18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The COVID-19 pandemic: The ‘black swan’ for mental health care and a turning point for e-health

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In February 2020, Duan and Zhu (2020) stressed the need for a solid Chinese evidence-based mental health care system in times of public health emergencies such as the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). That would enable treatment of people who suffer from mental health problems in relation to the epidemic. The WHO has meanwhile labelled the Coronavirus a pandemic, and it is now hitting Europe, the USA, and Australia hard as well. In an attempt to reduce the risk of infections, many mental health care providers in afflicted countries are currently closing their doors for patients who need ambulatory face-to-face therapy. They are simultaneously trying to replace some of these contacts with digital therapies. Most probably, European mental health care institutions have yet to experience the full impact of the coronavirus crisis. At the same time, the demand for mental health care among infected patients and their relatives is expected to rise (Blumenstyk, 2020). Levels of anxiety will increase, both through direct causes including fears of contamination, stress, grief, and depression triggered by exposure to the virus, and through influences from the consequences of the social and economic mayhem that is occurring on individual and societal levels. We expect that this “black swan” moment (Blumenstyk, 2020) - an unforeseen event that changes everything - will lead to a partly, though robust, shift in mental health care provision towards online prevention, treatment, and care in the near future. We also need to consider the role of psychological processes and fear that may cause further harm on top of the pandemic (Asmundson and Taylor, 2020). The obvious solution to continue mental health care within a pandemic is to provide mental health care at a ‘warm’ distance by video-conferencing psychotherapy and internet interventions. A systematic review showed that videoconferencing psychotherapy show promising results for anxiety and mood disorders (Berryhill et al., 2019), and the evidence-base for therapist-guided internet interventions is even stronger (Andersson, 2016). Yet, despite two decades of evidence-based e-mental health services, numerous barriers have stalled the overall implementation in routine care thus far (Vis et al., 2018; Tuerk et al., 2019). One of the most important barriers highlighted, however, has been that e-mental health has not been integrated as a normal part of routine care practice due to the lack of acceptance by health professionals themselves (Topooco et al., 2017). Myths on telehealth such as “the therapeutic alliance can only be established face-to-face” have dominated the field, in spite of research showing the opposite (Berger, 2017). In that sense, learning curves in the adoption of new e-mental health technologies by both patients and psychologists have progressed far more slowly than initially expected, thus tallying with the estimate that it takes on average16 years for a health care innovation to be implemented (Rogers et al., 2017). There are however exceptions in the world but progress is still slow. In the Netherlands and elsewhere, we are now witnessing a phenomenon whereby the outbreak of COVID-19 is hastening managers, ICT-staff, and clinicians to overcome all such barriers overnight, from a pragmatic standpoint seldom seen before. The virus seems a greater catalyst for the implementation of online therapy and e-health tools in routine practice than two decades of many brilliant, but failed, attempts in this domain (Mohr et al., 2018). After all, since predictions about COVID-19 are largely unclear as of yet, it is now time to create a longer-term solution to the problem of heterogeneous patient populations, such as those still active in the community and those that are house-bound or isolated in hospitals. Videoconferencing and internet interventions could therefore be very helpful in mental health care, as well as in physical care and can be easily upscaled to serve isolated regions and reach across borders. Thus, the “black swan virus” has already enabled wide-scale acceptance of videoconferencing by health professionals and patients alike – creating a win-win situation for both. We should stress that e-mental health applications hold value far beyond the provision of videoconferencing psychotherapy in the current situation of crisis. Countries hit by the Corona virus may also consider adopting a wider public e-mental health approach, which would focus additionally on prevention and on reaching people at risk for mental health disorders. In this respect, not only guided but also fully self-guided interventions, such as self-help apps or online therapeutic modules, could also be applied in settings and countries with scarce mental health resources (Christiani and Setiawan, 2018). We should also consider the need for treatment development (for the psychological problems caused by corona virus isolation), which is by far more rapid in the field of internet interventions than in traditional psychotherapy (Andersson et al., 2018). It is likely that the response to this emergency will be more than a temporary increase in online work (Blumenstyk, 2020). Once mental health care institutions have developed the capabilities of serving their patients via videoconferencing and other digital technologies, there is little reason for them to give these up, in view of the many advantages (Blumenstyk, 2020; Tuerk et al., 2019). This black swan should be a call for action by encouraging providers to move more rapidly towards blended care models (van der Vaart et al., 2014; Kooistra et al., 2019). Agility, flexibility, and resilience are essential skills for 21-st-century institutions, particularly when unforeseen disruptive viruses and devastating events driven by climate change are likely to be increasingly common (Blumenstyk, 2020). We urge practitioners to promptly start adopting e-mental health care applications, both as methods to continue their care to current patients in need and as interventions to cope with the imminent upsurge in mental health symptoms due to the coronavirus. Uncited reference Karyotaki et al., 2018

