Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. Methods We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. Results We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. Conclusion Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.

Background Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. Objective To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. Methods Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. Results A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. Conclusions Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. Trial Registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025

Background The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. Methods We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants’ experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. Findings The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants’ preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties’ access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. Discussion Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

Purpose Loneliness is associated with poor health including premature mortality. There are cross-sectional associations with depression, anxiety, psychosis, and other mental health outcomes. However, it is not known whether loneliness is causally linked with the new onset of mental health problems in the general population. Longitudinal studies are key to understanding this relationship. We synthesized evidence from longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between loneliness and new onset of mental health problems, in the general population. Method We systematically searched six electronic databases, unpublished sources, and hand-searched of references, up to August 2021. We conducted a meta-analysis of eight independent cohorts and narrative synthesis of the remaining studies. Results We included 32 studies, of which the majority focused on depression. Our narrative synthesis found most studies show loneliness at baseline which is associated with the subsequent new onset of depression. The few studies on anxiety and self-harm also showed a positive association. Our meta-analysis found a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 2.33 (95% CI 1.62–3.34) for risk of new onset depression in adults who were often lonely compared with people who were not often lonely. This should be interpreted with caution given evidence of heterogeneity. Conclusion Loneliness is a public mental health issue. There is growing evidence; it is associated with the onset of depression and other common mental health problems. Future studies should explore its impact across the age range and in more diverse populations, look beyond depression, and explore the mechanisms involved with a view to better informing appropriate interventions.

BackgroundLoneliness is associated poor health including premature mortality. There are cross-sectional associations with depression, anxiety, psychosis and other mental health outcomes. However, the direction of causation is unclear and clarifying the evidence from longitudinal studies is a key step in understanding this relationship.AimsWe synthesized evidence from longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between loneliness and new onset of mental health problems, in the general population.MethodWe systematically searched six electronic databases, unpublished sources and hand-searching of references, up to March 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of eight independent cohorts, and narrative synthesis of the remaining studies.ResultsWe included 20 studies, of which the majority focused on depression. Our narrative synthesis concluded that loneliness at baseline is associated with subsequent new onset of depression. The few studies on anxiety also showed an association. Our meta-analysis found a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 2.33 (95% C.I. 1.62 – 3.34) for risk of new onset depression in adults who were often lonely compared with people who were not often lonely. This should be interpreted with caution given evidence of heterogeneity. Most of the studies were in older adults.ConclusionLoneliness is a public mental health issue. There is growing evidence it is associated with the onset of depression and other common mental health problems. Future studies should explore its impact across the age range, look beyond depression, and explore the mechanisms involved.

Purpose We sought to understand how the experiences of people in the UK with pre-existing mental health conditions had developed during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In September–October 2020, we interviewed adults with mental health conditions pre-dating the pandemic, whom we had previously interviewed 3 months earlier. Participants had been recruited through online advertising and voluntary sector community organisations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone or video-conference by researchers with lived experience of mental health difficulties, and, following principles of thematic analysis, were analysed to explore changes over time in people’s experience of the pandemic. Results We interviewed 44 people, achieving diversity of demographic characteristics (73% female, 54% White British, aged 18–75) and a range of mental health conditions and service use among our sample. Three overarching themes were derived from interviews. The first theme “spectrum of adaptation” describes how participants reacted to reduced access to formal and informal support through personal coping responses or seeking new sources of help, with varying degrees of success. The second theme describes “accumulating pressures” from pandemic-related anxieties and sustained disruption to social contact and support, and to mental health treatment. The third theme “feeling overlooked” reflects participants’ feeling of people with mental health conditions being ignored during the pandemic by policy-makers at all levels, which was compounded for people from ethnic minority communities or with physical health problems. Conclusion In line with previous research, our study highlights the need to support marginalised groups who are at risk of increased inequalities, and to maintain crucial mental and physical healthcare and social care for people with existing mental health conditions, notwithstanding challenges of the pandemic.

Background: Telemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls or text messages) is increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks reinforcing pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated in routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach, and when face-to-face care is needed. Objective: The aim of this rapid realist review was to develop theory about which telemental health approaches work, or do not work, for whom, in which contexts and through what mechanisms. Methods: Rapid realist reviewing involves synthesising relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMOs encapsulate theories about what works for whom, and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from (a) two previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health, (b) an updated search using the strategy from these reviews, (c) a call for relevant evidence, including "grey literature", to the public and key experts, and (d) website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organisations. CMOs formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through (a) discussion with an expert reference group including researchers with relevant lived experience and front-line clinicians and (b) consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: 1) children and young people, 2) users of inpatient and crisis care services, and 3) digitally excluded groups. Results: A total of 108 scientific and grey literature sources were included. From our initial CMOs, we derived 30 overarching CMOs within four domains: 1) connecting effectively; 2) flexibility and personalisation; 3) safety, privacy and confidentiality; and 4) therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasised the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation, and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed. Conclusions: Service user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively and fostering strong therapeutic relationships, need to be prioritised in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies co-produced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimise telemental health implementation in real-world settings. MS and KRKS are joint first authors.

Background: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with "Complex Emotional Needs"(CEN - our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. Methods: We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. Results: We included 226 papers in all (209 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self- harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support or ways of designing effective services. Conclusions: Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be effectively helped when specialist therapies are available and they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group. *SL, LSR and MS are joint first authors.