Eleonora Prina

Question: Task-shared preventive psychological interventions combined with interventions addressing social determinants of mental health may prevent common mental health conditions (CMHCs), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, an evidence synthesis of their combination has not yet been investigated. We aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness of these combined interventions in LMICs. Study selection and analysis: We searched Epistemonikos, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, GIM, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP until 2 September 2024. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to assess the primary outcome, which was the incidence of CMHCs, and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023451072). Findings: Of the 21 780 records identified from electronic sources, we included 31 randomised controlled trials from 21 LMICs involving 35 885 participants. Combined interventions were effective in reducing the incidence of depression and post-traumatic stress disorders at postintervention compared with control conditions for adults (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93) and children (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99). At 7–24 months, we only found beneficial effects of combined interventions for depressive symptoms in children (standardised mean difference −0.41, 95% CI −0.63 to –0.18). No data were available on the incidence of anxiety. Conclusions: Combined task-shared interventions are effective in mostly short-term prevention of CMHCs in LMICs. Combining strategies targeting social determinants with psychological prevention approaches offers a potential opportunity to reduce the global mental health burden. Future research should focus on key intervention components and head-to-head comparisons between different interventions and between their components. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023451072.

Objectives: To quantify access to health services during the COVID-19 pandemic and measure the change in use between the prepandemic and the pandemic periods in a population with assessment of psychological distress or diagnosis of mental disorders.Data sources: We developed and piloted a search syntax and adapted it to enter the following databases from 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2023: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Epistemonikos and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reran the searches from the end of the original search to 3 December 2024.Design: We systematically screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records.Eligibility criteria: We included observational studies on any populations and regions, covering health services such as doctor visits, hospital admissions, diagnostic examinations, pharmaceutical therapies and mental health (MH) services. Only studies using validated scales to assess psychological distress or mental disorders as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders were included.Data extraction and synthesis: We extracted data using a purposefully designed form and evaluated the studies’ quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We measured the incidence rate (IR) of access to health services and the IR ratio (IRR) between the prepandemic and the pandemic periods. We calculated contacts days and catchment areas in the different periods. We used the random effects DerSimonian-Laird inverse-variance model and calculated heterogeneity with statistics I² and τ². We computed pooled IR and pooled IRR and tested the hypothesis of no variation (IRR=1).Results: We retrieved 10 014 records and examined the full text of 580 articles. We included 136 primary studies of which 44 were meta-analysed. The IR of access to services during the pandemic was 2.59 contact months per 10 000 inhabitants (IR=2.592; 95% CI: 1.301 to 5.164). We observed a reduction of 28.5% in the use of services with negligible differences by age group and type of services (IRR=0.715; 95% CI: 0.651 to 0.785). We observed significant differences in effect sizes across studies (τ²=5.44; p2=0.090; p<0.001).Conclusion: By considering MH, our study provides consolidated evidence and quantifies the reduction in the use of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023403778.

Providing Mental Health and Psychosocial Support interventions (MHPSS) for forcibly displaced Ukrainians in Central and Eastern Europe poses numerous challenges due to various socio-cultural and infrastructural factors. This qualitative study explored implementation barriers reported by service providers of in-person and digital MHPSS for Ukrainian refugees displaced to Poland, Romania and Slovakia due to the war. In addition, the study aimed to generate recommendations to overcome these barriers. Semi-structured Free List and Key Informant interviews were conducted using the Design, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation protocol with 18 and 13 service providers, respectively. For in-person interventions, barriers included stigma, language, shortage of MHPSS providers, lack of financial aid and general lack of trust among refugees. For digital MHPSS, barriers included generational obstacles, lack of therapeutic relationships, trust issues, and lack of awareness. Recommendations included advancing public health strategies, organizational interventions, building technical literacy and support, enhancing the credibility of digital interventions and incorporating MHPSS into usual practice. By implementing the recommendations proposed in this study, policymakers, organizations and service providers can work towards enhancing the delivery of MHPSS and addressing the mental health needs of Ukrainian refugees in host countries, such as Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted significant changes in healthcare, particularly affecting psychiatric and psychological Consultation-Liaison (CL) services in general hospital settings.Aim: To assess the effects of COVID-19-related restrictions on utilization of psychiatric and psychological CL services in Northeast Italy during 2020, and to compare it to the use of services in the previous year (2019).Methods: The study collected data on psychiatric and psychological consultations in 2019 and 2020 from a hospital database. It categorizes consultations by type of patient (inpatient or outpatient) and referral source (hospital wards, general practitioners, other specialists). Pandemic-related restrictions were classified as “lockdown,” “intermediate restrictions,” and “no or reduced restrictions” based on the Covid Stringency Index (CSI). Poisson regression models were employed to analyze the data.Results: The findings reveal a significant 28% increase in the number of psychiatric and psychological consultations in 2020. Consultations for outpatients increased by 51%, while those for inpatients decreased by 11%. However, the lockdown and intermediate restriction phases were deemed responsible of a decrease of 42.9% and 19.5% in consultations respectively.Discussion: This study highlights the persistent psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside reduced CL services due to lockdown measures. Integrating telemedicine into these types of services becomes imperative for meeting patient needs during restrictions. These findings can inform policies and practices to improve effective mental health care delivery during and beyond pandemics. Future research should explore the impact of pandemic-related restrictions on mental healthcare across settings and clinical factors affecting service accessibility.

