Dataset Information

Mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: protocol for a rapid review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to mental health services, forcing the rapid implementation of alternative ways of delivering services alongside a greater immediate, and continuously growing, demand across those services. The care and level of mental health service provided are felt to be inadequate to respond to the increasing demand for mental health conditions in the time of the pandemic, leading to an urgent need to learn from service change and consequences to inform solutions and plans to support the NHS postpandemic plan in the UK. This rapid review aims to understand the changes in mental health services during the pandemic and summarise the impact of these changes on the health outcomes of people with mental health conditions.

Methods and analysis

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo will be searched for eligible studies with key terms indicating mental health AND COVID-19 AND health services. Peer-reviewed empirical studies aiming to investigate or describe new models of care, services, initiatives or programmes developed or evolved for patients (aged 18 years or over) with mental health in response to COVID-19, published in the English language and undertaken in a high-income country defined by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member will be included. Studies reporting views of the general public, letters of opinion to peer-review journals, editorial or commentaries will be excluded. Study selection and data extraction will be undertaken independently by two reviewers. Evidence will be summarised narratively and in a logic model.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required for this review. A list of interventions/services/models of care delivered to people with mental health conditions will be grouped as 'Do', 'Don't' and 'Don't know' based on the evidence on effectiveness and acceptability. The results will be written for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to the public and patients, clinicians, commissioners, funders and academic conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42022306923.

SUBMITTER: Yu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAccurate and affordable laboratory testing is key to timely diagnosis and appropriate management of patients with COVID-19. New laboratory test protocols are released into the market under emergency use authorisation with limited evidence on diagnostic test accuracy. As such, robust evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and the costs of available tests is urgently needed to inform policy and practice especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to determine the diagnostic test accuracy, cost-effectiveness and utility of laboratory test strategies for COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.Methods and analysisThis will be a multistaged, protocol-driven systematic review conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. We will search for relevant literature in at least six public health databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the WHO Global Index Medicus. In addition, we will search Cochrane Library, COVID-END and grey literature databases to identify additional relevant articles before double-screening and abstraction of data. We will conduct a structured narrative and quantitative synthesis of the results guided by the Fryback and Thornbury framework for assessing a diagnostic test. The primary outcome is COVID-19 diagnostic test accuracy. Using the GRADE approach specific to diagnostic accuracy tests, we will appraise the overall quality of evidence and report the results following the original PRISMA statement. The protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).Ethics and disseminationEthical review was done by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The published article will be accessible to policy and decision makers. The findings of this review will guide clinical practice and policy decisions and highlight areas for future research.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020209528.

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified the urgency in addressing pressing global health access challenges and has also laid bare the pervasive structural and systemic inequities that make certain segments of society more vulnerable to the tragic consequences of the disease. This rapid systematic review analyses the barriers to COVID-19 health products in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). It does so from the canon of global health equity and access to medicines by proposing an access to health products in low-and middle-income countries framework and typology adapted to underscore the complex interactive and multiplicative nature and effects of barriers to health products and their root cause as they coexist across different levels of society in LMICs.MethodsModified versions of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewers' manual for evidence synthesis of systematic reviews and the PRISMA-ScR framework were used to guide the search strategy, identification, and screening of biomedical, social science, and gray literature published in English between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 5,956 articles, with 72 articles included in this review after screening protocol and inclusion criteria were applied. Thirty one percent of the articles focused on Africa. The review revealed that barriers to COVID-19 health products were commonly caused by market forces (64%), the unavailability (53%), inaccessibility (42%), and unaffordability (35%), of the products, incongruent donors' agenda and funding (33%) and unreliable health and supply systems (28%). They commonly existed at the international and regional (79%), health sectoral (46%), and national cross-sectoral [public policy] (19%) levels. The historical heritage of colonialism in LMICs was a commonly attributed root cause of the barriers to COVID-19 health products in developing countries.ConclusionThis review has outlined and elaborated on the various barriers to health products that must be comprehensively addressed to mount a successful global, regional, national and subnational response to present and future epidemics and pandemics in LMICs.

Project description:IntroductionChildhood cancers are a leading cause of non-communicable disease deaths for children around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted on global children's cancer services, which can have consequences for childhood cancer outcomes. The Global Health Research Group on Children's Non-Communicable Diseases is currently undertaking the first international cohort study to determine the variation in paediatric cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the short-term to medium-term impacts on childhood cancer outcomes.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, international cohort study that will use routinely collected hospital data in a deidentified and anonymised form. Patients will be recruited consecutively into the study, with a 12-month follow-up period. Patients will be included if they are below the age of 18 years and undergoing anticancer treatment for the following cancers: acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, Burkitt lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas and neuroblastomas. Patients must be newly presented or must be undergoing active anticancer treatment from 12 March 2020 to 12 December 2020. The primary objective of the study was to determine all-cause mortality rates of 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. This study will examine the factors that influenced these outcomes. χ2 analysis will be used to compare mortality between low-income and middle-income countries and high-income countries. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression analysis will be undertaken to identify patient-level and hospital-level factors affecting outcomes with adjustment for confounding factors.Ethics and disseminationAt the host centre, this study was deemed to be exempt from ethical committee approval due to the use of anonymised registry data. At other centres, participating collaborators have gained local approvals in accordance with their institutional ethical regulations. Collaborators will be encouraged to present the results locally, nationally and internationally. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:Background COVID-19 has impacted the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are already under strain due to population growth and insufficient resources. Since the COVID-19 pandemic's emergence, there has been an urgent need for a rapid and adequate reaction to the pandemic's disruption of healthcare systems. To this end, telemedicine has been shown in prior research to be a feasible approach. The overarching objective of this scoping review was to determine the extent and acceptance of telemedicine in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework to identify available evidence. We systematically searched four academic databases for peer-reviewed literature published between January 2020 and April 2021: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as Google Scholar as a source for grey literature. Results The search identified 54 articles with 45,843 participants, including 6,966 healthcare professionals and 36,877 healthcare users. We identified a range of reasons for introducing telemedicine in LMICs during COVID-19, most notably to maintain non-emergency healthcare, enhance access to healthcare providers, and reduce the risk of infection among health users and providers. Overall, healthcare providers and users have shown a high level of acceptance for telemedicine services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine provided access to healthcare in the majority of included articles. Nonetheless, some challenges to accepting telemedicine as a method of healthcare delivery have been reported, including technological, regulatory, and economical challenges. Conclusion Telemedicine was found to improve access to high-quality healthcare and decrease infection risk in LMICs during COVID-19. In general, infrastructure and regulatory barriers found to be the most significant barriers to wider telemedicine use, and should be considered when implementing telemedicine more broadly. There appears to be a need to prioritize patient data safety, as many healthcare practitioners utilized commercial apps and services as telemedicine systems. Additionally, it appears as though there is a need to increase capacity, skill, and transparency, as well as to educate patients about telemedicine.

Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [-.47, -.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [-0.07, -.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [-0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples.ConclusionsControlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during "lean", pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.