Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeLoneliness is associated with poor health including premature mortality. There are cross-sectional associations with depression, anxiety, psychosis, and other mental health outcomes. However, it is not known whether loneliness is causally linked with the new onset of mental health problems in the general population. Longitudinal studies are key to understanding this relationship. We synthesized evidence from longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between loneliness and new onset of mental health problems, in the general population.MethodWe systematically searched six electronic databases, unpublished sources, and hand-searched references, up to August 2021. We conducted a meta-analysis of eight independent cohorts and narrative synthesis of the remaining studies.ResultsWe included 32 studies, of which the majority focused on depression. Our narrative synthesis found most studies show loneliness at baseline which is associated with the subsequent new onset of depression. The few studies on anxiety and self-harm also showed a positive association. Our meta-analysis found a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 2.33 (95% CI 1.62–3.34) for risk of new onset depression in adults who were often lonely compared with people who were not often lonely. This should be interpreted with caution given evidence of heterogeneity.ConclusionLoneliness is a public mental health issue. There is growing evidence it is associated with the onset of depression and other common mental health problems. Future studies should explore its impact across the age range and in more diverse populations, look beyond depression, and explore the mechanisms involved with a view to better informing appropriate interventions.

Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025.

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these.MethodsWe searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach.ResultsWe found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future.ConclusionOur analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.

Background Loneliness and social isolation are increasingly recognised as prevalent among people with mental health problems, and as potential targets for interventions to improve quality of life and outcomes, as well as for preventive strategies. Understanding the relationship between quality and quantity of social relationships and a range of mental health conditions is a helpful step towards development of such interventions. Purpose Our aim was to give an overview of associations between constructs related to social relationships (including loneliness and social isolation) and diagnosed mental conditions and mental health symptoms, as reported in systematic reviews of observational studies. Methods For this umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) we searched five databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science) and relevant online resources (PROSPERO, Campbell Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis Journal). We included systematic reviews of studies of associations between constructs related to social relationships and mental health diagnoses or psychiatric symptom severity, in clinical or general population samples. We also included reviews of general population studies investigating the relationship between loneliness and risk of onset of mental health problems. Results We identified 53 relevant systematic reviews, including them in a narrative synthesis. We found evidence regarding associations between (i) loneliness, social isolation, social support, social network size and composition, and individual-level social capital and (ii) diagnoses of mental health conditions and severity of various mental health symptoms. Depression (including post-natal) and psychosis were most often reported on, with few systematic reviews on eating disorders or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and only four related to anxiety. Social support was the most commonly included social construct. Our findings were limited by low quality of reviews and their inclusion of mainly cross-sectional evidence. Conclusion Good quality evidence is needed on a wider range of social constructs, on conditions other than depression, and on longitudinal relationships between social constructs and mental health symptoms and conditions.

The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants' experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

Background Quality of care and access to effective interventions have been widely criticised as limited for people diagnosed with ‘personality disorder’ or who have comparable needs (described in some recent papers as “Complex Emotional Needs” (CEN). It is important to identify effective interventions and the optimal context and mode of delivery for people with CEN. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions delivered in community and outpatient settings in treating symptoms associated with ‘personality disorder’, and the moderating effects of treatment-related variables. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HMIC, ASSIA for articles published in English, from inception to November 23, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials examining interventions provided in community or outpatient settings for CEN. The primary outcome was ‘personality disorder’ symptoms, while secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and global psychiatric symptoms. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome, and meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the moderating effects of treatment characteristics. The quality of the studies and the degree of publication bias was assessed. Results We included 54 trials ( n  = 3716 participants) in the meta-analysis. We found a large effect size ( g  = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01, p  < 0.0001) favoring interventions for ‘borderline personality disorder’ (BPD) symptoms over Treatment as Usual or Waitlist (TAU/WL), and the efficacy was maintained at follow-up ( g  = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.65, p  = 0.002). Interventions effectively reduced anxiety symptoms ( g  = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.95, p  = 0.002), depressive symptoms ( g  = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.83, p  < 0.0001), and global psychiatric symptoms ( g  = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.66, p  < 0.0001) compared to TAU/WL. The intervention types were equally effective in treating all symptom categories assessed. Treatment duration and treatment intensity did not moderate the effectiveness of the interventions for any outcome. Conclusions People with a ‘personality disorder’ diagnosis benefited from psychological and psychosocial interventions delivered in community or outpatient settings, with all therapeutic approaches showing similar effectiveness. Mental health services should provide people with CEN with specialised treatments in accordance with the availability and the patients’ preferences.

