Dataset Information

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health hospital admissions: comparative population-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic caused mental health services to be downscaled to abide by the public health restrictions issued.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the pandemic and resultant restrictions had an impact on Malta's admissions to hospital for mental health issues by assessing the number and nature of psychiatric admissions to our only national mental health hospital.

Method

Data collection was carried out retrospectively for the 13-week period between 7 March 2020 and 4 June 2020, compared with the equivalent in 2019. Demographic data was obtained and descriptive statistical analysis through the use of the χ²-test, z-test and logistic regression model were used to compare both data-sets, using a P-value of 0.05.

Results

An overall reduction in admissions to hospital was noted in 2020 when compared with 2019, recorded to be lowest in March 2020 with a steady acceleration of admissions up until May 2020 (χ2(3) = 22.573, P < 0.001). This coincided with a decelerated rate of positive COVID-19 cases locally. In 2020, there were significantly higher female admissions (χ2(1) = 10.197, P < 0.001), increased presentations of self-harm/suicidal ideation (P < 0.001) and higher involuntary admissions using the Mental Health Act (χ2(1) = 4.904, P = 0.027). The logistic regression model identified total length of stay in hospital, primary mental health diagnosis, gender and month of admission as variables significantly associated with an admission.

Conclusions

Our first population-wide study confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health restrictions had an impact on the population's hospital admissions for mental health issues.

SUBMITTER: Bonello F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365103 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDifferent states in the United States had different nonpharmaceutical public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of those interventions on hospital use have not been systematically evaluated. The investigation could provide data-driven evidence to potentially improve the implementation of public health interventions in the future.ObjectiveWe aim to study two representative areas in the United States and one area in China (New York State, Ohio State, and Hubei Province), and investigate the effects of their public health interventions by time periods according to key interventions.MethodsThis observational study evaluated the numbers of infected, hospitalized, and death cases in New York and Ohio from March 16 through September 14, 2020, and Hubei from January 26 to March 31, 2020. We developed novel Bayesian generalized compartmental models. The clinical stages of COVID-19 were stratified in the models, and the effects of public health interventions were modeled through piecewise exponential functions. Time-dependent transmission rates and effective reproduction numbers were estimated. The associations of interventions and the numbers of required hospital and intensive care unit beds were studied.ResultsThe interventions of social distancing, home confinement, and wearing masks significantly decreased (in a Bayesian sense) the case incidence and reduced the demand for beds in all areas. Ohio's transmission rates declined before the state's "stay at home" order, which provided evidence that early intervention is important. Wearing masks was significantly associated with reducing the transmission rates after reopening, when comparing New York and Ohio. The centralized quarantine intervention in Hubei played a significant role in further preventing and controlling the disease in that area. The estimated rates that cured patients become susceptible in all areas were small (<0.0001), which indicates that they have little chance to get the infection again.ConclusionsThe series of public health interventions in three areas were temporally associated with the burden of COVID-19-attributed hospital use. Social distancing and the use of face masks should continue to prevent the next peak of the pandemic.

Project description:Introduction: This study compares rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout among resident/fellow and attending physicians in orthopaedic surgery to other specialties during height/end of the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at our institution. Main outcomes and measures included suicidal ideation, Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression (PHQ-9) scores for depression, and 2 single-item measures for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. This study provides valuable information regarding orthopaedic surgeon mental health during world crises. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey-based study of resident, fellow, and attending physicians from 26 specialties during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at our institution from April 24, 2020 to May 15, 2020. The survey contained 22 items. This includes consent, demographics and general data, 2 single-item questions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and the PHQ-9. Subjects were eligible if they were a resident/fellow or attending physician at our institution. Results: The response rate for the study was 16.31%. Across all specialties rates were 6.2% depression, 19.6% burnout, and 6.6% suicidal ideation. The results for orthopaedic surgeons are as follows: 0% tentative diagnosis of depression, 3.8% suicidal ideation, and 4% burnout. Anesthesiology had the highest rate of depression (14.3%). Internal medicine and other non-surgical specialties had the highest rate of suicidal ideation (10.2%). Orthopaedic surgeons were significantly more likely to achieve work-life balance and experience less burnout than anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Discussion: Depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout continue to affect physicians across all specialties. These issues are amplified in light of crisis. Job satisfaction and rigorous training may be protective factors that allow orthopaedic surgeons to adapt to novel clinical settings under stress when compared to anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Resilience training and stress management strategies should continue to be investigated to better prepare physicians for world crises.

Project description:Numerous nations have implemented lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a consequence of the lockdown on daily living, social participation, and health service accessibility, vulnerable people, for example, new mothers, may experience an increase in mental health problems. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on Thai new mothers and the variables affecting their mental health. The survey data were collected from 903 Thai mothers with infants aged 0-12 months using an online platform and a face-to-face interview questionnaire survey between 17 July and 17 October 2020, during the first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown period. For the final analysis, there were 862 participants who completed all of the questions. The full exploratory analysis was performed by multivariable linear regression to identify the variables influencing maternal mental health. Our study demonstrated that new mothers reported feeling a high extent to some extent of worry (44.9%), increased appetite (40.4%), becoming easily annoyed or irritable (39.1%), and feeling down (33.5%), whereas 82.7% felt able to cope with the first lockdown situation. Practiced relaxation techniques were associated with positive maternal mental health (adjusted β = 1.05, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.52, p < 0.001). The perceived impact of the COVID-19 lockdown was on the household's ability to pay for rent, to make mortgage payments (adjusted β = -1.59, 95% CI -2.87 to -0.36, p = 0.011), the household's ability to pay for other essentials, such as utilities and medication (adjusted β = -1.99, 95% CI -3.16 to -0.81, p = 0.001), household crowding after lockdown (adjusted β = -3.46, 95% CI -4.86 to -2.06, p < 0.001), and not going outside or doing outdoor activities (adjusted β = -2.22, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.08, p < 0.001). These impacts were significantly associated with negative mental health. In conclusion, our results emphasize the critical need for continuous monitoring of maternal mental health and developing an effective response strategy and activity for promoting maternal mental health under the stress of repetitive lockdowns and increased economic pressures.