Introduction Promoting mental health, preventing and treating mental disorders are critically important in public health, and many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluate intervention strategies for these objectives. However, distinguishing promotion from prevention and from treatment RCTs is challenging. A tool to place studies along the promotion-to-treatment continuum in mental health research does not exist, leaving it to researchers and policymakers to decide on how to classify individual RCTs, which hinders evidence synthesis. Methods and analysis We present a protocol for the development of a new tool to assist researchers in distinguishing RCTs along the promotion-to-treatment continuum. We will establish a Tool Development Group, and use the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework to define constructs. We will generate, define, categorise and reduce the items in the tool using qualitative methods, including cognitive interviews and a Delphi exercise. Psychometric evaluation—including unidimensionality, local independence, monotonicity and item homogeneity—will include data collection, scoring, internal consistency checks and factor analysis of the tool’s indicators for available RCTs. We will use standard Cohen’s kappa statistics to assess the reliability of the tool. Ethics and dissemination This study involves data collection from the already published literature. However, this protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of the Università della Svizzera Italiana (CE 2024 04). The results of the present project will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international and national scientific meetings. Training materials for the application of the tool will also be developed and disseminated to the scientific community. The tool and all related implementation materials will be published on a website and will be freely accessible to the public.

(1) Background: Lower socioeconomic status increases psychiatric service use, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic by environmental stressors like air pollution and limited green spaces. This study aims to assess the influence of sociodemographic and environmental factors on mental health service utilisation. (2) Methods: This retrospective study uses an administrative database focusing on community mental health services in Northeast Italy. Spatial and temporal analyses were used to address space–time dependencies. (3) Results: Findings showed that sociodemographic factors like living in rented apartments and lower education levels predicted higher mental health service use. Environmental factors, such as elevated NO₂ levels and, before the pandemic, lower solar radiation and tree cover, correlated with increased service utilisation. COVID-19 reduced most of the pre-existing differences associated with these factors across census blocks with a different composition of sociodemographic and environmental factors. (4) Conclusions: These findings contribute to a better understanding of the impact of the environment on public mental health.

Introduction Common mental health conditions (CMHCs), including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are highly prevalent in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Preventive strategies combining psychological interventions with interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health may represent a key strategy for effectively preventing CMHCs. However, no systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of these combined intervention strategies for preventing CMHCs. Methods and analysis This systematic review will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the effectiveness of interventions that combine preventive psychological interventions with interventions that address the social determinants of mental health in LMICs. Primary outcome is the frequency of depression, anxiety or PTSD at postintervention as determined by a formal diagnostic tool or any other standardised criteria. We will search Epistemonikos, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, ClinicalTrials.gov (Ctgov), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Two reviewers will independently extract the data and evaluate the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Random-effects meta-analyses will be performed, and certainty of evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Ethics and dissemination This study uses data from published studies; therefore, ethical review is not required. Findings will be presented in a published manuscript. Trial registration number CRD42023451072

Migrant mental health is a pressing public health issue with wide-ranging implications. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in this population to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions. However, the available evidence is characterized by controversy and fragmentation, with studies focusing on different migrant populations, interventions, outcomes, delivery modalities and settings. Aiming to promote systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in different migrant groups, we have developed a living database of existing RCTs. The development of the database provides an opportunity to map the existing RCT evidence in this population. A total of 135 studies involving 24,859 participants were included in the living database. The distribution of studies by year of publication aligns with the increasing global migrant population in recent years. Most studies focus primarily on adult participants, with a limited representation of children and adolescents, and a prevalence of female participants, which is consistent with epidemiological data, except for older adults, who are underrepresented in research. Studies predominantly focus on refugees and asylum seekers, likely due to their elevated risk of mental health issues, despite the substantial presence of economic migrants worldwide. While studies mainly involve migrants from the Middle East and East Asia, epidemiological data suggest a broader geographic representation, with migrants coming from Eastern Europe, Latin America and South Asia. The present descriptive analysis of RCTs on mental health and psychosocial interventions for migrant populations provides valuable insights into the existing research landscape. It should be used to inform future research efforts, ensuring that studies are more representative of the global migrant population and more responsive to the mental health needs of migrants in different contexts.