Introduction Although most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264). Results We included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health. Conclusions This review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population.

BackgroundGuideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public, and knowledge of what the public want from them is also increasing. The aim of this study was to user test a patient version of a SIGN clinical guideline that was designed based on preliminary work for the DECIDE project. SIGN is the leading national guideline producer in Scotland.MethodsPeople with a diagnosis of glaucoma and non-professional carers were recruited from across Scotland. User testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol method. Each session was conducted by one interviewer and one observer. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed, problems with the guideline were identified and resolved and key findings were themed using a user experience model.ResultsThirteen user testing sessions with people with glaucoma and one with a carer were conducted. Key facilitators of desirability and usability identified include clear branding as a patient version and a clearly described purpose, audience and contents page. Other facilitators include a “friendly” tone which is achieved by the use of colour, quotes, icons, simple language and charts, and brief chunked text.The value and usefulness of the patient guideline was influenced by its ability to: inform the public, link information to actions, and empower people in their interaction with healthcare professionals. Participants were disappointed by the lack of information on treatment in the patient version, which was outside its scope.Information on the evidence based guideline production process and the involvement of appropriately skilled professionals was key to the credibility of the guideline. Lack of awareness of guidelines and guideline producing bodies, is a potentially serious threat to findability/accessibility.ConclusionsIt is important for guideline producers to maximise the user experience of the public when they access patient versions of guidelines, particularly given the current low level of access and awareness. One size does not fit all and guideline producers need to strike a balance between keeping the patient version simple and providing sufficient information to facilitate shared decision making and empower the public. Guideline producers may find the results of this study useful in designing their own patient versions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1287-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the loss of involvement opportunities for people with lived experience during the pandemic as well as the vital role lived experience advisors play at all times, including highlighting unseen aspects of the impacts of crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, researchers from the Closing the Gap Network (CtG) at the University of York worked to expand and diversify patient and public involvement (PPI) whist working on a study exploring the impact of the pandemic and associated restrictions on those with the most severe forms of mental ill health. CtG had a strong record of patient and public involvement pre-pandemic and researchers wanted to ensure that this continued during the pandemic. This paper describes the experience of lived experience involvement during the pandemic from multiple perspectives and makes recommendations for future involvement models, accessibility and recommendations for future research.

Background: Citizenship has been promoted within mental health for several decades however, its application in the field of mental health policy and practice is relatively novel. The voices of people who experience mental health problems (MHPs) are often absent in ongoing discourses about citizenship.Aims: To explore how adults with experience of MHPs and other life disruptions identify potential barriers to citizenship.Method: A community based participatory research approach was adopted with peer researchers. Six focus groups (N = 40) using semi-structured interviews were conducted, consisting of participants who had experience of MHPS and other life disruption(s) within the last 5 years. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVIVO using a thematic approach.Results: Three major themes associated with participants lived experiences of barriers to citizenship were identified: 'stigmatisation (internal & external) creates further divide';'being socially excluded leads to isolation'; and 'a sense of difference (as perceived by the self and others)'.Conclusions: Those who have experienced major life disruption(s) face multi-level barriers to citizenship. An awareness of such barriers has important implications for mental health research, policy and practice. Citizenship-oriented implementation strategies that aim to address multi-level barriers merit further investigation.

Background: Restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to everyday reliance on digitalisation of life, including access to health care services. People with severe mental ill health (SMI—e.g., bipolar or psychosis spectrum disorders) are at greater risk for digital exclusion and it is unknown to what extent they adapted to online service delivery. This study explored use of the Internet and digital devices during the pandemic restrictions and its association with physical and mental health changes.Methods: Three hundred sixty seven adults with an SMI diagnosis completed a survey (online or offline) and provided information on access to Internet connexion and devices, internet knowledge, online activities, and barriers to using the Internet. They also self-reported changes in mental and physical health since the beginning of the pandemic restrictions.Results: During the pandemic restrictions 61.6% were limited or non-users of the Internet. The majority had access to the Internet and digital devices but around half reported knowledge deficits. Most common activities were accessing information and entertainment (88.9%), staying in touch with friends and families (84.8%), and purchasing goods (other than food) (84.3%). Most common barriers were finding the Internet “not interesting” (28.3%) or “too difficult” (27.9%), as well as “security concerns” (22.1–24.3%). Using the Internet “a lot” (vs. “just a bit or not at all”) during the pandemic was associated with younger age (18–30: Adj ORs 4.76; 31–45: 6.39; Ps < 0.001; vs. 66+), having a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (compared to psychosis; Adj OR = 3.88, P < 0.001), or reporting a decline in mental health (compared to no decline; Adj OR = 1.92, P = 0.01).Conclusion: Most people with SMI were limited or non-users of the Internet during the pandemic, which seems to be mainly attributable to lack of interest and skills, rather than lack of devices or connectivity. Older adults with psychosis should be the focus of interventions to support digital engagement in people with SMI.