Aims: The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic and the lockdown response are assumed to have increased mental health problems in general populations compared to pre-pandemic times. The aim of this paper is to review studies on the course of mental health problems during and after the first lockdown phase. Methods: We conducted a rapid review of multi-wave studies in general populations with time points during and after the first lockdown phase. Repeated cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that utilised validated instruments were included. The main outcome was whether indicators of mental health problems have changed during and after the first lockdown phase. The study was registered with PROSPERO No. CRD42020218640. Results: Twenty-three studies with 56 indicators were included in the qualitative review. Studies that reported data from pre-pandemic assessments through lockdown indicated an increase in mental health problems. During lockdown, no uniform trend could be identified. After lockdown, mental health problems decreased slightly. Conclusions: As mental health care utilisation indicators and data on suicides do not suggest an increase in demand during the first lockdown phase, we regard the increase in mental health problems as general distress that is to be expected during a global health crisis. Several methodological, pandemic-related, response-related and health policy-related factors need to be considered when trying to gain a broader perspective on the impact of the first wave of the pandemic and the first phase of lockdown on general populations' mental health.

Violence by patients against staff members in mental health institutions has become an important challenge. Violent attacks may not only cause bodily injuries but can also have posttraumatic consequences with high rates of stress for mental health staff. This study prospectively assessed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in employees who were severely assaulted by patients in nine German state mental health institutions. During the study period of six months 46 assaulted staff members were reported. Each staff member was interviewed three times after the violent incident, using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), a widely used PTSD research tool, as well as the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist – Civilian (PCL-C). In the baseline assessment following an assault by a patient, eight subjects (17%) met the criteria for PTSD. After two and six months, three and four subjects respectively still met diagnosis criteria. A small minority of assaulted employees suffer from PTSD for several months after a patient assault.

Aims.: People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a high risk of living socially excluded from the mainstream society. Policy initiatives and health systems aim to improve the social situation of people who suffer from mental health disabilities. The aim of this study was to explore the extent of social exclusion (employment and income, social network and social activities, health problems) of people with SMI in Switzerland.Methods.: Data from the Swiss Health Survey 2012 were used to compare the social exclusion magnitude of people with SMI with those suffering from severe physical illness, common mental illness and the general population.Results.: With the exception of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, we found a gradient of social exclusion that showed people with SMI to be more excluded than the comparison groups. Loneliness and poverty were widespread among people with SMI. Logistic regression analyses on each individual exclusion indicator revealed that people with SMI and people with severe physical illness were similarly excluded on many indicators, whereas people with common mental illness and the general population were much more socially included.Conclusions.: In contrast to political and health system goals, many people with SMI suffer from social exclusion. Social policy and clinical support should increase the efforts to counter exclusionary trends, especially in terms of loneliness and poverty.

Restraints are likely to negatively affect patients' health and therefore a reduction in their usage is recommended for all health-care settings. To date, research on restrictive practices has concentrated on mental health and long-term care settings. In the acute-care hospital setting few studies have been published and these studies mainly focus on physical/mechanical restraints in specific subpopulations and/or on intensive care units. However, to ensure restraints are used as little as possible in the acute-care hospital setting, it seems important to investigate more comprehensively the use of restraints, to include all types of restraints irrespective of ward type or subpopulations and to identify factors associated with restraint use. The aim of this study was to investigate restraint use regardless of ward type in the acute-care hospital setting, including restraint type, reasons for restraint use, process indicators when using restraints and restraint use-associated patient characteristics. Using a cross-sectional multi-centre design, data were collected by means of an annual international prevalence measurement in acute-care hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. All hospitalised patients aged 18+ who gave informed consent were included. Data were collected at three measurement points between 2016 and 2018. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. A total of 29,477 patients hospitalised in 140 hospitals were included in this study. The prevalence rate for the use of at least one restraint over a 30-day period was 8.7% (n = 2577), with mechanical restraints representing the highest proportion of restraint type used (55.0%, n = 1417). The main reason for restraint use was fall prevention (43.8%, n = 1129), followed by confusion or delirious behaviour (20.4%, n = 525). In 64.3% of the cases (n = 1657), restraint use was documented in the patient file. Regular evaluation occurred in 42.9% of the cases (n = 1105). Care dependency had the strongest association with restraint use (odds ratio [OR] 25.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.01-29.78 for completely dependant patients in comparison to completely independent patients), followed by mental and behavioural disorders (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.15-2.59). Restraints are often utilised in hospitals in complex care situations such as with patients at risk of falling or with delirium. When using restraints the consideration of processes like documentation and evaluation shows great potential for improvement. Standardisation of these processes and education of the interprofessional team could be beneficial for raising awareness and for the sustainable reduction of restraint use. Tweetable In hospitals restraints are often used in complex care situations. However, their use seems to be insufficiently documented and evaluated.

Background: The swift spread of SARS-CoV-2 provides a challenge worldwide. As a consequence of restrictive public health measures like isolation, quarantine, and community containment, the provision of mental health services is a major challenge. Evidence from past virus epidemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 outbreak indicate high prevalence rates of mental health problems (MHP) as short- and long-term consequences. However, a broader picture of MHP among different populations is still lacking. Methods: We conducted a rapid review on MHP prevalence rates published since 2000, during and after epidemics, including the general public, health care workers, and survivors. Any quantitative articles reporting on MHP rates were included. Out of 2,855 articles screened, a total of 74 were included in this review. Results: Most original studies on MHP were conducted in China in the context of SARS-CoV-1, and reported on anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms/disorder, general psychiatric morbidity, and psychological symptoms. The MHP rates across studies, populations, and epidemics vary substantially. While some studies show high and persistent rates of MHP in populations directly affected by isolation, quarantine, threat of infection, infection, or life-threatening symptoms (e.g., health care workers), other studies report minor effects. Furthermore, even less affected populations (e.g., distant to epidemic epicenter, no contact history with suspected or confirmed cases) can show high rates of MHP. Discussion: MHP vary largely across countries and risk-groups in reviewed studies. The results call attention to potentially high MHP during epidemics. Individuals affected directly by an epidemic might be at a higher risk of short or even long-term mental health impairments. This study delivers insights stemming from a wide range of psychiatric instruments and questionnaires. The results call for the use of validated and standardized instruments, reference norms, and pre-post measurements to better understand the magnitude of the MHP during and after the epidemics. Nevertheless, emerging MHP should be considered during epidemics including the provision of access to mental health care to mitigate potential mental impairments.