Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users. Methods We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data. Results 2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care. Conclusion This overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted.

Background Use of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation varies widely within and between countries. The factors that place individuals and populations at increased risk of involuntary hospitalisation are unclear, and evidence is needed to understand these disparities and inform development of interventions to reduce involuntary hospitalisation. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate risk factors at the patient, service, and area level associated with involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation of adults.Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Register of Trials from Jan 1, 1983, to Aug 14, 2019, for studies comparing the characteristics of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric inpatients, and studies investigating the characteristics of involuntarily hospitalised individuals in general population samples. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018095103. Findings 77 studies were included from 22 countries. Involuntary rather than voluntary hospitalisation was associated with male gender (odds ratio 1•23, 95% CI 1•14-1•32; p<0•0001), single marital status (1•47, 1•18-1•83; p<0•0001), unemployment (1•43, 1•07-1•90; p=0•020), receiving welfare benefits (1•71, 1•28-2•27; p<0•0001), being diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (2•18, 1•95-2•44; p<0•0001) or bipolar disorder (1•48, 1•24-1•76; p<0•0001), and previous involuntary hospitalisation (2•17, 1•62-2•91; p<0•0001).Using narrative synthesis, we found associations between involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation and perceived risk to others, positive symptoms of psychosis, reduced insight into illness, reduced adherence to treatment before hospitalisation, and police involvement in admission. On a population level, some evidence was noted of a positive dose-response relation between area deprivation and involuntary hospitalisation.Interpretation Previous involuntary hospitalisation and diagnosis of a psychotic disorder were factors associated with the greatest risk of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. People with these risk factors represent an important target group for preventive interventions, such as crisis planning. Economic deprivation on an individual level and at the population level was associated with increased risk for involuntary hospitalisation. Mechanisms underpinning the risk factors could not be identified using the available evidence. Further research is therefore needed with an integrative approach, which examines clinical, social, and structural factors, alongside qualitative research into clinical decision-making processes and patients' experiences of the detention process.

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.

SummaryBackgroundHigh resource expenditure on acute care is a challenge for mental health services aiming to focus on supporting recovery, and relapse after an acute crisis episode is common. Some evidence supports self-management interventions to prevent such relapses, but their effect on readmissions to acute care following a crisis is untested. We tested whether a self-management intervention facilitated by peer support workers could reduce rates of readmission to acute care for people discharged from crisis resolution teams, which provide intensive home treatment following a crisis.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled superiority trial recruiting participants from six crisis resolution teams in England. Eligible participants had been on crisis resolution team caseloads for at least a week, and had capacity to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups by an unmasked data manager. Those collecting and analysing data were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Participants in the intervention group were offered up to ten sessions with a peer support worker who supported them in completing a personal recovery workbook, including formulation of personal recovery goals and crisis plans. The control group received the personal recovery workbook by post. The primary outcome was readmission to acute care within 1 year. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 01027104.Findings221 participants were assigned to the intervention group versus 220 to the control group; primary outcome data were obtained for 218 versus 216. 64 (29%) of 218 participants in the intervention versus 83 (38%) of 216 in the control group were readmitted to acute care within 1 year (odds ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·43–0·99; p=0·0438). 71 serious adverse events were identified in the trial (29 in the treatment group; 42 in the control group).InterpretationOur findings suggest that peer-delivered self-management reduces readmission to acute care, although admission rates were lower than anticipated and confidence intervals were relatively wide. The complexity of the study intervention limits interpretability, but assessment is warranted of whether implementing this intervention in routine settings reduces acute care readmission.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Background and Objectives We aimed to explore experiences of South Asian carers of people with dementia receiving health or social care in the United Kingdom, purposively recruited to encompass a range of migration, economic and cultural experiences. While previous work in this area has reported carers’ understanding of, and attitudes to dementia, we explored how carers’ cultural identities and values influenced their experiences, negotiation of the caring role and relationship with services. Research Design and Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 Bangladeshi and Indian family carers of people living with dementia at home. We recruited participants from community settings in London and Bradford, UK. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results We identified 4 themes: an expectation and duty to care, expectation and duty as a barrier to accessing formal care (family carer reluctance, care recipient reluctance, and service organization), culturally (in)sensitive care, and the importance of support from informal care networks. Discussion and Implications Interviewees described tensions between generations with different understandings of familial care obligations. Expectations to manage led to burden and guilt, and the cost of caring, in terms of lost employment and relationships was striking. Unlike in previous studies, interviewees wanted to engage and be supported by services, but were frequently offered care models they could not accept. There was a tension between a state-provided care system obliged to provide care when there are no alternatives, and family carers who feel a duty to always provide alternatives. Informal social networks often provided valued support.