Explore the vast range of titles available.

New Zealand's early response to the novel coronavirus pandemic included a strict lockdown which eliminated community transmission of COVID-19. However, this success was not without cost, both economic and social. In our study, we examined the psychological wellbeing of New Zealanders during the COVID-19 lockdown when restrictions reduced social contact, limited recreation opportunities, and resulted in job losses and financial insecurity. We conducted an online panel survey of a demographically representative sample of 2010 adult New Zealanders in April 2020. The survey contained three standardised measures-the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), the GAD-7, and the Well-Being Index (WHO-5)-as well as questions designed specifically to measure family violence, suicidal ideation, and alcohol consumption. It also included items assessing positive aspects of the lockdown. Thirty percent of respondents reported moderate to severe psychological distress (K10), 16% moderate to high levels of anxiety, and 39% low wellbeing; well above baseline measures. Poorer outcomes were seen among young people and those who had lost jobs or had less work, those with poor health status, and who had past diagnoses of mental illness. Suicidal ideation was reported by 6%, with 2% reporting making plans for suicide and 2% reporting suicide attempts. Suicidality was highest in those aged 18-34. Just under 10% of participants had directly experienced some form of family harm over the lockdown period. However, not all consequences of the lockdown were negative, with 62% reporting 'silver linings', which included enjoying working from home, spending more time with family, and a quieter, less polluted environment. New Zealand's lockdown successfully eliminated COVID-19 from the community, but our results show this achievement brought a significant psychological toll. Although much of the debate about lockdown measures has focused on their economic effects, our findings emphasise the need to pay equal attention to their effects on psychological wellbeing.

Natural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. They cause widespread hardship and are associated with detrimental effects on mental health.AimsOur aim is to provide the best estimate of the effects of natural disasters on mental health through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters. This systematic review and meta-analysis is limited to studies that met predetermined quality criteria. We required included studies to make comparisons with pre-disaster or non-disaster exposed controls, and sample representative populations. Key studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from 1980 to 3 March 2017. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for studies that reported key outcomes with appropriate statistics. Forty-one studies were identified by the literature search, of which 27 contributed to the meta-analyses. Continuous measures of psychological distress were increased after natural disasters (combined standardised mean difference 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-0.98, P = 0.005). Psychiatric disorders were also increased (combined odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.43-2.38, P < 0.001). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were significantly increased after disasters. Findings for anxiety and alcohol misuse/dependence were not significant. High rates of heterogeneity suggest that disaster-specific factors and, to a lesser degree, methodological factors contribute to the variance between studies. Increased rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders follow natural disasters. High levels of heterogeneity between studies suggest that disaster variables and post-disaster response have the potential to mitigate adverse effects.Declaration of interestNone.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption, distress, and loss of life around the world. While negative health, economic, and social consequences are being extensively studied, there has been less research on the resilience and post-traumatic growth that people show in the face of adversity. We investigated New Zealanders’ experiences of benefit-finding during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed qualitative responses to a survey examining mental well-being during the New Zealand lockdown. A total of 1175 of 2010 eligible participants responded to an open-ended question probing ‘silver linings’ (i.e., positive aspects) they may have experienced during this period. We analysed these qualitative responses using a thematic analysis approach. Two thirds of participants identified silver linings from the lockdown and we developed two overarching themes: Surviving (coping well, meeting basic needs, and maintaining health) and thriving (self-development, reflection, and growth). Assessing positive as well as negative consequences of the pandemic provides more nuanced insights into the impact that New Zealand’s response had on mental well-being.

Legal epidemiology is an emerging field that examines how laws and policies influence human rights and health outcomes, particularly in areas such as in-patient psychiatric treatment, community treatment orders and child maltreatment, This editorial highlights contributions from BJPsych Open that apply legal epidemiological methods to assess issues relevant to child maltreatment and coercion in psychiatric care. Findings emphasise the need for early intervention, standardised evaluation measures and reforms that prioritise human rights and well-being. Legal epidemiology can offer a scientific basis for improving legal frameworks, as well as promoting equitable and effective mental healthcare.

