Summary Background Evidence suggests that black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups have an increased risk of involuntary psychiatric care. However, to our knowledge, there is no published meta-analysis that brings together both international and UK literature and allows for comparison of the two. This study examined compulsory detention in BAME and migrant groups in the UK and internationally, and aimed to expand upon existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the rates of detention for BAME populations. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and CINAHL) for quantitative studies comparing involuntary admission, readmission, and inpatient bed days between BAME or migrant groups and majority or native groups, published between inception and Dec 3, 2018. We extracted data on study characteristics, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupational status, and our outcomes of interest (involuntary admission to hospital, readmission to hospital, and inpatient bed days) for meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures. We assessed explanations offered for the differences between minority and majority groups for the strength of the evidence supporting them. This study is prospectively registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017078137. Findings Our search identified 9511 studies for title and abstract screening, from which we identified 296 potentially relevant full-text articles. Of these, 67 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. We added four studies after reference and citation searches, meaning 71 studies in total were included. 1 953 135 participants were included in the studies. Black Caribbean patients were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with those in white ethnic groups (odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 2·03–3·16, p<0·0001). Black African patients also had significantly increased odds of being compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·27, 1·62–3·19, p<0·0001), as did, to a lesser extent, south Asian patients (1·33, 1·07–1·65, p=0·0091). Black Caribbean patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·30, 1·22–4·34, p=0·0102). Migrant groups were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with native groups (1·50, 1·21–1·87, p=0·0003). The most common explanations for the increased risk of detainment in BAME populations included increased prevalence of psychosis, increased perceived risk of violence, increased police contact, absence of or mistrust of general practitioners, and ethnic disadvantages. Interpretation BAME and migrant groups are at a greater risk of psychiatric detention than are majority groups, although there is variation...

Background Use of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation varies widely within and between countries. The factors that place individuals and populations at increased risk of involuntary hospitalisation are unclear, and evidence is needed to understand these disparities and inform development of interventions to reduce involuntary hospitalisation. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate risk factors at the patient, service, and area level associated with involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation of adults.Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Register of Trials from Jan 1, 1983, to Aug 14, 2019, for studies comparing the characteristics of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric inpatients, and studies investigating the characteristics of involuntarily hospitalised individuals in general population samples. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018095103. Findings 77 studies were included from 22 countries. Involuntary rather than voluntary hospitalisation was associated with male gender (odds ratio 1•23, 95% CI 1•14-1•32; p<0•0001), single marital status (1•47, 1•18-1•83; p<0•0001), unemployment (1•43, 1•07-1•90; p=0•020), receiving welfare benefits (1•71, 1•28-2•27; p<0•0001), being diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (2•18, 1•95-2•44; p<0•0001) or bipolar disorder (1•48, 1•24-1•76; p<0•0001), and previous involuntary hospitalisation (2•17, 1•62-2•91; p<0•0001).Using narrative synthesis, we found associations between involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation and perceived risk to others, positive symptoms of psychosis, reduced insight into illness, reduced adherence to treatment before hospitalisation, and police involvement in admission. On a population level, some evidence was noted of a positive dose-response relation between area deprivation and involuntary hospitalisation.Interpretation Previous involuntary hospitalisation and diagnosis of a psychotic disorder were factors associated with the greatest risk of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. People with these risk factors represent an important target group for preventive interventions, such as crisis planning. Economic deprivation on an individual level and at the population level was associated with increased risk for involuntary hospitalisation. Mechanisms underpinning the risk factors could not be identified using the available evidence. Further research is therefore needed with an integrative approach, which examines clinical, social, and structural factors, alongside qualitative research into clinical decision-making processes and patients' experiences of the detention process.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. Methods We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. Results We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. Conclusion Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.

Background Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. Objective To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. Methods Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. Results A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. Conclusions Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. Trial Registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. Methods We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. Results We found 872 eligible sources from 29 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. Conclusion Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.