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic

          The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has now spread across China for over a month. The National Health Commission has issued guidelines for emergency psychological crisis intervention for people affected by COVID-19. 1 Medical institutions and universities across China have opened online platforms to provide psychological counselling services for patients, their family members, and other people affected by the epidemic. However, Xiang and colleagues, 2 claim that the mental health needs of patients with confirmed COVID-19, patients with suspected infection, quarantined family members, and medical personnel have been poorly handled. The organisation and management models for psychological interventions in China must be improved. Several countries in the west (eg, the UK and USA) have established procedures for psychological crisis interventions to deal with public health emergencies. 3 Theoretical and practical research on psychological crisis interventions in China commenced relatively recently. In 2004, the Chinese Government issued guidelines on strengthening mental health initiatives, 4 and psychological crisis interventions have dealt with public health emergencies—eg, after the type A influenza outbreak and the Wenchuan earthquake—with good results.5, 6 During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, several psychological counselling telephone helplines were opened for the public, and quickly became important mechanisms in addressing psychological issues. However, the organisation and management of psychological intervention activities have several problems. First, little attention is paid to the practical implementation of interventions. Overall planning is not adequate. When an outbreak occurs, no authoritative organisation exists to deploy and plan psychological intervention activities in different regions and subordinate departments. Hence, most medical departments start psychological interventional activities independently without communicating with each other, thereby wasting mental health resources, and failing patients in terms of a lack of a timely diagnosis, and poor follow-up for treatments and evaluations. Second, the cooperation between community health services and mental-health-care institutions in some provinces and cites in China has been decoupled. After the assessment of the mental health states of individuals affected by the epidemic, patients cannot be assigned according to the severity of their condition and difficulty of treatment to the appropriate department or professionals for timely and reasonable diagnosis and treatment. And after remission of the viral infection, patients cannot be transferred quickly from a hospital to a community health service institution to receive continuous psychological treatment. Finally, owing to a shortage of professionals, the establishment of psychological intervention teams in many areas is not feasible. Teams might consist of psychological counsellors, nurses, volunteers, or teachers majoring in psychology and other related fields, with no professional and experienced psychologists and psychiatrists. One individual often has multiple responsibilities, which can reduce the effectiveness of interventions. This situation can be resolved by improving relevant policies, strengthening personnel training, optimising organisational and management policies, and constantly reviewing experiences in practice. In the National Health Commission guidelines, 1 key points were formulated for different groups, including patients with confirmed and suspected infections, medical care and related personnel, those who had close contacts with patients (eg, family members, colleagues, friends), people who refused to seek medical treatment, susceptible groups (eg, older people, children, and pregnant women), and the general public. With disease progression, clinical symptoms become severe and psychological problems in infected patients will change; therefore, psychological intervention measures should be targeted and adapted as appropriate. Studies have confirmed that individuals who have experienced public health emergencies still have varying degrees of stress disorders, even after the event is over, or they have been cured and discharged from hospital, indicating these individuals should not be ignored.7, 8 Therefore, we should consider the disease course, severity of clinical symptoms, place of treatment (eg, isolated at home, ordinary isolation ward, intensive care unit), and other factors to classify individuals who need psychological intervention and to formulate specific measures to improve the effectiveness of these interventions. Under strict infection measures, non-essential personnel such as clinical psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health social workers, are strongly discouraged from entering isolation wards for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, frontline health-care workers become the main personnel providing psychological interventions to patients in hospitals. For individuals with a suspected infection who are under quarantine or at home, community health service personnel should provide primary medical care and mental health care. However, because of complicated work procedures, heavy workloads, and a lack of standardised training in psychiatry or clinical psychology, community health service personnel do not always know how to mitigate the psychological distress of patients. A professional team comprising mental health personnel is a basic tenet in dealing with emotional distress and other mental disorders caused by epidemics and other public health emergencies. The national mental health working plan (2015–20) reported that 27 733 licensed psychiatrists (1·49 per 100 000 population), 57 591 psychiatric nurses, and more than 5 000 psychotherapists worked in China in 2015. 9 By the end of 2017, the number of licensed psychiatrists had increased to 33 400, and the number of psychotherapists, social workers, and psychological counsellors was also increasing year by year, 10 but their numbers were still too few to meet the needs of patients with mental disorders. Hence, training of mental health professionals at different levels is urgently required by the Chinese Government. Interventions should be based on a comprehensive assessment of risk factors leading to psychological issues, including poor mental health before a crisis, bereavement, injury to self or family members, life-threatening circumstances, panic, separation from family and low household income. 11 Any major epidemic outbreak will have negative effects on individuals and society. Lessons learned from terrorist events at the Pentagon and anthrax attacks in the USA showed the importance of pre-establishing community coalitions to mobilise resources efficiently and effectively and to respond successfully to the disaster-related mental health needs of affected individuals. 12 Planning of psychological interventions in China is usually done passively; few preventive measures are implemented before the occurrence of serious psychological issues caused by acute emergency events. The outbreak of COVID-19 has shown many problems with the provision of psychological intervention in China. Here we have suggested ways that the government could establish and improve the intervention system based on sound scientific advice, to effectively deal with the mental health problems caused by public health emergencies. © 2020 Pasieka 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to know

            Heath anxiety occurs when perceived bodily sensations or changes, including but not limited to those related to infectious diseases (e.g., fever, coughing, aching muscles), are interpreted as symptoms of being ill (Asmundson, Abramowitz, Richter, & Whedon, 2010; Taylor & Asmundson, 2004). Almost everyone experiences health anxiety to some degree, and the associated vigilance to potential health-related threat can be protective, helping identify early signs of health issues that prompt health-promoting behavior. But, when excessive, health anxiety can be detrimental. As illustrated by Kosic, Lindholm, Jarvholm, Hedman-Lagerlof, and Axelsson (2020) in this volume, high levels of health anxiety are becoming increasingly common and, given that high health anxiety is known to manifest following exposure to disease-related popular media (Asmundson et al., 2010), of which there is no current shortage with COVID-19, levels around the world and particularly in areas reporting confirmed cases are likely to be on the rise. Psychological factors are known to play a vital role in the success of public health strategies used to manage epidemics and pandemics; that is, risk communication, vaccination and antiviral therapy, hygiene practices, and social distancing. Health anxiety is important in influencing the success or failure of each of these strategies (Taylor, 2019). Accordingly, it is critical that public health decision-makers, health authorities, and health care providers across disciplines understand how health anxiety will influence responses to viral outbreaks, including current responses to COVID-19. Contemporary cognitive-behavioral models (e.g., Asmundson et al., 2010; Taylor & Asmundson, 2004) posit that health anxiety occurs along a continuum; that is, it varies in degree, from very low levels to very high levels, as opposed to varying in quality. These models also suggest that high levels of health anxiety are characterized primarily by catastrophic misinterpretations of bodily sensations and changes, dysfunctional beliefs about health and illness, and maladaptive coping behaviours. People with high health anxiety tend to misinterpret benign bodily sensations and changes as dangerous. In the case of viral outbreaks, depending on prior experiences with influenza and available information about the current outbreak, a person with high health anxiety may misinterpret benign muscle aches or coughing as a tell-tale signs that they are infected (Taylor & Asmundson, 2004; Wheaton, Abramowitz, Berman, Fabricant, & Olatunji, 2012). This, in turn, increases their anxiety. Misinterpretations of bodily sensations and changes are influenced by one’s beliefs about health and disease, which in those with high health anxiety often include beliefs that all bodily sensations and changes are signs of illness and that one is especially weak or vulnerable to becoming ill. In short, in the context of a viral outbreak or pandemic, individuals with high health anxiety are prone to misinterpreting harmless bodily sensations and changes as evidence that they are infected. This will, in turn, increase their anxiety, influence their ability to make rational decisions, and impact their behaviour. There are several ways in which high health anxiety may influence behavioural responses to the belief of being infected. On the one hand, some people with high health anxiety may regard hospitals and doctor’s offices as a source of contagion and, therefore, avoid seeking medical assistance. On the other hand, other people with high health anxiety tend to seek out health-related information and reassurance, often from doctors. As such, they may visit multiple doctors or even attend hospital emergency rooms in their pursuit of reassurance that their bodily sensations and changes are not due to infection. This behaviour, if it occurs, would add undue burden to health care resources. This was evident during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, where the surge of patients on hospitals occurred even when the outbreak was only a rumor. At the time in the state of Utah, for example, there was heightened public concern about influenza but little actual disease prevalence; however, emergency room departments experienced substantial surges in patient volumes, with the volumes comparable to the increases experienced when the disease actually reached the state (McDonnell, Nelson, & Schunk, 2012). Most of the surge was due to pediatric visits. Young children frequently contract diseases with flu-like features (e.g., fever, cough, congestion), which were likely misinterpreted by their parents as possible signs of pandemic influenza. A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association highlights the need for hospital and medical clinic preparedness so that that concerns regarding COVID-19 do negatively impact normal medical care or compound its direct morbidity and mortality (Adalja, Toner, & Inglesby, 2020). People with high health anxiety also tend to engage in a variety of other maladaptive safety behaviours. In the context of viral outbreaks, this may include excessive hand washing, social withdrawal, and panic purchasing. It is noteworthy that all of these behaviours are consistent with public health recommendations for managing epidemics and pandemics; however, in the case of those with high health anxiety, they are taken to an extreme that can have negative consequences to the individual and their community. For example, the false sense of urgency for various products needed for self-quarantine may lead the health anxious person to over-spend on stockpiling unneeded resources (e.g., hand sanitizer, medications, protective masks). This can have a rippling detrimental impact on a community in need of these resources for other purposes, including normal medical care. Low levels of health anxiety can also have negative impacts on health behaviour (Asmundson, Taylor, Carleton, Weeks, & Hadjistavropoulos, 2012), including public health strategies for managing epidemics and pandemics. To illustrate, during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, people who viewed themselves as having a low risk of infection were less likely to wash their hands (Gilles et al., 2011) and less likely to seek vaccination (Taha, Matheson, & Anisman, 2013). People who view themselves as being at low risk of infection will also be unlikely to change their social behaviour and disregard recommendations for social distancing. Failure to adhere to even the simplest recommendations, such as washing one’s hands and social distancing, can have significant negative impacts on any efforts to mitigate viral spread. Given that some people are now changing travel plans, organizers are cancelling conferences and other large public events, and hand sanitizer and other health “safety” and “survival” products are flying off the shelves, it is apparent that concern for personal safety is mounting as the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise around the world. Health anxiety is one of the several psychological factors that will influence the way any given person responds to a viral outbreak (Taylor, 2019), including COVID-19. As per our recent recommendations (Asmundson & Taylor, 2020), more research is needed to understand how individual difference factors, including health anxiety, specifically impact behaviour in response to COVID-19. This will take some time. In the meantime, basic knowledge of how high and low levels of health anxiety will impact behaviour as it relates to strategies for containing and mitigating viral spread is important for all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professional and needs to be communicated to the public in an effort to curb maladaptive or irresponsible decisions that may negatively impact these efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Do guided internet-based interventions result in clinically relevant changes for patients with depression? An individual participant data meta-analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Internet Interv
                Internet Interv
                Internet Interventions
                Elsevier
                2214-7829
                19 March 2020
                19 March 2020
                : 100317
                Affiliations
                [a ]Foundation Centrum '45, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands|partner in Arq Psychotrauma Expert Group, Nienoord 5, 1112 XE Diemen, the Netherlands
                [b ]Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands
                [c ]Department of Behavioural Science and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
                [d ]Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [e ]Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ in Geest/Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [f ]Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. h.riper@ 123456vu.nl
                Article
                S2214-7829(20)30046-4 100317
                10.1016/j.invent.2020.100317
                7104190
                32289019
                0441c5c3-871a-4a7c-a930-d9404e50fe1e
                © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 17 March 2020
                : 18 March 2020
                : 18 March 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article