ObjectivesTo compare psychological outcomes, experiences and sources of stress over the COVID-19 lockdown in New Zealand in essential workers (healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers) with that of workers in nonessential work roles.DesignOnline cross-sectional survey.SettingConducted in New Zealand over level 4 lockdown in April/May 2020.ParticipantsFindings from employed participants (2495) are included in this report; 381 healthcare workers, 649 ‘other’ essential workers and 1465 nonessential workers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMeasures included psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)), well-being (WHO-5), alcohol use, subjective experiences and sources of stress. Differences between work categories were quantified as risk ratios or χ2 tests.ResultsAfter controlling for confounders that differed between groups of essential and nonessential workers, those in healthcare and those in ‘other’ essential work were at 71% (95% CI 1.29 to 2.27) and 59% (95% CI 1.25 to 2.02) greater risk respectively, of moderate levels of anxiety (GAD-7 ≥10), than those in nonessential work. Those in healthcare were at 19% (95% CI 1.02 to 1.39) greater risk of poor well-being (WHO-5 <13). There was no evidence of differences across work roles in risk for psychological distress (K10 ≥12) or increased alcohol use. Healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers reported increased workload (p<0.001) and less uncertainty about finances and employment than those in nonessential work (p<0.001). Healthcare and nonessential workers reported decreased social contact. No difference by work category in health concerns was reported; 15% had concerns about participants’ own health and 33% about other people’s health.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic lockdown, essential workers (those in healthcare and those providing ‘other’ essential work) were at increased risk of anxiety compared with those in nonessential work, with those in healthcare also being at increased risk of poor well-being. This highlights the need to recognise the challenges this vital workforce face in pandemics.

There is insufficient evidence to support the pharmacological treatment of borderline personality disorder. However, previous out-patient cohorts have described high rates of polypharmacy in this group. So far, there have been no national studies that have considered polypharmacy in borderline personality disorder. To describe psychotropic polypharmacy in people with borderline personality disorder in New Zealand. New Zealand's national databases have been used to link psychotropic medication dispensing data and diagnostic data for borderline personality disorder. Annual dispensing data for 2014 and 2019 have been compared. Fifty percent of people with borderline personality disorder who were dispensed medications had three or more psychotropic medications in 2014. This increased to 55.9% in 2019 ( < 0.001). Those on seven or more psychotropics increased from 8.4 to 10.7% ( < 0.023). Quetiapine was the most dispensed psychotropic medication, being given to 53.8% of people dispensed medication with borderline personality disorder in 2019. Lorazepam dispensing showed the largest increase, going from 15.5 to 26.7% between 2014 and 2019 ( < 0.001). There is a large burden of psychotropic polypharmacy in people with borderline personality disorder. This is concerning because of the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of these medications in this group.

Ito et al present an illness–death model projecting 82 scenarios for the prevalence of anxiety disorders in Germany from 2019 to 2030 following the COVID-19 pandemic. We suggest the modelling framework used by Ito et al has promising applications for mental health epidemiology.

The evidence base for racemic ketamine treatment for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (TRD) continues to expand, but there are major challenges translating this evidence base into routine clinical care. To prepare guidelines for ketamine treatment of TRD that are suitable for routine use by publicly funded specialist mental health services. We consulted with senior leadership, clinical pharmacy, psychiatrists, nursing, service users and Māori mental health workers on issues relating to ketamine treatment. We prepared treatment guidelines taking the evidence base for ketamine treatment and the consultation into account. Ketamine treatment guidance is reported. This offers two treatment pathways, including a test of ketamine responsiveness with intramuscular ketamine and the dominant use of oral ketamine for a 3-month course to maximise the opportunity for the short-term benefits of ketamine to accumulate. We have responded to the challenges of translating the evidence base for ketamine treatment into a form suitable for routine care.

Contributes the results of the NZ Lockdown Psychological Distress Survey, an on-line cross-sectional survey of New Zealanders undertaken during the strict lockdown for COVID-19 from 25 March 2020 to 28 April 2020. Reports the proportion of participants with excellent wellbeing, examining the relative importance of individual factors associated with excellent wellbeing. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

This systematic review aims to identify and evaluate all studies that measured psychological distress or mental disorder following the Canterbury earthquakes to establish the psychological consequences of the earthquakes on those exposed. A secondary aim is to outline and emphasise key methodological factors in disaster research. Eligible studies were identified following a comprehensive literature search. A quality assessment was undertaken for all included studies. This was followed by methodological and descriptive review. Thirty‐one papers measuring psychological distress or mental disorder following the Canterbury earthquakes were identified. These papers reported outcomes from 20 separate studies of which seven were rated high‐quality, eight were rated medium and five were rated low‐quality. Key methodological findings and outcomes are discussed for each study. The Canterbury earthquakes were associated with widespread but not universal adverse effects on mental health. Disaster research quality is assisted by representative samples, repeated measures, and the use of appropriate controls to allow accurate assessments of psychological consequences to be made. The presence of widespread adverse effects as a result of the earthquakes suggests broad‐ranging community initiatives are essential to mitigate the negative consequences of disasters.