The pandemic has left even the most well-equipped health systems vulnerable and required difficult trade-offs to balance both Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 health services. Across the globe, planned and routine health services have been scaled down during peaks of the crisis to meet the needs of acute and Covid-19-related care, resulting in growing care backlogs and increase in the number of patients waiting for treatment. To identify potential policy solutions, we have consulted the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor, interviewed experts and analysed recovery strategies in 16 OECD and EU countries. Many country responses display striking similarities despite very real differences in the organisation of health and care services. These include: 1) increasing the supply of workforce by widening the scope of authority for different roles, investing heavily in recruitment and training for key roles, and improving the terms and conditions of work; 2) boosting productivity by introducing financial incentives and targets, reconfiguring facilities to better separate planned and emergency work”, optimising referrals and waiting list management, and outsourcing more care to the private sector; and 3) investing in out-of-hospital alternatives to care, including expanding primary and community care models and developing digital, home care and rehabilitative capacity Policymakers will need to balance the immediate pressures of clearing backlogs with long-term measures that place services on a more sustainable footing. International experience shows how these can be at odds, especially if actions taken in the short term exhaust an already depleted workforce, or resolve Covid-19-specific problems but leave services less prepared for tomorrow's challenges.

The government has unveiled plans for how the UK might live with covid-19, but the consequences of the pandemic for the NHS are still unfolding. 1 In December 2021, the number of patients waiting for specialist treatment surpassed six million, a number that has grown by about 37% since the start of the crisis. Almost certainly, more have not yet been accounted for due to disrupted access to routine and diagnostic care at the height of the pandemic. This comes on top of persistent staffing shortages and a workforce that is still coping with the cumulative stress of covid-19.

We have evaluated a novel early intervention for adolescent depression (age 16–18) in a feasibility randomised controlled trial. This nested process evaluation aimed to understand how this complex intervention worked. We sought to understand participants’ views and experiences of receiving and interacting with the intervention to evaluate whether the underpinning theoretical basis of the intervention is justified and whether it contributes to valued outcomes for participants. Twelve participants were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Framework analysis was employed to identify important aspects of adolescents’ experiences. The active ingredients identified by participants were consistent with and extended our understanding of the theoretical basis of the intervention. Four principle themes were identified: understanding how memory works and being able to remember memories in more detail; processing negative experiences and letting go; imagining positive future events; and understanding and being kinder to myself. The outcomes of the intervention were valued by participants. Six principle themes were identified: improving mood and well-being; reducing impact of negative memories; motivation and goal-directed behaviour; overcoming avoidance and rumination; relationships, communication and being open; and self-understanding and acceptance. A simplified logic model is also proposed to connect the intervention components, active ingredients, and valued outcomes. The findings provide an in-depth understanding of how participants interacted with the intervention and what they derived from it. For example, the findings establish processing negative experiences as a core intervention component, extend it to include letting go of these memories, and highlight that reducing the impact of negative memories is valued by participants. This richer understanding guides further intervention development and future implementation.