The Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about the role that relationships and interactions between humans and animals play in the context of widespread social distancing and isolation measures. We aimed to investigate links between mental health and loneliness, companion animal ownership, the human-animal bond, and human-animal interactions; and to explore animal owners’ perceptions related to the role of their animals during lockdown. A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020. The questionnaire included validated and bespoke items measuring demographics; exposures and outcomes related to mental health, wellbeing and loneliness; the human-animal bond and human-animal interactions. Of 5,926 participants, 5,323 (89.8%) had at least one companion animal. Most perceived their animals to be a source of considerable support, but concerns were reported related to various practical aspects of providing care during lockdown. Strength of the human-animal bond did not differ significantly between species. Poorer mental health pre-lockdown was associated with a stronger reported human-animal bond (b = -.014, 95% CI [-.023 - -.005], p = .002). Animal ownership compared with non-ownership was associated with smaller decreases in mental health (b = .267, 95% CI [.079 - .455], p = .005) and smaller increases in loneliness (b = -.302, 95% CI [-.461 - -.144], p = .001) since lockdown. The human-animal bond is a construct that may be linked to mental health vulnerability in animal owners. Strength of the human-animal bond in terms of emotional closeness or intimacy dimensions appears to be independent of animal species. Animal ownership seemed to mitigate some of the detrimental psychological effects of Covid-19 lockdown. Further targeted investigation of the role of human-animal relationships and interactions for human health, including testing of the social buffering hypothesis and the development of instruments suited for use across animal species, is required.

Background:Transdiagnostic Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) seeks to identify core cognitive-behavioural processes hypothesized to be important across a range of disorders and to develop a treatment that targets these. This contrasts with standard CBT approaches that are disorder-specific. Proponents of transdiagnostic CBT suggest that it may offer advantages over disorder-specific CBT, but little is known about the effectiveness of this approach.Aims:The review aimed to summarize trial-based clinical and cost-effectiveness data on transdiagnostic CBT for anxiety and depression.Method:A systematic review of electronic databases, including peer-reviewed and grey literature sources, was conducted (n= 1167 unique citations).Results:Eight trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. There was evidence of an effect for transdiagnostic CBT when compared to a control condition. There were no differences between transdiagnostic CBT and active treatments in two studies. We found no evidence of cost-effectiveness data.Conclusions:Quality assessment of the primary studies indicated a number of methodological concerns that may serve to inflate the observed effects of transdiagnostic approaches. Although there are positive signs of the value of transdiagnostic CBT, there is as yet insufficient evidence to recommend its use in place of disorder-specific CBT.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents an opportunity to explore the role of animals as sources of emotional and physical support during a period when most of the population is experiencing social and environmental challenges. We investigated how companion animal owners perceived the influence of human–animal interaction on their physical and mental health during the first COVID-19 lockdown phase in the U.K., and what concerns they had regarding their animals at this time. We also explored the impact of participants’ interaction with non-companion animals during this phase. A cross-sectional online survey of U.K. residents aged over 18 was conducted between April and June 2020. The final item of the survey invited open-ended free-text responses, allowing participants to describe any experiences and/or perceptions of their human–animal relationships during the COVID-19 lockdown phase. A qualitative thematic analysis of responses was undertaken. Four main themes related to the following aspects of human–animal interactions during the COVID-19 lockdown phase were identified: the positive impact of animal ownership during the COVID-19 lockdown (e.g., amelioration of wellbeing and mental health), concerns relating to animal ownership during the COVID-19 lockdown (e.g., concerns over animals carrying the COVID-19 virus), grief and loss of an animal during the COVID-19 lockdown and the impact of engaging with non-companion animals during the COVID-19 lockdown. The findings complement and extend previous insights into the impact of human–animal interaction with both companion and non-companion animals. They also highlight the challenges of caring for an animal during the lockdown phase and indicate the need to consider the development of further targeted support strategies, such as “day care” for the companion animals of key workers in this context.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about the role that relationships and interactions between humans and animals play in the context of widespread social distancing and isolation measures. We aimed to investigate links between mental health and loneliness, companion animal ownership, the human-animal bond, and human-animal interactions; and to explore animal owners’ perceptions related to the role of their animals during lockdown. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020. The questionnaire included validated and bespoke items measuring demographics; exposures and outcomes related to mental health, wellbeing and loneliness; the human-animal bond and human-animal interactions. Results: Of 5,926 participants, 5,323 (89.8%) had at least one companion animal. Most perceived their animals to be a source of considerable support, but concerns were reported related to various practical aspects of providing care during lockdown. Strength of the human-animal bond did not differ significantly between species. Poorer mental health pre-lockdown was associated with a stronger reported human-animal bond (b = -.014, 95% CI [-.023 - -.005], p = .002). Animal ownership compared with non-ownership was associated with smaller decreases in mental health (b = .267, 95% CI [.079 - .455], p = .005) and smaller increases in loneliness (b = -.302, 95% CI [-.461 - -.144], p = .001) since lockdown. Conclusion: The human-animal bond is a construct of potential clinical importance to identify mental health vulnerability in animal owners. Animal ownership appeared to mitigate some of the detrimental psychological effects of lockdown. Further targeted investigation of the role of human-animal relationships and interactions for human health, including testing of the social buffering hypothesis and the development of instruments suited for use across animal species, is required.

There is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25. Six electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2. Thirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies. The volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people's alcohol-related problems.

Background: The public health message around alcohol is complex, with benefits versus harms, the confusing concept of risk and drinking guidance changing over time. This provides a difficult context for alcohol screening in primary care, with established barriers from the practitioner perspective, but less is known about the patients’ perspective. This study explores patients’ views on drinking. Methods: Eligible participants were recorded as drinking above low risk levels in primary care. Six practices in North London participated. Interviews were in-depth, semi-structured, transcribed verbatim and underwent detailed thematic analysis. Findings: Interviews were conducted with 8 women and 12 men, aged 26–83 years, mostly educated to undergraduate level and of ‘White’ ethnicity. UK drinking guidance was viewed as irrelevant for reasons related to life stage, lifestyle and absence of harm. Dependence, loss of functionality and control were perceived as key features of problematic drinking. Healthy lifestyles, in terms of diet, exercise and not smoking, were thought to mitigate potential problems associated with alcohol intake. Conclusion: The findings suggest that public health messages and brief advice should focus on harm experienced at different life stages, among people with different lifestyles, to challenge the ubiquitous view that ‘I’m not a real boozer’.