues: 74.7%, 95% CI 71.7 to 77.7). Adherence to PPE use was associated with having received training about health and safety in the workplace for COVID-19, greater perceived social pressure to adopt the behaviour and availability of PPE. Non-adherence was associated with fatalism about COVID-19 and greater perceived difficulty of adopting protective measures. Workplace design using markings to facilitate distancing was associated with adherence to physical distancing.ConclusionsUptake of personal protective behaviours among UK HCWs at the start of the pandemic was variable. Factors associated with adherence provide insight into ways to support HCWs to adopt personal protective behaviours, such as ensuring that adequate PPE is available and designing workplaces to facilitate physical distancing.

IntroductionIndividuals who have been exposed to a traumatic event can develop profound feelings of guilt, shame and anger. Yet, studies of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have largely investigated changes in PTSD symptoms relating to a sense of ongoing fear or threat and the effectiveness of such treatments for post-trauma related guilt, shame or anger symptom reduction is comparatively not well understood.MethodsThis review systematically examined the effectiveness of existing treatment approaches for three symptoms associated with exposure to traumatic events: guilt, shame and anger. Studies included had to be published after 2010 with a sample size of n=50 or greater to ensure stable treatment outcome estimates.Results15 studies were included, consisting of both civilian and (ex-) military population samples exposed to a wide range of traumatic events (eg, combat-related, sexual abuse). Findings indicated a moderate strength of evidence that both cognitive-based and exposure-based treatments are similarly effective in reducing symptoms. Cognitive-based treatments were found to effectively reduce post-trauma related guilt and anger, while exposure-based treatments appeared effective for post-trauma related guilt, shame and anger.ConclusionsThe findings suggest the importance of confronting and discussing the traumatic event during therapy, rather than using less directive treatments (eg, supportive counselling).Nonetheless, while these results are promising, firm conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness and long-term impact of these treatments could not be drawn due to insufficient evidence. Further empirical research is needed to examine populations exposed to traumatic events and investigate which treatment approaches (or combination thereof) are more effective in the long-term.