The impact of <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 on an early intervention in psychosis service

Chakraborty, Nandini; Carr, Richard; Tromans, Samuel

doi:10.1002/pnp.682

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, consistent with the findings of Loughlin et al (2020), SUs valued support reintegrating into society once their care had ended. Finally, the statistically insignificant differences in satisfaction ratings between the current study and Watkins et al (2018) reinforce the findings of Chakraborty et al (2020) that outcomes for these EIP services do not appear to have diminished as a result of the pandemic, despite alternative methods of providing care.…”

Section: Comparison To Existing Literaturesupporting

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation

Sakaria,

Sanderson,

Watkins

et al. 2024

MHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018). Design/methodology/approach This paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. Findings Data showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery. Research limitations/implications This evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time. Originality/value The Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.

show abstract

Section: Comparison To Existing Literaturesupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Research into the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic found that whilst the percentage of referrals accepted by an EIP service remained consistent throughout the pandemic the overall number of total referrals received significantly decreased (Chakraborty et al. , 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation

Sakaria,

Sanderson,

Watkins

et al. 2024

MHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, in the weeks immediately subsequent to COVID‐19 lockdown, findings from both the UK and France show reduced utilisation of mental health services, including referrals and psychiatric hospital admissions, 14,15 as well as emergency psychiatric consultations 16 . It is unclear what the root causes of such findings are, and it is likely that there is a multifactorial relationship governed by factors such as public health messaging, occupational instability and changes to the health care workforce during this time 14 …”

Section: The Relationship Between Covid‐19 and Mental Illnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a retrospective study investigating patients admitted to acute mental health wards during a four week period in April-May 2020, Abbas and colleagues 13 observed that 31% of admitted patients exhibited psychiatric symptoms related to COVID-19 and/or the related lockdown measures. Interestingly, in the weeks immediately subsequent to COVID-19 lockdown, findings from both the UK and France show reduced utilisation of mental health services, including referrals and psychiatric hospital admissions, 14,15 as well as emergency psychiatric consultations. 16 It is unclear what the root causes of such findings are, and it is likely that there is a multifactorial relationship governed by factors such as public health messaging, occupational instability and changes to the health care workforce during this time.…”

Section: Indirect Psychiatric Effects Of Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID‐19 and the two‐way relationship with neuropsychiatric disorders

Tromans

Ahmed

Chakraborty

2021

Prog Neurol Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to having an impact on the physical health of the global population, pandemics can also have a substantial impact on mental health. This can be measured in a variety of ways, including numbers of new mental health service referrals, 3 psychiatric hospital admissions 4 and interview- and/or survey-based approaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%