Effectiveness of self-help plus (SH+) in reducing anxiety and post-traumatic symptomatology among care home workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized controlled trial

Feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a positive emotion regulation intervention to promote resilience for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Burnout poses a substantial, ongoing threat to healthcare worker (HCW) wellbeing and to the delivery of safe, quality healthcare. While systemic and organization-level changes in healthcare are critically important, HCWs also need individual-level skills to promote resilience. The objective of this trial is to test feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of PARK, an online self-guided positive affect regulation intervention, in a sample of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In the context of the unprecedented rise in burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a randomized waitlist-controlled trial of the Positive Affect Regulation sKills (PARK) program-a five-week, online, self-guided coping skills intervention nested within an ongoing cohort of HCWs. N = 554 healthcare workers were randomly assigned to receive the intervention immediately or to receive the intervention after approximately 12 weeks. Outcomes included change in burnout, emotional wellbeing (positive affect, meaning and purpose, depression, anxiety) and sleep over approximately 12 weeks. Analyses included mixed-effects linear regression models comparing change over time in outcomes between intervention and control conditions.

RESULTS

One third (n = 554) of the participants in the cohort of HCWs consented to participate and enrolled in PARK in April 2022. Compared to those who did not enroll, participants in the trial reported higher burnout, poorer emotional wellbeing, and poorer sleep at baseline (April, 2022; all ps < .05). Intent-to-treat analyses showed that participants randomly assigned to the intervention immediately (PARK-Now) improved significantly on anxiety (within-group change on PROMIS T-score = -0.63; p = .003) whereas those in the waitlist (PARK-Later) did not (within group T-score change 0.04, p = 0.90). The between-group difference in change, however, was not statistically significant (B = -0.67 p = 0.10). None of the other wellbeing outcomes changed significantly in the intervention group compared to the waitlist. Additional as-treated analyses indicated that those participants who completed all 5 of the weekly online lessons (N = 52; 9.4%) improved significantly more on the primary outcome of positive affect compared to those who enrolled in PARK but completed zero lessons (n = 237; 42.8%; B = 2.85; p = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Online self-guided coping skills interventions like PARK can be effective in targeted samples and future work will focus on adaptations to increase engagement and tailor PARK for HCWs who could most benefit.

Individual and organizational interventions to promote staff health and well-being in residential long-term care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials over the past 20 years

BACKGROUND

Staff in residential long-term care (RLTC) experience significant physical and mental work demands. However, research on specific interventions to promote staff health and well-being in RLTC facilities is limited. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the current evidence on health promotion interventions among RLTC staff.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted on studies published between January 2000 and April 2023. Four electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsychArticles via EBSCO. The review followed the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool (RoB 2).

RESULTS

A total of 26 publications, referring to 23 different interventions with a randomized controlled design were included. Among these interventions, ten used training/educational approaches, six used behavioral approaches, and seven employed a multimodal approach. Significant improvements in health and well-being outcomes were found in four interventions using a training/educational approach, three interventions using a behavioral approach, and four interventions using a multimodal approach. Within the interventions studied, twelve specifically targeted the reduction of job demands, while only one intervention exclusively addressed job resources among RLTC staff. Furthermore, ten interventions addressed primary outcomes that encompassed both job demands and job resources.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence for health promotion interventions among RLTC staff is still limited, but research suggests that there is potential to improve certain outcomes related to RLTC staff health and well-being. Future research is recommended to contemplate a tailored intervention design that encompasses both individual-level and organizational-level approaches, and gender-specific physiological and sociological characteristics of RLTC staff. Moreover, detailed reporting of the development process, and research on the interaction between job demands and resources of RLTC staff are also recommended.

Effectiveness of a WHO self-help psychological intervention to alleviate stress among healthcare workers in the context of COVID-19 in China: a randomised controlled trial

AIMS

To examine the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH+) as an intervention for alleviating stress levels and mental health problems among healthcare workers.

