Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on sickness absence for mental ill health in National Health Service staff
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To explore the patterns of sickness absence in National Health Service (NHS) staff attributable to mental ill health during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in March–July 2020. Design
Case-referent analysis of a secondary dataset. Setting
NHS Trusts in England. Participants
Pseudonymised data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by NHS trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020. Main outcome measures
Trends in the burden of sickness absence due to mental ill health from 2019 to 2020 according to demographic, regional and occupational characteristics. Results
Over the study period, 164 202 new sickness absence episodes for mental ill health were recorded in 12.5% (119 525) of the study sample. There was a spike of sickness absence for mental ill health in March–April 2020 (899 730 days lost) compared with 519 807 days in March–April 2019; the surge was driven by an increase in new episodes of long-term absence and had diminished by May/June 2020. The increase was greatest in those aged >60 years (227%) and among employees of Asian and Black ethnic origin (109%–136%). Among doctors and dentists, the number of days absent declined by 12.7%. The biggest increase was in London (122%) and the smallest in the East Midlands (43.7%); the variation between regions reflected the rates of COVID-19 sickness absence during the same period. Conclusion
Although the COVID-19 epidemic led to an increase in sickness absence attributed to mental ill health in NHS staff, this had substantially declined by May/June 2020, corresponding with the decrease in pressures at work as the first wave of the epidemic subsided.
SUBMITTER: van der Plaat D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572362 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users.MethodsWe investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data.Results2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care.ConclusionThis overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted.
| S-EPMC7453694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Absenteeism is an important feature of the labour market, imposing significant costs on employers and the economy as a whole. This paper is the first to use a large labour force survey sample to investigate how different physical and mental health conditions affect absence rates among prime age workers in the UK. A pooled time series/cross-section analysis reveals that people with a chronic health condition are more likely to be absent from work, and mental health has a significantly larger effect than physical health. From a longitudinal perspective, we find that a change in mental health has an effect on absenteeism more than three times greater than a change in physical health. These findings imply that the prevention and alleviation of chronic health conditions, particularly common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety that are highly prevalent in prime age workers, will deliver significant benefits to the UK economy due to reduced absenteeism. Further, there is significant heterogeneity between different health conditions, with some having no effect at all on absenteeism having controlled for other factors.
| S-EPMC8501363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.
| S-EPMC8068948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental ill-health is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Moreover, 75% of mental health conditions emerge between the ages of 12 and 25 years. Unfortunately, due to lack of resources and limited engagement with services, a majority of young people affected by mental ill-health do not access evidence-based support. To address this gap, our team has developed a multimodal, scalable digital mental health service (Enhanced Moderated Online Social Therapy [MOST+]) merging real-time, clinician-delivered web chat counseling; interactive user-directed online therapy; expert and peer moderation; and peer-to-peer social networking.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to ascertain the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of MOST+. The secondary aims are to assess pre-post changes in clinical, psychosocial, and well-being outcomes and to explore the correlations between system use, perceived helpfulness, and secondary outcome variables.MethodsOverall, 157 young people seeking help from a national youth e-mental health service were recruited over 5 weeks. MOST+ was active for 9 weeks. All participants had access to interactive online therapy and integrated web chat counseling. Additional access to peer-to-peer social networking was granted to 73 participants (46.5%) for whom it was deemed safe. The intervention was evaluated via an uncontrolled single-group study.ResultsOverall, 93 participants completed the follow-up assessment. Most participants had moderate (52/157, 33%) to severe (96/157, 61%) mental health conditions. All a priori feasibility, acceptability, and safety criteria were met. Participants provided mean scores of ≥3.5 (out of 5) on ease of use (mean 3.7, SD 1.1), relevancy (mean 3.9, SD 1.0), helpfulness (mean 3.5, SD 0.9), and overall experience (mean 3.9, SD 0.8). Moreover, 98% (91/93) of participants reported a positive experience using MOST+, 82% (70/93) reported that using MOST+ helped them feel better, 86% (76/93) felt more socially connected using it, and 92% (86/93) said they would recommend it to others. No serious adverse events or inappropriate use were detected, and 97% (90/93) of participants reported feeling safe. There were statistically significant improvements in 8 of the 11 secondary outcomes assessed: psychological distress (d=-0.39; P<.001), perceived stress (d=-0.44; P<.001), psychological well-being (d=0.51; P<.001), depression (d=-0.29; P<.001), loneliness (d=-0.23; P=.04), social support (d=0.30; P<.001), autonomy (d=0.36; P=.001), and self-competence (d=0.30; P<.001). There were significant correlations between system use, perceived helpfulness, and a number of secondary outcome variables.ConclusionsMOST+ is a feasible, acceptable, and safe online clinical service for young people with mental ill-health. The high level of perceived helpfulness, the significant improvements in secondary outcomes, and the correlations between indicators of system use and secondary outcome variables provide initial support for the therapeutic potential of MOST+. MOST+ is a promising and scalable platform to deliver standalone e-mental health services as well as enhance the growing international network of face-to-face youth mental health services.
