Background: Increasing rates of mental health problems among adolescents are of concern. Teens who are most in need of mental health attention are reluctant to seek help. A better understanding of the help-seeking in this population is needed to overcome this gap.Methods: Five databases were searched to identify the principal barriers, facilitators and interventions targeting help-seeking for common mental health problems in adolescents aged 10–19 years. The search was performed in June 2018 and updated in April 2019. Two independent screening processes were made using the eligibility criteria. Quality assessment of each study was performed, and findings summarised using a narrative synthesis.Results: Ninety studies meet the inclusion criteria for this review for barrier and facilitators (n = 54) and interventions (n = 36). Stigma and negative beliefs towards mental health services and professionals were the most cited barriers. Facilitators included previous positive experience with health services and mental health literacy. Most interventions were based on psychoeducation, which focused on general mental health knowledge, suicide and self-harm, stigma and depression. Other types of interventions included the use of multimedia and online tools, peer training and outreach initiatives. Overall, the quality of studies was low to medium and there was no general agreement regarding help-seeking definition and measurements.Conclusion: Most of the interventions took place in an educational setting however, it is important to consider adolescents outside the educational system. Encouraging help-seeking should come with the increased availability of mental health support for all adolescents in need, but this is still a major challenge for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. There is also a need to develop shared definitions, theoretical frameworks and higher methodological standards in research regarding help-seeking behaviours in adolescents. This will allow more consistency and generalisability of findings, improving the development of help-seeking interventions and ensuring timely access to mental health treatments.

Background: Healthcare workers across the world have risen to the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, potentially at significant cost to their own health and wellbeing. There has been increasing recognition of the potential mental health impact of COVID-19 on frontline workers and calls to provide psychosocial support for them. However, little attention has so far been paid to understanding the impact of working on a pandemic from healthcare workers’ own perspectives or what their views are about support. Methods: We searched key healthcare databases (Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed) from inception to September 28, 2020. We also reviewed relevant grey literature, screened pre-print servers and hand searched reference lists of key texts for all published accounts of healthcare workers’ experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and previous pandemics/epidemics. We conducted a meta-synthesis of all qualitative results to synthesise findings and develop an overarching set of themes and sub-themes which captured the experiences and views of frontline healthcare workers across the studies. Results: This review identified 46 qualitative studies which explored healthcare workers’ experiences and views from pandemics or epidemics including and prior to COVID-19. Meta-synthesis derived eight key themes which largely transcended temporal and geographical boundaries. Participants across all the studies were deeply concerned about their own and/or others’ physical safety. This was greatest in the early phases of pandemics and exacerbated by inadequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), insufficient resources, and inconsistent information. Workers struggled with high workloads and long shifts and desired adequate rest and recovery. Many experienced stigma. Healthcare workers’ relationships with families, colleagues, organisations, media and the wider public were complicated and could be experienced concomitantly as sources of support but also sources of stress. Conclusions: The experiences of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic are not unprecedented; the themes that arose from previous pandemics and epidemics were remarkably resonant with what we are hearing about the impact of COVID-19 globally today. We have an opportunity to learn from the lessons of previous crises, mitigate the negative mental health impact of COVID-19 and support the longer-term wellbeing of the healthcare workforce worldwide.

Police face an increased risk of developing mental health problems, yet reliable estimates of their psychological difficulties remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis estimate the pooled prevalence and risk factors for mental health problems among police personnel worldwide. Three independent reviewers searched 16 databases and screened 11 506 articles published between January 1980 and October 2019. Eligible studies involved at least 100 active police professionals and used validated instruments to ascertain specific mental health problems. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. In total, 60 cross-sectional and seven longitudinal studies, involving 272 463 police personnel from 24 countries met criteria for inclusion. The overall pooled point prevalence was 14.6% for depression (95% CI 10.9% to 18.6%), 14.2% for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 95% CI 10.3% to 18.7%), 9.6% for a generalised anxiety disorder (95% CI 6.7% to 12.9%), 8.5% for suicidal ideation (95% CI 6.1% to 11.2%), 5.0% for alcohol dependence (95% CI 3.5% to 6.7%) and 25.7% for hazardous drinking (95% CI 19.6% to 32.4%). The strongest risk factor for depression and suicidal ideation was higher occupational stress, and the strongest risk factors for PTSD were higher occupational stress and avoidant coping strategies. Higher levels of peer-support were associated with significantly lower PTSD symptoms. Our findings suggest that the prevalence of mental health problems among police exceeds twice that previously reported in mixed samples of first responders, and is associated with poor social support, occupational stress and maladaptive coping strategies. Without effective intervention, psychological difficulties will remain a substantial health concern among police.

Compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress in UK therapists who work with adult trauma clients

Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been identified as a potential risk factor for developing dementia. There are currently, however, no meta-analyses quantifying this risk.Aims: To systematically review and quantify the risk of future dementia associated with PTSD across populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019130392.Method: We searched nine electronic databases up to 25 October 2019 for longitudinal studies assessing PTSD and risk of dementia. We used random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool estimates across studies.Results: PTSD was associated with a significant risk for all-cause dementia: pooled hazard ratio HR = 1.61 (95% CI 1.43–1.81,I²=85.8%,P< 0.001;n= 1 693 678; 8 studies). Pooled HR was 1.61 (95% CI 1.46–1.78;I²=80.9%,P< 0.001;n= 905 896; 5 studies) in veterans, and 2.11 (95% CI 1.03–4.33,I²=91.2%,P< 0.001;n= 787 782; 3 studies) in the general population. The association between PTSD and dementia remained significant after excluding studies with high risk of bias (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.39–1.73,I²=83.9%,P< 0.001;n= 1 684 928; 7 studies). Most studies included were retrospective and there was evidence of high heterogeneity.Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis quantifying the association of PTSD and risk of dementia showing that PTSD is a strong and potentially modifiable risk factor for all-cause dementia. Future studies investigating potential causal mechanisms, and the protective value of treating PTSD are needed.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant burden on the mental health and wellbeing of frontline health and social care workers. The need to support frontline staff has been recognised. However, there is to date little research specifically on how best to support the mental health needs of frontline workers, and none on their own experiences and views about what might be most helpful. Aims: We set out to redress this research gap by qualitatively exploring UK frontline health and social care workers’ own experiences and views of psychosocial support during the pandemic. Method: Frontline health and social care workers were recruited purposively through social media and by snowball sampling via healthcare colleagues. Workers who volunteered to take part in the study were interviewed remotely following a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed by the research team following the principles of Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Results: We conducted 25 interviews with frontline workers from a variety of professional groups working in health and social care settings across the UK. Themes derived from our analysis showed that workers’ experiences and views about psychosocial support were complex. Peer support was many workers’ first line of support but could also be experienced as a burden. Workers were ambivalent about support shown by organisations, media and the public. Whilst workers valued psychological support services, there were many disparities in provision and barriers to access. Conclusions: The results of this study show that frontline health and social care workers are likely to need a flexible system of support including peer, organisational and professional support. More research is needed to fully unpack the structural, systemic and individual barriers to accessing psychosocial support. Greater collaboration, consultation and co-production of support services and their evaluation is warranted.