Neil Greenberg and colleagues set out measures that healthcare managers need to put in place to protect the mental health of healthcare staff having to make morally challenging decisions

BackgroundMost research on interventions to counter stigma and discrimination has focused on short-term outcomes and has been conducted in high-income settings.AimsTo synthesise what is known globally about effective interventions to reduce mental illness-based stigma and discrimination, in relation first to effectiveness in the medium and long term (minimum 4 weeks), and second to interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodWe searched six databases from 1980 to 2013 and conducted a multi-language Google search for quantitative studies addressing the research questions. Effect sizes were calculated from eligible studies where possible, and narrative syntheses conducted. Subgroup analysis compared interventions with and without social contact.ResultsEighty studies (n = 422 653) were included in the review. For studies with medium or long-term follow-up (72, of which 21 had calculable effect sizes) median standardised mean differences were 0.54 for knowledge and −0.26 for stigmatising attitudes. Those containing social contact (direct or indirect) were not more effective than those without. The 11 LMIC studies were all from middle-income countries. Effect sizes were rarely calculable for behavioural outcomes or in LMIC studies.ConclusionsThere is modest evidence for the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions beyond 4 weeks follow-up in terms of increasing knowledge and reducing stigmatising attitudes. Evidence does not support the view that social contact is the more effective type of intervention for improving attitudes in the medium to long term. Methodologically strong research is needed on which to base decisions on investment in stigma-reducing interventions.

Purpose of Review We review recent community interventions to promote mental health and social equity. We define community interventions as those that involve multi-sector partnerships, emphasize community members as integral to the intervention, and/ or deliver services in community settings. We examine literature in seven topic areas: collaborative care, early psychosis, schoolbased interventions, homelessness, criminal justice, global mental health, and mental health promotion/prevention. We adapt the social-ecological model for health promotion and provide a framework for understanding the actions of community interventions. Recent Findings There are recent examples of effective interventions in each topic area. The majority of interventions focus on individual, family/interpersonal, and program/institutional social-ecological levels, with few intervening on whole communities or involving multiple non-healthcare sectors. Findings from many studies reinforce the interplay among mental health, interpersonal relationships, and social determinants of health. Summary There is evidence for the effectiveness of community interventions for improving mental health and some social outcomes across social-ecological levels. Studies indicate the importance of ongoing resources and training to maintain long-term outcomes, explicit attention to ethics and processes to foster equitable partnerships, and policy reform to support sustainable healthcare-community collaborations. Keywords Mental health (MeSH). Mental health intervention (MeSH). Community networks (MeSH). Social problems (MeSH). Community interventions (MeSH). Community-based interventions (MeSH). Social determinants of health. Mental health equity. Health disparities. Multi-sector interventions

ObjectivesThis study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April–June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.MethodsPreliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale.ResultsAnalyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one’s moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic.