Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of community-based mental health care in North-East of Italy: A psychiatric case register study

AIMS

WHO declared that mental health care should be considered one essential health service to be maintained during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aims to describe the effect of lockdown and restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy on mental health services' utilisation, by considering psychiatric diagnoses and type of mental health contacts.

METHODS

The study was conducted in the Verona catchment area, located in the Veneto region (northeastern Italy). For each patient, mental health contacts were grouped into: (1) outpatient care, (2) social and supportive interventions, (3) rehabilitation interventions, (4) multi-professional assessments, (5) day care. A 'difference in differences' approach was used: difference in the number of contacts between 2019 and 2020 on the weeks of lockdown and intermediate restrictions was compared with the same difference in weeks of no or reduced restrictions, and such difference was interpreted as the effect of restrictions. Both a global regression on all contacts and separate regressions for each type of service were performed and Incidence Rate Ratios (IRRs) were calculated.

RESULTS

In 2020, a significant reduction in the number of patients who had mental health contacts was found, both overall and for most of the patients' characteristics considered (except for people aged 18-24 years for foreign-born population and for those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Moreover, in 2020 mental health contacts had a reduction of 57 096 (-33.9%) with respect to 2019; such difference remained significant across the various type of contacts considered, with rehabilitation interventions and day care showing the greatest reduction. Negative Binomial regressions displayed a statistically significant effect of lockdown, but not of intermediate restrictions, in terms of reduction in the number of contacts. The lockdown period was responsible of a 32.7% reduction (IRR 0.673; p-value <0.001) in the overall number of contacts. All type of mental health contacts showed a reduction ascribable to the lockdown, except social and supportive interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the access to community mental health care during the pandemic was overall reduced, the mental health system in the Verona catchment area was able to maintain support for more vulnerable and severely ill patients, by providing continuity of care and day-by-day support through social and supportive interventions.

The balance of adult mental health care: provision of core health versus other types of care in eight European countries

AIMS

Although many mental health care systems provide care interventions that are not related to direct health care, little is known about the interfaces between the latter and core health care. 'Core health care' refers to services whose explicit aim is direct clinical treatment which is usually provided by health professionals, i.e., physicians, nurses, psychologists. 'Other care' is typically provided by other staff and includes accommodation, training, promotion of independence, employment support and social skills. In such a definition, 'other care' does not necessarily mean being funded or governed differently. The aims of the study were: (1) using a standard classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services and Directories in Europe for Long Term Care, DESDE-LTC) to identify 'core health' and 'other care' services provided to adults with mental health problems; and (2) to investigate the balance of care by analysing the types and characteristics of core health and other care services.

METHODS

The study was conducted in eight selected local areas in eight European countries with different mental health systems. All publicly funded mental health services, regardless of the funding agency, for people over 18 years old were identified and coded. The availability, capacity and the workforce of the local mental health services were described using their functional main activity or 'Main Types of Care' (MTC) as the standard for international comparison, following the DESDE-LTC system.

RESULTS

In these European study areas, 822 MTCs were identified as providing core health care and 448 provided other types of care. Even though one-third of mental health services in the selected study areas provided interventions that were coded as 'other care', significant variation was found in the typology and characteristics of these services across the eight study areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The functional distinction between core health and other care overcomes the traditional division between 'health' and 'social' sectors based on governance and funding. The overall balance between core health and other care services varied significantly across the European sites. Mental health systems cannot be understood or planned without taking into account the availability and capacity of all services specifically available for this target population, including those outside the health sector.

Mental health service users' experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation - an explorative focus group study in six European countries

Background

Psychiatric re-hospitalisation is considered costly and disruptive to individuals. The perspective of the mental health service user is largely unexplored in literature.

The purpose of our study was to explore service users’ experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation across six countries in Europe.

Method

Eight focus groups were conducted in Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Italy, Austria and Norway.

Results

A total of 55 service users participated in the study. All participants had been in receipt of mental health services for at least 1 year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. The experience of re-hospitalisation was considered: (1) less traumatising than the first hospitalisation, (2) to be necessary, and a relief, (3) occurring by default and without progress, (4) part of the recovery process.

Conclusions

Psychiatric re-hospitalisation was considered inevitable by the study participants, in both positive and negative terms. Striking similarities in service user experiences were found across all of the six countries, the first experience of psychiatric hospitalisation emerging as especially significant. Findings indicate the need for further action in order to develop more recovery and person-centred approaches within hospital care. For psychiatric inpatient care to be a positive part of the recovery process, further knowledge on what therapeutic action during the hospital stay would be beneficial, such as therapy, activities and integration with other services.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3317-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.