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.

This article reviews the literature on the factors associated with mothers who use substances losing care of their children. A rapid evidence assessment was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses. Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify primary research studies published in English during January 2000-September 2016. Studies were included if they presented individual, formal support (e.g., receiving substance use treatment) or informal support (e.g., receiving social and family support) factors associated with mothers who use substances retaining or losing care of their child/ren (losing care refers to child protection services placing child/ren under the custody of a family relative, foster care, child care institution, or adoption). Evaluation studies or trials of interventions were excluded as were studies that focused on reunification or re-entering care as the outcome. Thirteen studies were included. Factors associated with mothers who use substances losing care of their children included: maternal characteristics (low socioeconomic status, younger age of first child, criminal justice involvement); psychological factors (mental health co-morbidity, adverse childhood experiences); patterns of substance use (use of cocaine prenatally, injection drug use); formal and informal support (not receiving treatment for substance use, fewer prenatal care visits, lack of social support). There is not enough evidence to determine the influence of substance use treatment in preventing mothers losing care of their children. Factors identified in this review provide the evidence to inform a prevention agenda and afford services the opportunity to design interventions that meet the needs of those mothers who are more likely to lose care of their children.

ObjectivesTo assess the evidence for price-based alcohol policy interventions to determine whether minimum unit pricing (MUP) is likely to be effective.DesignSystematic review and assessment of studies according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, against the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. Three electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Additional articles were found through hand searching and grey literature searches.Criteria for selecting studiesWe included any study design that reported on the effect of price-based interventions on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related morbidity, mortality and wider harms. Studies reporting on the effects of taxation or affordability and studies that only investigated price elasticity of demand were beyond the scope of this review. Studies with any conflict of interest were excluded. All studies were appraised for methodological quality.ResultsOf 517 studies assessed, 33 studies were included: 26 peer-reviewed research studies and seven from the grey literature. All nine of the Bradford Hill criteria were met, although different types of study satisfied different criteria. For example, modelling studies complied with the consistency and specificity criteria, time series analyses demonstrated the temporality and experiment criteria, and the analogy criterion was fulfilled by comparing the findings with the wider literature on taxation and affordability.ConclusionsOverall, the Bradford Hill criteria for causality were satisfied. There was very little evidence that minimum alcohol prices are not associated with consumption or subsequent harms. However the overall quality of the evidence was variable, a large proportion of the evidence base has been produced by a small number of research teams, and the quantitative uncertainty in many estimates or forecasts is often poorly communicated outside the academic literature. Nonetheless, price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

ObjectivesThis study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and wellbeing 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=4,378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts (UK), 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 (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (PCL-6), suicidal ideation (CIS-R), and alcohol use (AUDIT). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale (MIES).ResultsAnalyses showed substantial levels of 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 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.HighlightsWhat is already known about this subject?Large-scale population studies report increased prevalence of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.Evidence from previous epidemics indicates a high and persistent burden of adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers.What are the new findings?Substantial levels of probable common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder were found among healthcare workers.Groups at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes included women, nurses, and younger staff, as well as those who reported higher levels of moral injury.How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?The mental health offering to healthcare workers must consider the interplay of demographic, social, and occupational factors.Additional longitudinal research that emphasises methodological rigor, namely with use of standardised diagnostic interviews to establish mental health diagnoses, is necessary to better understand the mental health burden, identify those most at risk, and provide appropriate support without pathologizing ordinary distress responses.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of NHS healthcare workers, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available. Methods and Analysis All staff, students, and volunteers working in each of the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow up surveys being sent 6 and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational and organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, a number of validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (e.g. depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder; PTSD), and measures of constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These regular surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a select sample of healthcare workers. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes. Ethics and Dissemination Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are being collected via Qualtrics online survey software, are pseudonymised and held on secure University servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services for any participant who feels they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in the psychiatric and qualitative interview components of the study. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts to enable better support of staff during the pandemic, and via academic publications in due course.