Background Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome. Methods We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models. Results We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67–82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42–65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35–41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27–32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region. Interpretation Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission.

Background: Asylum seekers and refugees (AS&Rs) experience impaired mental health and wellbeing, related to stresses in their country of origin, experiences in transit and reception on arrival, including significant barriers to accessing mainstream services. Their contact with health care is often crisis-driven and mediated through nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a psychosocial intervention recommended by the World Health Organisation to address distress experienced by adults affected by humanitarian crises. We are investigating its application for the first time in a high-income country. Methods: In a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), PM+ will be delivered to AS&Rs in contact with NGOs in Liverpool City Region, UK by lay therapists who have lived experience of forced migration. Following systematic review and stakeholder engagement, PM+ has been adapted to the local context, and lay therapists have been trained in its delivery. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a three-arm RCT of five 90-min sessions of PM+, delivered individually or in groups by lay therapists to AS&Rs experiencing emotional distress and functional impairment, compared with each other and with usual support offered by local NGOs. Distress and impairment at baseline will be measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). We aim to recruit 105 participants, 35 per arm. Primary health outcomes are anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months, measured by HADS. Secondary outcomes include subjective wellbeing, functional status, progress on identified problems, presence of posttraumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder and service usage. Longer-term impact will be assessed at 6 months post baseline, on the same parameters.

Background The prevalence of psychological morbidity among asylum seekers and refugees is high, but these groups encounter extensive barriers to accessing health and social care. The aim of the PROSPER study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial in the UK of Problem Management Plus (PM+), an evidence-based psychosocial intervention delivered by lay therapists for distressed and functionally impaired asylum seekers and refugees. Design We undertook a feasibility study of PM+, which included a pilot study of the design features of a future definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. The feasibility study involved the adaptation of PM+ based on evidence drawn from literature synthesis and local stakeholder engagement, and a two-stage training procedure for lay therapists. These were followed by a pilot trial designed to assess the feasibility of conducting a three-arm randomised controlled trial of five 90-minute sessions of PM+, delivered individually or in groups, with 105 participants randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to individual PM+, group PM+ or a control intervention. Primary health outcomes were anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months; other outcomes included post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, quality of life, progress with identified goals and service use. Findings We demonstrated that the form and content of PM+ could be adapted to meet the needs of asylum seekers and refugees. Twelve people with lived experience of the asylum process were successfully trained as lay therapists to deliver this targeted, low-intensity psychosocial intervention in local asylum seeker and refugee communities. The pilot trial was affected by governance issues. It began in December 2019 and was cut short by the COVID-19 pandemic. We were not able to complete recruitment and follow-up as planned; 11 out of 105 (10%) participants were recruited to the pilot trial (individual PM+, n = 4; group PM+, n = 3; control, n = 4); 8 out of 11 participants were followed up at 13 weeks and 7 out of 11 participants were followed up at 26 weeks. (Preliminary data were gathered on recruitment and retention, intervention fidelity and acceptability of study measures, including service use measures.) Limitations Protracted delays due to governance issues, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, meant that we were unable to complete the pilot trial or to provide evidence regarding the feasibility of group PM+. The complexities of working with multiple languages and cultural groups were noted. There were mixed views on how successful PM+ might prove, and we had insufficient evidence to provide clear conclusions. Future work Future research could explore how technology can be used to improve the acceptability, feasibility, efficacy and potential cost-effectiveness of scalable mental health interventions and well-being support for distressed asylum seekers and refugees. The use of mobile phone and/or app-based forms of support may help to increase asylum seekers’ and refugees’ willingness to engage in research of this type. Conclusions Although it was not possible to specify the parameters for a full randomised controlled trial of PM+ for asylum seekers and refugees in the UK, our findings offer guidance on strategies that may be of value in future studies of this nature. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15214107. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Asylum seekers and refugees (AS&Rs) experience impaired mental health and wellbeing, related to stresses in their country of origin, experiences in transit and reception on arrival, including significant barriers to accessing mainstream services. Their contact with healthcare is often crisis-driven and mediated through non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a psychosocial intervention recommended by the World Health Organization to address distress experienced by adults affected by humanitarian crises. We are investigating its application for the first time in a high income country. Methods In a pilot randomised controlled trial, PM+ will be delivered to AS&Rs in contact with NGOs in Liverpool City Region, UK, by lay therapists who have lived experience of forced migration. Following systematic review and stakeholder engagement, PM+ has been adapted to the local context, and lay therapists have been trained in its delivery. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a three-arm RCT of five 90-minute sessions of PM+, delivered individually or in groups by lay therapists to AS&Rs experiencing emotional distress and functional impairment, compared with each other and with usual support offered by local NGOs. Distress and impairment at baseline will be measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). We aim to recruit 105 participants, 35 per arm. Primary health outcomes are anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months, measured by HADS. Secondary outcomes include subjective wellbeing, functional status, progress on identified problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder and service usage. Longer term impact will be assessed at 6-months post baseline, on the same parameters. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a full RCT in relation to the following elements: recruitment and retention of lay therapists and study participants; fidelity of delivery of PM+; and suitability of the study measures, including any linguistic or cultural barriers. Discussion We will use these findings to specify the parameters for a full randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of PM+ in reducing emotional distress and health inequalities, and improving functional ability and wellbeing, amongst asylum seekers and refugees.