The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Those Supported in the Community with Long-Term Mental Health Problems: A Qualitative Analysis of Power, Threat, Meaning and Survival

Roles and Dynamics within Community Mental Health Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography

Globally, COVID-19 had an immense impact on mental health systems, but research on how community mental health (CMH) systems and services contributed to the pandemic mental health response is limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-ethnography to understand the roles of CMH services, determinants of the quality of CMH care, and dynamics within CMH systems during COVID-19. We searched and screened across five databases and appraised study quality using the CASP tool, which yielded 27 qualitative studies. Our meta-ethnographic process used Noblit and Hare's approach for synthesizing findings and applying interpretive analysis to original research. This identified several key themes. Firstly, CMH systems played the valuable pandemic role of safety nets and networks for the broader mental health ecosystem, while CMH service providers offered a continuous relationship of trust to service users amidst pandemic disruptions. Secondly, we found that the determinants of quality CMH care during COVID-19 included resourcing and capacity, connections across service providers, customized care options, ease of access, and human connection. Finally, we observed that power dynamics across the CMH landscape disproportionately excluded marginalized groups from mainstream CMH systems and services. Our findings suggest that while the pandemic role of CMH was clear, effectiveness was driven by the efforts of individual service providers to meet demand and service users' needs. To reprise its pandemic role in the future, a concerted effort is needed to make CMH systems a valuable part of countries' disaster mental health response and to invest in quality care, particularly for marginalized groups.

Integrated Surveillance of Disparities in Vaccination Coverage and Morbidity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cohort Study in Southeast Sweden

We aimed to use the digital platform maintained by the local health service providers in Southeast Sweden for integrated monitoring of disparities in vaccination and morbidity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The monitoring was performed in the adult population of two counties (n = 657,926) between 1 February 2020 and 15 February 2022. The disparities monitored were relocated (internationally displaced), substance users, and suffering from a psychotic disorder. The outcomes monitored were COVID-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and hospitalization with COVID-19. Relocated residents displayed an increased likelihood of remaining unvaccinated and a decreased likelihood of testing as well as increased risks of primary SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization compared with the general population. Suffering from a major psychiatric disease was associated with an increased risk of remaining unvaccinated and an increased risk of hospitalization but a decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. From the digital monitoring, we concluded that the relocated minority received insufficient protection during the pandemic, suggesting the necessity for comprehensive promotion of overall social integration. Persons with major psychiatric diseases underused vaccination, while they benefitted from proactively provided testing, implying a need for active encouragement of vaccination. Further research is warranted on legal and ethical frameworks for digital monitoring in vaccination programs.

Clinical Outcome in Persons with Severe Mental Disorders Attending a Mental Health Day Center during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations highlight the emergence of mental health difficulties, especially if a mental health disorder is already present. Patients with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) may be even more vulnerable to the psychosocial effects of the pandemic. However, little is known regarding the possible impact of the pandemic on SMI patients supported by community-based mental health day centers.

METHODS

A two-year prospective study comprising 29 individuals with SMI was conducted by the Skitali Mental Health Day Center in Ioannina, Northwest Greece. The described group of examined patients consisted mainly of psychotic patients (65.5%). Patients were assessed using the Health of Nations Outcome Scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning scale, and scores prior to and after the onset of the pandemic were compared.

RESULTS

The results indicated that participants did not present any significant decline in their overall clinical status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This finding is relevant because previous research has shown that the pandemic may negatively impact adherence to treatment and service attendance and that the symptomatology of patients with SMIs may further deteriorate. It is suggested that the operation of mental health day centers during collective stressful events should be preserved, but further research is needed to evaluate their role in maintaining continuity of care during such events.

Suicide numbers during the first 9-15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with pre-existing trends: An interrupted time series analysis in 33 countries

Background

Predicted increases in suicide were not generally observed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the picture may be changing and patterns might vary across demographic groups. We aimed to provide a timely, granular picture of the pandemic's impact on suicides globally.

Methods

We identified suicide data from official public-sector sources for countries/areas-within-countries, searching websites and academic literature and contacting data custodians and authors as necessary. We sent our first data request on 22nd June 2021 and stopped collecting data on 31st October 2021. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analyses to model the association between the pandemic's emergence and total suicides and suicides by sex-, age- and sex-by-age in each country/area-within-country. We compared the observed and expected numbers of suicides in the pandemic's first nine and first 10-15 months and used meta-regression to explore sources of variation.

Findings

We sourced data from 33 countries (24 high-income, six upper-middle-income, three lower-middle-income; 25 with whole-country data, 12 with data for area(s)-within-the-country, four with both). There was no evidence of greater-than-expected numbers of suicides in the majority of countries/areas-within-countries in any analysis; more commonly, there was evidence of lower-than-expected numbers. Certain sex, age and sex-by-age groups stood out as potentially concerning, but these were not consistent across countries/areas-within-countries. In the meta-regression, different patterns were not explained by countries' COVID-19 mortality rate, stringency of public health response, economic support level, or presence of a national suicide prevention strategy. Nor were they explained by countries' income level, although the meta-regression only included data from high-income and upper-middle-income countries, and there were suggestions from the ITS analyses that lower-middle-income countries fared less well.

Interpretation

Although there are some countries/areas-within-countries where overall suicide numbers and numbers for certain sex- and age-based groups are greater-than-expected, these countries/areas-within-countries are in the minority. Any upward movement in suicide numbers in any place or group is concerning, and we need to remain alert to and respond to changes as the pandemic and its mental health and economic consequences continue.

Funding

None.

Using an Intersectional Lens on Vulnerability and Resilience in Minority and/or Marginalized Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review

Throughout the pandemic, the media and scholars have widely discussed increasing social inequality and thereby publicly pointed to often hidden and neglected forms of inequality. However, the "newly" arisen awareness has not yet been put into action to reduce this inequality. Dealing with social inequality implies exploring and confronting social privileges, which are often seen as the other side of inequality. These social constructs, inequality and privilege, are often discussed in light of vulnerability and resilience. This is particularly important in the context of the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to end the pandemic, as both constructs are discussed regarding access to healthcare, vaccination, and education and knowledge, misinformation, social resources, economic resources, and so forth. Minority and/or marginalized groups may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, resilience factors in these groups may be neglected and underreported. This narrative review aims at illustrating the specific and intertwined aspects of resilience and vulnerability in minority and/or marginalized groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this, we use an intersectional lens based on recommendations made by Moradi and Grzanka. A total of 48 articles were included in the narrative review. Most of them were commentaries focusing on social inequality, vulnerability, and/or resilience. Based on the dissection of articles at structural, systemic, and individual levels, we propose three hypothesis on vulnerability and resilience in minority and marginalized individuals and groups: (1) social inequality must be considered at a global level; inequality at a global level translates into a vulnerable context for an individual; (2) vulnerability is historically situated: vulnerability (experienced during the pandemic) is maintained and reinforced by history; (3) strength through collective (historical) hardship: vulnerability is not the opposite of resilience but may serve as an aspect of resilience. The conclusions drawn from this review show that we need to include diverse voices to advance concepts, such as vulnerability and resilience, in minority and marginalized groups. Additionally, these concepts are not necessarily in opposition to each other, but vulnerability should be understood as an integral part of resilience.