This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IntroductionThe WHO declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in the grip of the COVID-19. To date, more than 211 730 035 million confirmed cases and more than 4 430 697 million people have died. While controlling the virus and implementing vaccines are the main priorities, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be longer term and are less obvious than the physical health ones. Lockdown restrictions, physical distancing, social isolation, as well as the loss of a loved one, working in a frontline capacity and loss of economic security may have negative effects on and increase the mental health challenges in populations around the world. There is a major demand for long-term research examining the mental health experiences and needs of people in order to design adequate policies and interventions for sustained action to respond to individual and population mental health needs both during and after the pandemic.Methods and analysisThis repeated cross-sectional mixed-method study conducts regular self-administered representative surveys, and targeted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with adults in the UK, as well as validation of gathered evidence through citizens’ juries for contextualisation (for the UK as a whole and for its four devolved nations) to ensure that emerging mental health problems are identified early on and are properly understood, and that appropriate policies and interventions are developed and implemented across the UK and within devolved contexts. STATA and NVIVO will be used to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study has been granted by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge, UK (PRE 2020.050) and by the Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee of De Montfort University, UK (REF 422991). While unlikely, participants completing the self-administered surveys or participating in the virtual focus groups, semi-structured interviews and citizens’ juries might experience distress triggered by questions or conversations. However, appropriate mitigating measures have been adopted and signposting to services and helplines will be available at all times. Furthermore, a dedicated member of staff will also be at hand to debrief following participation in the research and personalised thank-you notes will be sent to everyone taking part in the qualitative research.Study findings will be disseminated in scientific journals, at research conferences, local research symposia and seminars. Evidence-based open access briefings, articles and reports will be available on our study website for everyone to access. Rapid policy briefings targeting issues emerging from the data will also be disseminated to inform policy and practice. These briefings will position the findings within UK public policy and devolved nations policy and socioeconomic contexts in order to develop specific, timely policy recommendations. Additional dissemination will be done through traditional and social media. Our data will be contextualised in view of existing policies, and changes over time as-and-when policies change.

Objective In the United Kingdom, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cessation of elective surgery. However, there remains a need to provide urgent and emergency cardiac and thoracic surgery as well as to continue time-critical thoracic cancer surgery. This study describes our early experience of implementing a protocol to safely deliver major cardiac and thoracic surgery in the midst of the pandemic. Methods Data on all patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at a single tertiary referral centre in London was prospectively collated during the first 7 weeks of lockdown in the United Kingdom. A comprehensive protocol was implemented to maintain a COVID-19 free environment including the pre-operative screening of all patients, the use of full personal protective equipment in areas with aerosol generating procedures, and separate treatment pathways for patients with and without the virus Results A total of 156 patients underwent major cardiac and thoracic surgery over the study period. Operative mortality was 9% in the cardiac patients and 1.4% in thoracic patients. The pre-operative COVID-19 protocol implemented resulted in 18 patients testing positive for COVID-19 infection and 13 patients having their surgery delayed. No patients who were negative for COVID-19 infection on pre-operative screening tested positive post-operatively. However, one thoracic patient tested positive on intra-operative broncho-alveolar lavage. Conclusion Our early experience demonstrates that it is possible to perform major cardiac and thoracic surgery with low operative mortality and zero development of post-operative COVID-19 infection.

Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online), ( 3), [CD013557].

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Qualitative). The objectives are as follows: Main objective: To identify the factors that create barriers or facilitate physical activity for people with a diagnosis of anxiety or depression from the perspectives of service users, carers, service providers and practitioners to help inform the design and implementation of interventions that promote physical activity. The overall aim of this review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise qualitative research evidence on the barriers and facilitators to engaging in physical activity in general lifestyle settings or as part of an intervention designed to increase physical activity for people with anxiety and depression. This will allow us to identify factors that create barriers and facilitators of physical activity in this population to inform the development, design, and implementation of future interventions. We will also integrate the findings from the QES with the two associated e ectiveness reviews (Cooney 2014; Larun 2006). We will communicate our findings to public health commissioners and other stakeholders.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the challenges and learnings of evaluating a public mental health programme with older people: Standing Together, which delivered weekly facilitated self-help groups for older people in extra care housing. Following evaluation, a list of practical recommendations was developed to inform future evaluations of similar programmes. Design/methodology/approach This paper resulted from our reflections as evaluators or practitioners on Standing Together. The evaluation followed a mixed-methods design. It reflects on findings from the Standing Together evaluation, which employed quantitative and qualitative research methods to determine the project’s impact on key outcome areas. Quantitative questionnaires were completed by tenants at baseline and towards the end of the project. Focus groups were held with tenants and interviews were undertaken with multiple stakeholders. Findings There were challenges in evaluating Standing Together that were unique to the older population group. Recommendations cover the full spectrum of the role of practitioners, evaluators, setting and methodology. Co-production was found to be an overarching theme linking together the recommendations, and most of the challenges encountered can, in principle, be alleviated with greater focus on co-production during the evaluation design stage. Originality/value The recommendations in the paper have practical relevance to those involved in evaluations of public health programmes or interventions. Incorporating these recommendations when conducting similar evaluations with older populations in housing settings will ensure more accurate reporting of outcomes.

Background ‘Getting Involved in Research’ was co-created and delivered by a multi-organisational group to provide an accessible introduction to research for those with lived experience of health and social care services. Method The evaluation of participants’ perceptions adopted an exploratory mixed method research design and aimed to gather data to provide an in-depth understanding of the participants’ experience of ‘Getting Involved in Research’ through the co-researchers’ analysis of qualitative data using Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). PTE was used with the qualitative data to promote co-analysis by the course development group; analyses from an independent academic was also used to further validate the method of PTE. Results Thirty-five participants in total participated in ‘Getting Involved in Research’. Age ranges varied from 19 to 73 years old. Participants were predominately female (n = 24), five males participated (n = 5) and there was one participant who identified as non-binary (n = 1). Six core themes were identified using the PTE approach: (1) A Meaningful Participatory Approach (2) Increasing the Confidence of Participants (3) Interactive Online Format (4) An Ambient Learning Environment (5) A Desire for Future Courses (6) A Balance of Course Content and Discussion. Participants in ‘Getting Involved in Research’ reported that the content of the training was applicable, relevant, fostered awareness of research methods and anticipated that it would support their involvement in research. Conclusion ‘Getting Involved in Research’ has contributed innovatively to the evidence base for how to engage with and motivate those who have experience of health and social care to become actively involved in research. This study demonstrates that ‘Getting Involved in Research’ may be helpful to train those with lived experience and their care partners however, further research following up on the application of the course learning would be required to ascertain effectiveness. Future directions Future research should explore methods to apply research skills in practice to further develop participants’ confidence in using the skills gained through ‘Getting Involved in Research’.

No abstract