Experiences of trauma in childhood and adulthood are highly prevalent among service users accessing acute, crisis, emergency, and residential mental health services. These settings, and restraint and seclusion practices used, can be extremely traumatic, leading to a growing awareness for the need for trauma informed care (TIC). The aim of TIC is to acknowledge the prevalence and impact of trauma and create a safe environment to prevent re-traumatisation. This scoping review maps the TIC approaches delivered in these settings and reports related service user and staff experiences and attitudes, staff wellbeing, and service use outcomes. We searched seven databases (EMBASE; PsycINFO; MEDLINE; Web of Science; Social Policy and Practice; Maternity and Infant Care Database; Cochrane Library Trials Register) between 24/02/2022-10/03/2022, used backwards and forwards citation tracking, and consulted academic and lived experience experts, identifying 4244 potentially relevant studies. Thirty-one studies were included. Most studies (n = 23) were conducted in the USA and were based in acute mental health services (n = 16). We identified few trials, limiting inferences that can be drawn from the findings. The Six Core Strategies (n = 7) and the Sanctuary Model (n = 6) were the most commonly reported approaches. Rates of restraint and seclusion reportedly decreased. Some service users reported feeling trusted and cared for, while staff reported feeling empathy for service users and having a greater understanding of trauma. Staff reported needing training to deliver TIC effectively. TIC principles should be at the core of all mental health service delivery. Implementing TIC approaches may integrate best practice into mental health care, although significant time and financial resources are required to implement organisational change at scale. Most evidence is preliminary in nature, and confined to acute and residential services, with little evidence on community crisis or emergency services. Clinical and research developments should prioritise lived experience expertise in addressing these gaps.

PurposeWe sought to understand how the experiences of people in the UK with pre-existing mental health conditions had developed during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsIn September–October 2020, we interviewed adults with mental health conditions pre-dating the pandemic, whom we had previously interviewed 3 months earlier. Participants had been recruited through online advertising and voluntary sector community organisations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone or video-conference by researchers with lived experience of mental health difficulties, and, following principles of thematic analysis, were analysed to explore changes over time in people’s experience of the pandemic.ResultsWe interviewed 44 people, achieving diversity of demographic characteristics (73% female, 54% White British, aged 18–75) and a range of mental health conditions and service use among our sample. Three overarching themes were derived from interviews. The first theme “spectrum of adaptation” describes how participants reacted to reduced access to formal and informal support through personal coping responses or seeking new sources of help, with varying degrees of success. The second theme describes “accumulating pressures” from pandemic-related anxieties and sustained disruption to social contact and support, and to mental health treatment. The third theme “feeling overlooked” reflects participants’ feeling of people with mental health conditions being ignored during the pandemic by policy-makers at all levels, which was compounded for people from ethnic minority communities or with physical health problems.ConclusionIn line with previous research, our study highlights the need to support marginalised groups who are at risk of increased inequalities, and to maintain crucial mental and physical healthcare and social care for people with existing mental health conditions, notwithstanding challenges of the pandemic.

Background Schools are a prime setting for the delivery of universal and targeted mental health interventions. Current school-based mental health interventions may not be developed to fully meet student mental health needs and co-production is needed to understand what young people really want. Despite this, research on school-based mental health interventions does not consistently engage in co-production, involving stakeholders, such as young people and schools, in the decision-making, development, evaluation and/or implementation stages. This highlights that transforming the development of school-based mental health interventions is crucial to meeting all stakeholders’ needs. In this paper, we aim to briefly review an approach to co-production that can be used when conducting research on school-based mental health interventions that centre stakeholder voices to drive meaningful change. We describe a case study to showcase this approach. Main body We highlight recommendations and important elements to consider for each stakeholder when engaging in different levels of co-production, including young people, teachers, and schools. We provide practical examples of how this may look like in practice, theoretical underpinnings, and impact on outcomes. Our case study of co-producing a talk to improve mental health literacy in secondary school students is highlighted to demonstrate how a group of young people, teachers, epidemiologist, psychiatrist, and researchers can work together to develop school-based mental health interventions. Conclusion Co-production can be successfully conducted amongst researchers and stakeholders to develop school-based mental health interventions. Changes made to the talk were guided by synthesis of feedback that aligned with the balanced needs, perspectives, and opinions of all stakeholders. The use of this co-production approach in research on school-based mental health interventions with young people, teachers, and schools has important implications for research, service provision, and stakeholder empowerment. Plain English Summary The aim of our project is to improve knowledge and awareness of mental health problems among young people by developing an interactive workshop and talk, which will be delivered in secondary schools. Our focus is on depression, anxiety and self-harm. These are the most common mental health problems experienced by young people, rates are rising, and they are leading causes of suicide. Evidence suggests that co-production needs to be at the core of the development of school-based mental health interventions. We recommend how and why we should work together with young people, teachers, and schools to co-produce school-based mental health interventions. For our project, we worked together with groups of young people, teachers, schools, clinicians, and researchers to develop the interactive talk. We met with them regularly to discuss what they think is important to include in the talk, how we present it in the talk, and any ways to improve it. Our experience was a successful one but as a field, we need to consider critically how we can carefully and productively engage in co-production to improve mental health research and young people’s mental health.

Background Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with ‘Complex Emotional Needs’ (CEN—our preferred working term for services for people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. Methods We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020. Results We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people’s lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services. Conclusions Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.