METHODS

This was a prospective, two-arm, unblinded, parallel-designed randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited at all levels of medical facilities within all municipal districts of Guangzhou. Eligible participants were adult healthcare workers experiencing psychological stress (10-item Perceived Stress Scale scores of ≥15) but without serious mental health problems or active suicidal ideation. A self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization in alleviating psychological stress and preventing the development of mental health problems. The primary outcome was psychological stress, assessed at the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, insomnia, positive affect (PA) and self-kindness assessed at the 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Between November 2021 and April 2022, 270 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either SH+ (n = 135) or the control group (n = 135). The SH+ group had significantly lower stress at the 3-month follow-up (b = -1.23, 95% CI = -2.36, -0.10, p = 0.033) compared to the control group. The interaction effect indicated that the intervention effect in reducing stress differed over time (b = -0.89, 95% CI = -1.50, -0.27, p = 0.005). Analysis of the secondary outcomes suggested that SH+ led to statistically significant improvements in most of the secondary outcomes, including depression, insomnia, PA and self-kindness.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first known randomised controlled trial ever conducted to improve stress and mental health problems among healthcare workers experiencing psychological stress in a low-resource setting. SH+ was found to be an effective strategy for alleviating psychological stress and reducing symptoms of common mental problems. SH+ has the potential to be scaled-up as a public health strategy to reduce the burden of mental health problems in healthcare workers exposed to high levels of stress.

Evaluating a stepped care model of psychological support for adults affected by adversity: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in Jordan

BACKGROUND

The burden of common mental disorders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is growing with little known about how to allocate limited resources to reach the greatest number of people undergoing instances of significant psychological distress. We present a study protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adults with significant psychological distress (K10 score ≥20) will be randomised to receive a stepped care programme involving a self-guided course (Doing What Matters) followed by a more intensive group programme (Problem Management Plus) or the self-guided course alone, both of which will take place in addition to enhanced treatment as usual comprising of a follow-up referral session to available services within the community. We will include 800 participants. An intent-to-treat and completer analysis will explore the impact of the stepped model of care on anxiety and depression symptoms (as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HSCL-25) at 24 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include positive psychological well-being, agency, changes in patient-identified problems, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Linear mixed models will be used to assess the differential impact of the conditions over time. Analyses will focus on the primary outcome (HSCL-25) and secondary outcomes (agency subscale, WHO Well-Being Index, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule V.2.0, EQ-5D, Psychological Outcomes Profiles Scale) for both conditions, with the main outcome time point being the 3-month follow-up, relative to baseline.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This will be the first randomised controlled trial to assess the benefits of a stepped model of care to addressing psychological distress in a LMIC setting. Results will provide important insights for managing limited resources to mental healthcare in these settings and will be accordingly disseminated to service providers and organisations via professional training and meetings, and via publication in relevant journals and conference presentations. We will also present these findings to the Jordanian Ministry of Health, where this institute will guide us on the most appropriate format for communication of findings, including written reports, verbal presentations and/or brochures. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Jordan School of Nursing Research Ethics Committee (number: PF.22.10).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000189820p; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Digital interventions to promote psychological resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Societies are exposed to major challenges at an increasing pace. This underscores the need for preventive measures such as resilience promotion that should be available in time and without access barriers. Our systematic review summarizes evidence on digital resilience interventions, which have the potential to meet these demands. We searched five databases for randomized-controlled trials in non-clinical adult populations. Primary outcomes were mental distress, positive mental health, and resilience factors. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed to compare intervention and control groups at post-intervention and follow-up assessments. We identified 101 studies comprising 20,010 participants. Meta-analyses showed small favorable effects on mental distress, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.18], positive mental health, SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [0.13, 0.40], and resilience factors, SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]. Among middle-aged samples, older age was associated with more beneficial effects at follow-up, and effects were smaller for active control groups. Effects were comparable to those of face-to-face interventions and underline the potential of digital resilience interventions to prepare for future challenges.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Worsening of mental health outcomes in nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Mental health issues in nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic have been significant; however, it is not known if these issues persist following widespread vaccination and easing of restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the mental health of nursing home staff at different timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland.

DESIGN/METHODS

Two identical, online, cross-sectional, nationwide, anonymous surveys of Republic of Ireland nursing home staff at two timepoints (survey 1 (S1, n = 390): November 2020 to January 2021; survey 2 (S2, N = 229: November 2021 to February 2022) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sampling was used with staff self-selecting for participation. Methods included the World Health Organisation's Well-Being Index (WHO-5), the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES), two Likert-scale items regarding suicidal ideation and planning, the Work Ability Score (WAS), the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief-COPE) Scale, and a 15-item questionnaire assessing perceptions of the outbreak with one additional Likert-scale item on altruism. Descriptive analysis examined differences between staff based on their classification in one of three groups: nurses, healthcare assistants (HCA) and nonclinical staff. Pseudonymous identifiers were used to link responses across surveys.

RESULTS

An insufficient number of participants completed both surveys for linked analyses to be performed; therefore, we performed an ecological comparison between these two independent surveys. More staff reported moderate-severe post-traumatic stress symptoms (S1 45%; S2 65%), depression (S1: 39%; S2 57%), suicidal ideation (S1: 14%; S2 18%) and suicidal planning (S1: 9%; S2 15%) later in the pandemic. There was a higher degree of moral injury at S2 (S1: 20.8 standard deviation (SD) 9.1; S2: 25.7 SD (11.3)) and use of avoidant (maladaptive) coping styles at S2 (S1: 20.8 (6.3); S2 23.0 (6.3)) with no notable differences found in the use of approach (adaptive) coping styles. Staff reported more concerns at S2 regarding contracting COVID-19, social stigma, job stress, doubts about personal protective equipment and systems and processes.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to our previous survey, mental health outcomes appear to have worsened, coping did not improve, and staff concerns, and worries appear to have increased as the pandemic progressed. Follow-up studies could help to clarify is there are any lingering problems and to assess if these issues are related to the pandemic and working conditions in nursing homes.

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21.

FINDINGS

Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04980326.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health, Well-being, and Quality of Work-Life Outcomes Among Direct Care Nursing Staff Working in Nursing Home Settings: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Increased workload, lack of resources, fear of infection, and the suffering and loss of residents have placed a significant emotional burden on regulated and unregulated direct care nursing staff (eg, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and care aides) in nursing homes (residential long-term care homes). Psychological distress and burnout related to COVID-19 have been cited among direct care staff within nursing homes. Studies have also emphasized the resilience of direct care staff, who, despite the significant challenges created by the pandemic, remained committed to providing quality care. To date, only one nursing home-specific review has synthesized evidence from 15 studies conducted early in the pandemic, which reported anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression among direct care staff.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this systematic review are to (1) synthesize all empirical evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on direct care staffs' mental health, physical health, and work-life outcomes; (2) identify specific risks and protective factors; and (3) examine the effect of strategies or interventions that have been developed to improve these outcomes.

METHODS

We will include all study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of direct care staffs' mental health, physical health, and quality of work-life in nursing home settings during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020 onward). We will search multiple databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and gray literature sources with no language restrictions. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Given the heterogeneity in research designs, we will use multiple data synthesis methods that are suitable for quantitative and qualitative studies.

RESULTS

As of December 2022, full text screening has been completed and data extraction is underway. The expected completion date is June 30, 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review will uncover gaps in current knowledge, increase our understanding of the disparate findings to date, identify risks and factors that protect against the sustained effects of the pandemic, and elucidate the feasibility and effects of interventions to support the mental health, physical health, and quality of work-life of frontline nursing staff. This study will inform future research exploring how the health care system can be more proactive in improving quality of work-life and supporting the health and psychological needs of frontline staff amid extreme stressors such as the pandemic and within the wider context of prepandemic conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021248420; https://tinyurl.com/4djk7rpm.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40390.

