Previous research shows that crises can have both negative and positive mental health effects on the population. The current study explored these effects in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic after relaxation of governmental measures. An online survey was administered among a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 1519) in June 2020, ten weeks after the peak of COVID-19 had passed, and five weeks after restrictions were relaxed. Participants were asked about mental health, adverse events during COVID-19, and about any positive effects of the pandemic. Most participants (80%, n = 1207) reported no change in mental health since the COVID-19 pandemic. This was also the case among respondents who had experienced an adverse event. Protective factors of mental health were being male and high levels of positive mental well-being. Risk factors were emotional loneliness and the experience of adverse life events. Social loneliness was positively associated with stable mental health, stressing the importance of meaningful relationships. Note that 58% of participants reported positive effects of the pandemic, the most common of which were rest, working from home, and feeling more socially connected. In summary, 10 weeks after the start of the crisis, and 5 weeks after relaxation of the restrictions, most people remained stable during the crisis, and were even able to report positive effects.

Due to fragmented mental, somatic, and social healthcare services, it can be hard to engage into care older patients with severe mental illness (SMI). In adult mental health care, assertive community treatment (ACT) is an organizational model of care for treating patients with SMI who are difficult to engage. So far all outcome studies of assertive community treatment have been conducted in adults. In a randomized controlled trial design we compared the effectiveness of ACT for elderly patients with that of treatment as usual (TAU). Sixty-two outpatients (60 years and older) with SMI who were difficult to engage in psychiatric treatment were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group (32 to ACT for elderly patients and 30 to TAU). Primary outcomes included number of patients who had a first treatment contact within 3 months, the number of dropouts (i.e. those discharged from care due to refusing care or those who unintentionally lost contact with the service over a period of at least 3 months); and patients’ psychosocial functioning (HoNOS65+ scores) during 18 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the number of unmet needs and mental health care use. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat. Of the 62 patients who were randomized, 26 were lost to follow-up (10 patients in ACT for elderly patients and 16 in TAU). Relative to patients with TAU, more patients allocated to ACT had a first contact within three months (96.9 versus 66.7%; X² (df = 1) = 9.68, p = 0.002). ACT for elderly patients also had fewer dropouts from treatment (18.8% of assertive community treatment for elderly patients versus 50% of TAU patients; X² (df = 1) = 6.75, p = 0.009). There were no differences in the other primary and secondary outcome variables. These findings suggest that ACT for elderly patients with SMI engaged patients in treatment more successfully. NTR1620

Deinstitutionalization is often described as an organizational shift of moving care from the psychiatric hospital towards the community. This paper analyses deinstitutionalization as a daily care practice by adopting an empirical ethics approach instead. Deinstitutionalization of mental healthcare is seen as an important way of improving the quality of lives of people suffering from severe mental illness. But how is this done in practice and which different goods are strived for by those involved? We examine these questions by giving an ethnographic description of community mental health care in Trieste, a city that underwent a radical process of deinstitutionalization in the 1970s. We show that paying attention to the spatial metaphors used in daily care direct us to different notions of good care in which relationships are central. Addressing the question of how daily care practices of mental healthcare outside the hospital may be constituted and the importance of spatial metaphors used may inform other practices that want to shape community mental health care.

Background: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is a well-defined service delivery model for the care and treatment of the most severely mentally ill in the community with American origins. The Dutch have adapted the model in order to accommodate a broader range of needs and allow more flexible implementation. Functional Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) provides the intensity of care needed to help participants sustain life in the community as well as continuity of care over time for many vulnerable client populations.

Background: The resource group method provides a structure to facilitate patients’ empowerment and recovery processes, and to systematically engage significant others in treatment and care. A patient chooses members of a resource group (RG) that will work together on fulfilling patients’ recovery plan. By adopting shared decision-making processes and stimulating collaboration of different support systems, a broad and continuous support of patients’ chosen goals and wishes is preserved and problem solving and communication skills of the RG members are addressed.Objective: The objectives of this study are (1) to establish the effectiveness of the RG method in increasing empowerment in patients with severe mental illnesses (SMI) in the Netherlands; (2) to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of the RG method; and (3) to qualitatively explore its dynamics and processes.Methods/design: This multisite randomized controlled trial will compare the effects of the RG-method integrated in Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) (90 patients) with those of standard FACT (90 patients). Baseline assessments and 9-month and 18-month follow-up assessments will be conducted in face-to-face home visits. The primary outcome measure, empowerment, will be assessed using the Netherlands Empowerment List (NEL). The secondary outcomes will be quality of life (MANSA); personal, community and clinical recovery (I.ROC); general, social and community functioning (WHODAS 2.0); general psychopathological signs and symptoms (BSI-18); and societal costs (TiC-P). An economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of the RG method will also be conducted. A qualitative multiple case-study will be added to collect patients’, RG members’ and professionals’ perspectives by in-depth interviews, observations and focus groups.Discussion: This trial will be the first to study the effects of the RG method on empowerment in patients with SMI. By combining clinical-effectiveness data with an economic evaluation and in-depth qualitative information from primary stakeholders, it will provide a detailed overview of the RG method as a mean of improving care for patients with SMI.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register, identifier: NTR6737, September 2017.

Adults aged 65 and older with severe mental illnesses are a growing segment of the Dutch population. Some of them have a range of serious problems and are also difficult to engage. While assertive community treatment is a common model for treating difficult to engage severe mental illnesses patients, no special form of it is available for the elderly. A special assertive community treatment team for the elderly is developed in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and tested for its effectiveness. We will use a randomized controlled trial design to compare the effects of assertive community treatment for the elderly with those of care as usual. Primary outcome measures will be the number of dropouts, the number of patients engaged in care and patient's psychiatric symptoms, somatic symptoms, and social functioning. Secondary outcome measures are the number of unmet needs, the subjective quality of life and patients' satisfaction. Other secondary outcomes include the number of crisis contacts, rates of voluntary and involuntary admission, and length of stay. Inclusion criteria are aged 65 plus, the presence of a mental disorder, a lack of motivation for treatment and at least four suspected problems with functioning (addiction, somatic problems, daily living activities, housing etc.). If patients meet the inclusion criteria, they will be randomly allocated to either assertive community treatment for the elderly or care as usual. Trained assessors will use mainly observational instruments at the following time points: at baseline, after 9 and 18 months. This study will help establish whether assertive community treatment for the elderly produces better results than care as usual in elderly people with severe mental illnesses who are difficult to engage. When assertive community treatment for the elderly proves valuable in these respects, it can be tested and implemented more widely, and mechanisms for its effects investigated. The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR1620