| S-EPMC7453330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHarassment and discrimination in the National Health Service (NHS) has steadily increased over the past 5 years with London being the worst performing region. There is a lack of data and research on the impact this is having on staff health and job satisfaction. Such data are necessary to inform the development of effective workplace interventions to mitigate the effects these experiences have on staff.AimsExamine the impact of harassment and discrimination on NHS staff working in London trusts, utilising data from the 2019 TIDES cross-sectional survey.MethodIn total, 931 London-based healthcare practitioners participated in the TIDES survey. Regression analysis was used to examine associations between the sociodemographic characteristics of participants, exposure to discrimination and harassment, and how such exposures are associated with physical and mental health, job satisfaction and sickness absence.ResultsWomen, Black ethnic minority staff, migrants, nurses and healthcare assistants were most at risk of discrimination and/or harassment. Experiencing either of the main exposures was associated with probable anxiety or depression. Experiencing harassment was also associated with moderate-to-severe somatic symptoms. Finally, both witnessing and experiencing the main exposures were associated with low job satisfaction and long periods of sickness absence.ConclusionsNHS staff, particularly those working in London trusts, are exposed to unprecedented levels of discrimination and harassment from their colleagues. Within the context of an already stretched and under-resourced NHS, in order to combat poor job satisfaction and high turnover rates, the value of all healthcare practitioners must be visibly and continuously reinforced by all management and senior leaders.
| S-EPMC7791556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMusculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) account for the greatest burden of years lived with disability globally. To prevent disability, good-quality services need to be commissioned, appropriate for local need. We analysed data collected systematically from a new musculoskeletal service serving 70% of the population of Scotland to evaluate: age- and sex-specific occurrence; anatomical distribution; and impact and effect on work ability.MethodsA new centralized telephone-based triage for people with musculoskeletal disorders was set up in Scotland in 2015. Available to most of the population aged >16 years (>3 million people), data were collected systematically into a database detailing: anatomical site, nature of onset, duration, impact/risk (modified STarT score), deprivation level and, for those in employment, sickness absence.ResultsData were available from 219 314 new callers, 2015-18. Calls were more frequently from women (60%), increased with age until the eighth decade, and 66% reported symptoms that had been present for >6 weeks. Callers were more likely to be living in more deprived areas in each age band between 20 and 64 years and tended to have higher-impact symptoms. The majority (53%) of callers were in employment, and 19% of these were off sick because of their symptoms. Sickness absence was more common among those with highest impact/risk scores from deprived areas with more acute symptoms.DiscussionLarge-scale systematic data collection for MSDs emphasizes the size and impact of the burden among adults aged >16 years. A socio-economic gradient is evident in terms of prevalence and impact of MSDs, particularly for sickness absence.
| S-EPMC9113281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim was to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health service use according to mental disorder diagnosis among psychiatric outpatients.MethodsPsychiatric outpatient visits and patient diagnostic information were extracted from the EHR(electronic health records) of a Korean tertiary hospital during 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and 3 months before the COVID-19 outbreak. Visit rates of psychiatric outpatients according to primary psychiatric diagnosis category before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were compared using an over-dispersed Poisson regression model. The temporal associations between the number of daily outpatient visits and the daily number of newly confirmed cases were examined by time-series analysis within each diagnosis category.ResultsTotal daily outpatient visit rate was significantly reduced during the pandemic. Among the nine most prevalent diagnosis categories, the daily visit rates for anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were significantly reduced by about 29.8%, 14.8%, and 13.3% respectively. Time-series analysis showed significant temporal correlations between the daily number of newly confirmed cases and the daily visit rates for anxiety disorders and depressive disorders, whereas patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders showed no significant temporal association.LimitationsPotential confounding factors unrelated to the pandemic might have influenced the results.ConclusionsThe present findings suggest that patients with anxiety or depressive disorders may have concerns regarding the spread of COVID-19, and may be more reluctant to visit psychiatry outpatient clinics. Delivery strategies for mental healthcare services, such as telepsychiatry, would be helpful to enhance continuity of care during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9754757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospital staff is at high risk of developing mental health issues during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the literature lacks an overall and inclusive picture of mental health problems with comprehensive analysis among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesTo ascertain the prevalence of anxiety, depression and other mental health outcomes as reported in original articles among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE 2000 compliant umbrella review of published meta-analyses of observational studies evaluating the prevalence of mental health problems in hospital staff during the pandemic.Review methodsSystematic searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from December 1st, 2019, until August 13th 2021. The random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and the I2 index was employed to assess between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias using Egger test and LFK index was examined. Data was analyzed using STATA 17.0 software. AMSTAR-2 was applied for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while we used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.ResultsForty-four meta-analyses from 1298 individual studies were included in the final analysis, encompassing the prevalence of 16 mental health symptoms. One-third of hospital workers reported anxiety (Prevalence: 29.9%, 95% CI:27.1% to 32.7%) and depression (Prevalence: 28.4%, 95% CI:25.5% to 31.3%) symptomatology, while about 40% (95% CI: 36.9% to 42.0%) suffered from sleeping disorders. Fear-related symptoms, reduced well-being, poor quality of life, and acute stress symptoms had the highest prevalence among hospital staff. However, the quality of evidence in these areas varied from low to very low. Nurses suffered more often from sleep problems and symptoms of anxiety and depression than doctors, whereas doctors reported a higher prevalence of acute stress and post-traumatic disorders. The burden of anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders was higher among female employees than their male counterparts. Remarkably, acute stress and insomnia affected more than half of first-line medical staff.ConclusionsThe prevalence of mental health problems among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic is generally high, with anxiety, depression and insomnia symptoms representing the most robust evidence based on a large dataset of prevalence meta-analyses. However, there is no strong confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.RegistrationNot registered.Tweetable abstractThe COVID-19 pandemic is having a major impact on the mental health of hospital staff. The need for support must be different for nurses and doctors @eldi12345.