Scalable interventions for refugees

Refugees experience a greater rate of common mental disorders relative to most other populations, and there remains a need to address these needs. However, most refugees are hosted in low-and-middle-income countries, where there is a lack of resources and mental health providers who can deliver mainstream mental health services. This situation has led to the emergence of scalable mental health interventions that can deliver evidence-based programs to refugees in need. Many countries hosting refugees have implemented programs that train local lay providers in interventions that can be delivered at scale. This review provides a narrative overview of these scalable interventions and critiques the evidence for their efficacy. It is noted that there are limitations to currently available scalable interventions, and there is a need for greater attention to determining the longer-term benefits of interventions, addressing the mental health needs of refugees who do not respond to these interventions, assisting refugees with more severe psychological disorders, and understanding the specific mechanisms that underpin observed benefits of these interventions.

Twelve-month follow-up of a randomised clinical trial of a brief group psychological intervention for common mental disorders in Syrian refugees in Jordan

AIMS

There is increasing evidence that brief psychological interventions delivered by lay providers can reduce common mental disorders in the short-term. This study evaluates the longer-term impact of a brief, lay provider delivered group psychological intervention (Group Problem Management Plus; gPM+) on the mental health of refugees and their children's mental health.

METHODS

This single-blind, parallel, controlled trial randomised 410 adult Syrians in Azraq Refugee Camp in Jordan who screened positive for distress and impaired functioning to either five sessions of gPM+ or enhanced usual care (EUC). Primary outcomes were scores on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25; depression and anxiety scales) assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months Secondary outcomes included disability, posttraumatic stress, personally identified problems, prolonged grief, prodromal psychotic symptoms, parenting behaviour and children's mental health.

RESULTS

Between 15 October 2019 and 2 March 2020, 204 participants were assigned to gPM + and 206 to EUC, and 307 (74.9%) were retained at 12 months. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that although participants in gPM + had greater reductions in depression at 3 months, at 12 months there were no significant differences between treatment arms on depression (mean difference -0.9, 95% CI -3.2 to 1.3; p = 0.39) or anxiety (mean difference -1.7, 95% CI -4.8 to -1.3; p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between conditions for secondary outcomes except that participants in gPM + had greater increases in positive parenting.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term benefits of a brief, psychological programme delivered by lay providers may not be sustained over longer time periods, and there is a need for sustainable programmes that can prolong benefits gained through gPM + .

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial

Background and aims

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms.

Methods

We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies.

Registration details

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.

SH+ 360: novel model for scaling up a mental health and psychosocial support programme in humanitarian settings

We explore multi-sectoral integration as a model for scaling up evidence-based mental health and psychosocial support interventions in humanitarian settings. We introduce Self Help Plus 360, designed to support humanitarian partners across different sectors to integrate a psychosocial intervention into their programming and more holistically address population needs.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs.

Materials and methods

Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health).

Results

We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels.

Conclusions

In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Psychological stress self-help interventions for healthcare workers in the context of COVID-19 in China: A randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Public health emergencies may lead to severe psychological stress, especially for healthcare workers, including frontline healthcare workers and public health workers. However, few stress management interventions have been implemented for healthcare workers even though they require more comprehensive interventions than the general public. Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a novel psychological self-help intervention developed by the World Health Organization. It is accessible, scalable, and cost-effective and has the potential to be quickly applied to help people cope with stress and adversity. The major objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of SH+ interventions on the alleviation of stress levels and mental health problems among healthcare workers.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of SH+ will be conducted to investigate the stress level and mental health status of Chinese healthcare workers and control subjects in Guangzhou. Assessments will be performed before (baseline), at the end of (1 month), and 2 months after (3 months) the intervention. After completing the baseline screening questionnaire, eligible participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups in a 1:1 ratio by block randomization. During the 1-month intervention period, the intervention group will receive the SH+ intervention and the control group will receive information about mental health promotion. The intervention will be delivered by the research assistant via social media platforms. The primary outcome is the level of stress, which will be measured by a 10-item Perceived Stress Scale. Secondary outcomes including mental health symptoms will also be collected.

DISCUSSION

Given the potential for multiple COVID-19 waves and other infectious disease pandemics in the future, we expect that SH+ will be an effective stress management intervention for healthcare workers. The findings from this study will facilitate the application of SH+, and the trial is expected to be extended to a larger population in the future.