Background: The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the population's mental health and well-being are likely to be profound and long lasting.Aims: To investigate the trajectory of mental health and well-being during the first 6 weeks of lockdown in adults in the UK.Method: A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample was employed. Findings for waves 1 (31 March to 9 April 2020), 2 (10 April to 27 April 2020) and 3 (28 April to 11 May 2020) are reported here. A range of mental health factors was assessed: pre-existing mental health problems, suicide attempts and self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, mental well-being and loneliness.Results: A total of 3077 adults in the UK completed the survey at wave 1. Suicidal ideation increased over time. Symptoms of anxiety, and levels of defeat and entrapment decreased across waves whereas levels of depressive symptoms did not change significantly. Positive well-being also increased. Levels of loneliness did not change significantly over waves. Subgroup analyses showed that women, young people (18–29 years), those from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health problems have worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors.Conclusions: The mental health and well-being of the UK adult population appears to have been affected in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasing rates of suicidal thoughts across waves, especially among young adults, are concerning.

The increasing involvement of pharmacists in public health will require changes in the behaviour of both pharmacists and the general public. A great deal of research has shown that attitudes and beliefs are important determinants of behaviour. This review aims to examine the beliefs and attitudes of pharmacists and consumers towards pharmaceutical public health in order to inform how best to support and improve this service.

The challenge of addressing unhealthy lifestyle choice is of global concern. Motivational Interviewing has been widely implemented to help people change their behaviour, but it is unclear for whom it is most beneficial. This overview aims to appraise and synthesise the review evidence for the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on health behaviour of adults in health and social care settings. A systematic review of reviews. Methods were pre-specified and documented in a protocol (PROSPERO–CRD42016049278). We systematically searched 7 electronic databases: CDSR; DARE; PROSPERO; MEDLINE; CINAHL; AMED and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 2018. Two reviewers applied pre-defined selection criteria, extracted data using TIDIER guidelines and assessed methodological quality using the ROBIS tool. We used GRADE criteria to rate the strength of the evidence for reviews including meta-analyses. Searches identified 5222 records. One hundred and four reviews, including 39 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Most meta-analysis evidence was graded as low or very low (128/155). Moderate quality evidence for mainly short term (<6 months) statistically significant small beneficial effects of Motivational Interviewing were found in 11 of 155 (7%) of meta-analysis comparisons. These outcomes include reducing binge drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, substance abuse in people with dependency or addiction, and increasing physical activity participation. We have created a comprehensive map of reviews relating to Motivational Interviewing to signpost stakeholders to the best available evidence. More high quality research is needed to be confident about the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing. We identified a large volume of low quality evidence and many areas of overlapping research. To avoid research waste, it is vital for researchers to be aware of existing research, and the implications arising from that research. In the case of Motivational Interviewing issues relating to monitoring and reporting fidelity of interventions need to be addressed.

Objective: to measure general practitioners' knowledge of, confidence with and attitudes to the diagnosis and management of dementia in primary care. Setting: 20 general practices of varying size and prior research experience in Central Scotland, and 16 similarly varied practices in north London. Participants: 127 general practitioners who had volunteered to join a randomised controlled trial of educational interventions about dementia diagnosis and management. Methods: self-completion questionnaires covering knowledge, confidence and attitudes were retrieved from practitioners prior to the educational interventions. Results: general practitioners' knowledge of dementia diagnosis and management is good, but poor awareness of its epidemiology leads to an over-estimate of caseload. Knowledge of local diagnostic and support services is less good, and one third of general practitioners expressed limited confidence in their diagnostic skills, whilst two-thirds lacked confidence in management of behaviour and other problems in dementia. The main difficulties identified by general practitioners were talking with patients about the diagnosis, responding to behaviour problems and coordinating support services. General practitioners perceived lack of time and lack of social services support as the major obstacles to good quality care more often than they identified their own unfamiliarity with current management or with local resources. Attitudes to the disclosure of the diagnosis, and to the potential for improving the quality of life of patients and carers varied, but a third of general practitioners believed that dementia care is within a specialist's domain, not that of general practice. More experienced and male general practitioners were more pessimistic about dementia care, as were general practitioners with lower knowledge about dementia. Those reporting greater difficulty with dementia diagnosis and management and those with lower knowledge scores were also less likely to express attitudes endorsing open communication with patient and carer. Conclusion: educational support for general practitioners should concentrate on epidemiological knowledge, disclosure of the diagnosis and management of behaviour problems in dementia. The availability and profile of support services, particularly social care, need to be enhanced, if earlier diagnosis is to be pursued as a policy objective in primary care.