| S-EPMC9045868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence of gender differences in bipolar disorder characteristics and comorbidity, there is little research on the differences in treatment and service use between men and women with bipolar disorder.AimsTo use routine data to describe specialist mental health service contact for bipolar disorder, including in-patient, community and support service contacts; to compare clinical characteristics and mental health service use between men and women in contact with secondary services for bipolar disorder.MethodCross-sectional analysis of mental health patients with bipolar disorder in New Zealand, based on complete national routine health data.ResultsA total of 3639 individuals were in contact with specialist mental health services with a current diagnosis of bipolar disorder in 2015. Of these 58% were women and 46% were aged 45 and over. The 1-year prevalence rate of bipolar disorder leading to contact with specialist mental health services was 1.56 (95% CI 1.50-1.63) per 100 000 women and 1.20 (95% CI 1.14-1.26) per 100 000 men. Rates of bipolar disorder leading to service contact were 30% higher in women than men (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.39). The majority (68%) had a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder. Women were more likely to receive only out-patient treatment and have comorbid anxiety whereas more men had substance use disorder, were convicted for crimes when unwell, received compulsory treatment orders and received in-patient treatment.ConclusionsAlthough the prevalence of bipolar disorder is equal between men and women in the population, women were more likely to have contact with specialist services for bipolar disorder but had a lower intensity of service interaction.
| S-EPMC7745236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRecovery Colleges are opening internationally. The evaluation focus has been on outcomes for Recovery College students who use mental health services. However, benefits may also arise for: staff who attend or co-deliver courses; the mental health and social care service hosting the Recovery College; and wider society. A theory-based change model characterising how Recovery Colleges impact at these higher levels is needed for formal evaluation of their impact, and to inform future Recovery College development. The aim of this study was to develop a stratified theory identifying candidate mechanisms of action and outcomes (impact) for Recovery Colleges at staff, services and societal levels.MethodsInductive thematic analysis of 44 publications identified in a systematised review was supplemented by collaborative analysis involving a lived experience advisory panel to develop a preliminary theoretical framework. This was refined through semi-structured interviews with 33 Recovery College stakeholders (service user students, peer/non-peer trainers, managers, community partners, clinicians) in three sites in England.ResultsCandidate mechanisms of action and outcomes were identified at staff, services and societal levels. At the staff level, experiencing new relationships may change attitudes and associated professional practice. Identified outcomes for staff included: experiencing and valuing co-production; changed perceptions of service users; and increased passion and job motivation. At the services level, Recovery Colleges often develop somewhat separately from their host system, reducing the reach of the college into the host organisation but allowing development of an alternative culture giving experiential learning opportunities to staff around co-production and the role of a peer workforce. At the societal level, partnering with community-based agencies gave other members of the public opportunities for learning alongside people with mental health problems and enabled community agencies to work with people they might not have otherwise. Recovery Colleges also gave opportunities to beneficially impact on community attitudes.ConclusionsThis study is the first to characterise the mechanisms of action and impact of Recovery Colleges on mental health staff, mental health and social care services, and wider society. The findings suggest that a certain distance is needed in the relationship between the Recovery College and its host organisation if a genuine cultural alternative is to be created. Different strategies are needed depending on what level of impact is intended, and this study can inform decision-making about mechanisms to prioritise. Future research into Recovery Colleges should include contextual evaluation of these higher level impacts, and investigate effectiveness and harms.
| S-EPMC6998922 | biostudies-literature