AbstractObjectiveThe primary objective of this paper is to present a short measure of perceptions on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life, along with analysis of its reliability and validity in non-clinical and clinical samples.MethodsThe scale was named The COV19 – Impact on Quality of Life (COV19-QoL) and it consists of six items presented in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. The items (i.e. statements) cover main areas of quality of life with regard to mental health. The scale was administered to 1346 participants from the general population in Croatia (the non-clinical sample) and 201 patients with severe mental illness recruited from four European countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia), constituting the clinical sample. The clinical sample was part of the randomised controlled trial IMPULSE funded by the European Commission. Data on age and gender were collected for both samples, along with psychiatric diagnoses collected for the clinical sample.ResultsMain findings included a high internal consistency of the scale and a moderate to strong positive correlation among participants’ scores on different items. Principal component analysis yielded one latent component. The correlation between participants’ age and their results on COV19-QoL was negligible. Participants’ perceived quality of life was the most impacted domain, whereas mental health, personal safety and levels of depression were the least impacted domains by the pandemic.DiscussionThe COV19-QoL is a reliable and valid scale which can be used to explore the impact of COVID-19 on quality of life. The scale can be successfully used by researchers and clinicians interested in the impact of the pandemic on people experiencing various pre-existing mental health issues (e.g. anxiety, mood and personality disorders) as well as those without such issues.

Background Implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources. Methods Thirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants’ accounts. Results Six major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers’ involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention’s implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists’ time constrains. Conclusions This study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe – a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research.

Background: Autistic people have a high likelihood of developing mental health difficulties but a low chance of receiving effective mental health care. Therefore, there is a need to identify and examine strategies to improve mental health care for autistic people. Aims: To identify strategies that have been implemented to improve access, experiences of care and mental health outcomes for autistic adults and examine evidence on their acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness. Method: A co-produced systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, medRxiv and PsyArXiv were searched. We included all study designs reporting acceptability or feasibility outcomes and empirical quantitative study designs reporting effectiveness outcomes. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach. Results: A total of 29 articles were identified. These included 16 studies of adapted mental health interventions, seven studies of service improvements and six studies of bespoke mental health interventions developed for autistic people. There was no conclusive evidence on effectiveness. However, most bespoke and adapted approaches appeared to be feasible and acceptable. Identified adaptations appeared to be acceptable and feasible, including increasing knowledge and detection of autism, providing environmental adjustments and communication accommodations, accommodating individual differences, and modifying the structure and content of interventions. Conclusion: Many identified strategies are feasible and acceptable and can be readily implemented in services with the potential to make mental health care more suitable for autistic people, but important research gaps remain. Future research should address these and investigate a co-produced package of service improvement measures.