Dataset Information

Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: This study demonstrates that religion protected mental health but constrained support for crisis response during the crucial early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from a national probability-based sample of the U.S. population show that highly religious individuals and evangelicals suffered less distress in March 2020. They were also less likely to see the coronavirus outbreak as a crisis and less likely to support public health restrictions to limit the spread of the virus. The conservative politicization of religion in the United States can help explain why religious Americans (and evangelicals in particular) experienced less distress and were less likely to back public health efforts to contain the virus. We conclude that religion can be a source of comfort and strength in times of crisis, but-at least in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic-it can also undercut efforts to end the root causes of suffering.

SUBMITTER: Schnabel L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250760 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Schnabel Landon L Schieman Scott S

Journal for the scientific study of religion 20210407 2

This study demonstrates that religion protected mental health but constrained support for crisis response during the crucial early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from a national probability-based sample of the U.S. population show that highly religious individuals and evangelicals suffered less distress in March 2020. They were also less likely to see the coronavirus outbreak as a crisis and less likely to support public health restrictions to limit the spread of the virus. The conservative ...[more]

PMID: 34230686

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by the accelerated uptake of virtual care, leading to a proliferation of virtual ward models as alternatives to facility-based care. Early in the pandemic, our program implemented a virtual mental health crisis ward (vWard) to provide options for individuals requiring intense psychiatric and/or crisis support but who preferred to remain in the community and were deemed safe to do so.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify early learnings from the vWard, which was implemented rapidly in a resource-constrained environment, to inform the future state should it be sustained beyond the pandemic.MethodsMixed methods of data collection were used to evaluate provider perspectives on the vWard, develop archetypes for individuals who are a good fit for the vWard model, and create a driver diagram. Data sources included an anonymous survey of clinical and managerial staff involved in the vWard, a service planning workshop, and program discharge forms for all individuals admitted between March 2020 and April 2021. Survey responses were coded for themes under categories of "benefits" and "challenges." Discharge forms where the team indicated that the vWard was a good fit for an individual were examined for characteristics common to these admissions. These findings were reviewed in the service planning workshop and refined with input from the participants into patient archetypes. A driver diagram was created for the future state.ResultsSurvey respondents (N=60) represented diverse roles in crisis services and the vWard team. Ten providers took part in the service planning workshop. A total of 467 discharge forms were reviewed. The vWard was felt to be a model that worked by 39 survey respondents, one respondent felt it did not work, and the remaining participants had no response. Several benefits for the individual and the system were identified alongside challenges, including certain processes and materials related to the nature of rapid implementation during the pandemic, and others due to lack of fit for certain individuals. The model was felt to be a good fit for 67.5% of admissions. Four patient archetypes representing a good fit with the model were developed. The driver diagram connected the program aim with primary drivers of (1) reduce barriers to care; (2) improve outcomes; and (3) provide collaborative, patient- and family-centered care to secondary drivers and interventions that leveraged virtual technology among other crisis care interventions.ConclusionsDespite some challenges, the vWard demonstrated high levels of provider acceptance and a range of mechanisms by which the model works for a variety of patient archetypes. These early learnings provide a foundation for growth, sustainability, and spread of this model going forward beyond the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the many challenges faced by mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic was how to deliver care during lockdown. In community and crisis services, this often meant rapidly adopting or expanding the use of telemental health technologies, including phone and video calls. The aim of this study is to explore variations in use and report staff views of such technologies during the early stages of the pandemic. The primary analysis compared rates of use between professions, demographic groups, genders, regions, and crisis and community services.MethodsWe used data from an online survey conducted by the Mental Health Policy Research Unit in Spring 2020 regarding the impact of the pandemic on mental healthcare in the United Kingdom. We included quantitative data from all professional groups working in community or crisis services providing care to working age adults, including general and specialist services. Our outcome of interest was the percentage of clients whom clinicians primarily interacted with via videocall. We also collected demographics and professional characteristics such as the type of mental health service respondents worked in. In addition, we explored respondents' views and experiences of telemental health as a medium for providing care.Results978 participants were included in the primary analysis (834 provided outcome data for community services, 193 for crisis services). In community services, virtually all staff reported stopping some or all face-to-face appointments following the onset of the pandemic, with a large majority using video or phone call appointments where possible instead. Telemental health use was higher in community than in crisis services, and amongst professionals who mainly provided psychotherapy or peer support than in other groups. There was also evidence of use being lower in regions in Northern England, Scotland, and Wales than elsewhere. There was no evidence of an association with staff gender, age, or ethnicity. Staff were generally positive about telemental health and intended to make more use of technologies following the pandemic. However, significant barriers to its use were also reported, often involving skills and available infrastructure.ConclusionsDespite its rapid implementation, telemental health was viewed positively by clinicians who saw it as an effective alternative to face-to-face appointments in some contexts, including during the pandemic. However, adoption of the technology also has the potential to exacerbate existing or create new inequalities without effective management of training and infrastructure needs.

Project description:BackgroundA large body of evidence indicates that spiritual and religious backgrounds, beliefs, and practices (SRBBPs) are related to better psychological health. Spirituality and religion (R/S) are also important aspects of multicultural diversity. There is evidence that clients would like to talk about their spirituality, and that including it in assessment and treatment planning can be beneficial. However, the extent to which practicing mental health professionals view SRBBPs as relevant to mental health and clinical practice is unclear.MethodsA survey examining several aspects of addressing SRBBPs in clinical practice was distributed to 894 professionals across mental health disciplines, including psychiatry, psychology, social work, marriage family therapy, licensed professional counselors, certified chemical dependency counselors, and psychiatric mental health nurses.Results89% of mental health professionals agreed that clinicians should receive training in R/S competencies. There were no differences between mental health disciplines in ratings of importance of such training. Younger individuals and those who identify as more spiritual were more likely to consider R/S training as important. Although 47.1% of professionals had not received much R/S training, many perceived themselves to be highly competent in R/S clinical integration practices (57.8% considered themselves able to display them very much or completely). In addition, respondents with more R/S training evaluated themselves as more proficient in R/S clinical integration. Nearly two-thirds (65.2%) of respondents reported encountering few to no barriers to engaging in R/S competent mental health care.ConclusionsThere is a growing consensus among mental health care professionals that mental health professionals should be trained in R/S competencies. Strong agreement exists that basic R/S competencies include respect, empathy, examination of bias, and routine assessment of R/S in mental health care. Four in five of those surveyed agree that more active competencies, such as identifying and addressing religious and spiritual struggles and problems and helping clients explore and access R/S strengths and resources should be included, whereas one in five report less comfort with these competencies.

Dataset Information

Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Publications

Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets