The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have affected the psychological well-being and mental health of many people. Data on prevalence rates of mental health problems are needed for mental health service planning. Psychological well-being and prevalence of clinically significant mental distress were measured in a large sample from Wales 11–16 weeks into lockdown and compared to population-based data collected in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected using an online survey disseminated across Wales and open to adults (age 16+) from 9th June to 13th July 2020. Psychological well-being was indexed via the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and psychological distress was indexed via the K10. Data from 12,989 people who took part in this study were compared to that from April 2018 - March 2019, gathered by the National Survey for Wales ( N = 11,922). Well-being showed a large decrease from 2019 levels. Clinically significant psychological distress was found in around 50% of the population (men = 47.4%, women = 58.6%), with around 20% showing “severe” effects (men = 17.0%, women = 20.9%): a 3–4-fold increase in prevalence. Most affected were young people, women, and those in deprived areas. By June-July 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had dramatic effects on the mental health of people living in Wales (and by implication those in the UK and beyond). The effects are larger than previous reports. This probably reflects that the current data were taken deeper into the lockdown period than previous evaluations. Mental health services need to prepare for this wave of mental health problems with an emphasis on younger adults, women, and in areas of greater deprivation.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, first responders and health care workers faced elevated virus-related risks through prolonged contacts with the public. Research suggests that these workers already experienced lower levels of psychological well-being linked to occupational risks. Thus, the pandemic's impact might have particularly affected mental health in these groups. This paper analysed data from a large-scale Welsh population study (N = 12,989) from June to July 2020. Levels of psychological distress were compared across various occupations, including police, fire and rescue, and NHS health care workers. Resilience was also indexed, and its role considered as a protective factor for psychological distress. Surprisingly, health care workers reported lower distress levels than the general population. Further, fire and rescue and police groups had lower distress than most groups and significantly higher resilience. Within police officers, higher resilience levels were protective for distress. Fire and rescue workers were half as likely as others to report distress, even accounting for demographic factors and resilience. The findings offer an optimistic view of psychological resilience in these critical occupations. They illustrate potential benefits to one's mental health of playing a crucial societal role during crises and reiterate the importance of enhancing resilience within groups who encounter high-risk situations daily. Practitioner pointsOur findings provide evidence that health care workers and first responders showed lower levels of psychological distress than the general population during the first period of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. This may indicate that playing a critical role in society during an episode of crisis, and acting to help others, may be protective of one's own mental health. The research also provides an optimistic view of the psychological resilience of critical first responders and health care workers during a period early on in the COVID-19 pandemic (June-July 2020). ThisThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health and wellbeing of populations across the world. This study aimed to examine: (1) which specific aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with the presence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and(2) the extent to which participants' hopelessness and resilience moderated the relationship between COVID-19 related stress and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Method: We administered an online survey to 12,989 adult (16þ) participants across Wales from the 9th June to the 13th July 2020. Participants completed a series of questionnaires measuring the stressors they had experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, their levels of hopelessness over the past two weeks, their levels of resilience, and whether they had experienced suicidal thoughts or behaviors since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Our findings revealed that: (1) food insecurity, domestic abuse, relationship problems, redundancy, social isolation and financial problems were the COVID-19 related stressors most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and (2) that both hopelessness and resilience moderated the relationship between COVID-19 stress and suicidal thoughts, such that the relationship between COVID-19 stress and the presence of suicidal thoughts was much stronger for individuals with high hopelessness and low resilience. Conclusions: These results highlight the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic that are closely related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors and demonstrate the important role that hope for the future and resilience play in protecting individuals against the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. HIGHLIGHTSStressors caused by the pandemic are linked to increased suicidal thoughts. Hope protects individuals against the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Resilience also protects people from the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The Risk of Suicide Protocol (RoSP) is a structured professional judgment (SPJ) scheme designed in line with NICE guidelines to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and manage suicide risk.Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RoSP in two settings: (1) unexpected deaths of people in the community who were known to mental health services; and (2) an inpatient hospital specializing in the assessment and treatment of patients with personality disorder.Method: In Study 1, information from a database of unexpected deaths (N = 68) within an NHS health board was used to complete a RoSP assessment (blind to cause of death) and information from the Coroner's Court was used to assign people to suicide vs. natural causes/accidental death. In Study 2, patients (N = 62) were assessed on the RoSP upon admission to hospital and their self-injurious behaviors were recorded over the first 3 months of admission.Results: (1) Evaluations using RoSP were highly reliable in both samples (ICCs 0.93–0.98); (2) professional judgment based on the RoSP was predictive of completed suicide in the community sample (AUC = 0.83) and; (3) was predictive of both suicide attempts (AUC = 0.81) and all self-injurious behaviors (AUC = 0.80) for the inpatient sample.Conclusion: RoSP is a reliable and valid instrument for the structured clinical evaluation of suicide risk for use in inpatient psychiatric services and in community mental health services. RoSP's efficacy is comparable to well-established structured professional judgment instruments designed to predict other risk behavior (e.g., HCR-20 and the prediction of violence). The use of RoSP for the clinical evaluation of suicide risk and safety-planning provides a structure for meeting NICE guidelines for suicide prevention and is now evidence-based.

Objective This study examined the relationship between explicit and implicit measures of hopelessness and self‐injurious behavior (defined here as self‐harming or suicidal actions and thoughts). Method A community sample of 267 participants completed explicit measures of hopelessness (Beck's Hopelessness Scale and a Feeling Thermometer), an implicit measure of hopelessness (Hopelessness Implicit Association Test), and a self‐report measure of their history of self‐injurious behavior. Results The results showed that high levels of hopelessness, measured both explicitly or implicitly, were associated with a past and recent history of self‐injury. However, there was also an interaction between the implicit and explicit measures such that explicit hopelessness was more strongly predictive of self‐injury in people with high levels of implicit hopelessness. Conclusion The findings show that the implicit measurement of hopelessness can help predict past and recent self‐injury beyond what explicit measures of hopelessness currently achieve and could be used in the assessment of risk of both self‐harming and suicidal behaviors.