The aim of this systematic review was to assess the magnitude of the association between types of intimate partner violence (IPV) and mental health outcomes and shed light on the large variation in IPV prevalence rates between low- to middle-income countries and high-income countries. The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The following databases were searched for this study: Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. The inclusion criteria for this study are as follows: quantitative studies published from 2012 to 2020 on IPV exposure in women aged 16+, using validated measures. Random effects meta-analyses and subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity across population groups in different economic contexts are used in this study. In all, 201 studies were included with 250,599 women, primarily from high-income countries. Higher prevalence rates were reported for women’s lifetime IPV than past year IPV. Lifetime psychological violence was the most prevalent form of IPV. Women in the community reported the highest prevalence for physical, psychological, and sexual violence in the past year compared to clinical groups. Perinatal women were most likely to have experienced lifetime physical IPV. Prevalence rates differed significantly ( p = .037 to <.001) for “any IPV” and all subtypes by income country level. Meta-analysis suggested increased odds for all mental health outcomes associated with IPV including depression (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04–3.14), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (OR = 2.15–2.66), and suicidality (OR = 2.17–5.52). Clinical and community populations were exposed to high prevalence of IPV and increased likelihood of depression, PTSD, and suicidality. Future research should seek to understand women’s perspectives on service/support responses to IPV to address their mental health needs. Work with IPV survivors should be carried out to develop bespoke services to reduce IPV in groups most at risk such as pregnant and/or help-seeking women.

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: Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments. Aims: To assess changes to service use following a service user’s first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units. Methods: A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021. Results: The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5–13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%–82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables. Conclusions: Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge.

Introduction: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients. Methods: This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated. Findings: Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients’ experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management. Discussion: Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted. Conclusion: A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes.