Integrating Mental Health and Psycho-Social Support (MHPSS) into infectious disease outbreak and epidemic response: an umbrella review and operational framework

Muhammad Alkasaby, Sharad Philip, Zain Douba, Hanna Tu, Julian Eaton, Muftau Mohammed, Mohammad Yasir Essar, Manar Ahmed Kamal, Mehr Muhammad Adeel Riaz, Marianne Moussallem, William K Bosu, Ian Walker
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.27.23293219

Abstract

Introduction Infectious disease outbreaks have a substantial impact on people’s psychosocial well-being. Yet, mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions are not systemically integrated into outbreak and epidemic response. Our review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of MHPSS interventions in outbreaks and propose a framework for systematically integrating MHPSS into outbreak response.

Methods We conducted an umbrella review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews.

Results We identified 23 systematic literature reviews, 6 of which involved meta-analysis, and only 30% (n=7) were of high quality. Most of the available literature was produced during COVID-19 and focused on clinical case management and medical staff well- being, with scarce evidence on the well-being of other outbreak responders and MHPSS in other outbreak response pillars.

Conclusion Despite the low quality of the majority of the existing evidence, MHPSS interventions have the potential to improve the psychological well- being of those affected by and those responding to outbreaks. They also can improve the outcomes of the outbreak response activities such as contact tracing, infection prevention and control, and clinical case management. Our proposed framework would facilitate integrating MHPSS into outbreak response and hence mitigate the mental health impact of outbreaks.

Review registration PROSPERO CRD42022297138.

Introduction

On 4th May 2023, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)(1). This declaration came after more than three years, during which time the virus has accounted for more than 6.9 million deaths and nearly 760 million infections worldwide (2). Since it started, the COVID- 19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on people’s mental health (3). To reduce the number of infections and deaths, governments all over the world took precautionary measures such as travel and movement restrictions, and physical distancing. Paradoxically, physical distancing inadvertently exacerbated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health (3–6).

The substantial effect of infectious disease outbreaks on mental health is not exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, as evidence linking mental health problems to earlier epidemics is widespread (7). Studies from Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreaks document an increased incidence of mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among the affected population, such as EVD survivors and their families, and healthcare workers, burial teams, etc. (8,9). Similarly, during the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemic, a study from South Korea reported more than half of the survivors had at least one symptom of PTSD or depression and more than a quarter continued to have sleep difficulties even a year later (10). Healthcare providers were similarly affected (11). Following the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002-03, a meta-analysis revealed that 28%, 20%, and 19% of the survivors were affected by clinical PTSD, depressive and anxiety disorders, respectively (10). Thus, there is clear evidence that mental health problems occur much more frequently amongst both survivors and healthcare workers during and after such epidemics compared with background rates in the population.

However, it must be noted that none of these epidemics became a pandemic and disrupted life as much as COVID-19. In 2020, there was an estimated increase of 25% (more than 100 million cases) in the global prevalence of both major depressive and anxiety disorders due to COVID-19 (12). The pandemic has also had a disruptive impact on mental health services worldwide. In a WHO survey, over 90% of 130 member states reported significant disruptions to their mental health services during the COVID-19 crisis (13). This ranged from difficulties in maintaining community supports, to medical service disruption and repurposing of mental health beds to COVID-19 wards. These profound impacts prompted the United Nations (UN), WHO, and other institutions providing normative guidance to recommend the inclusion of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in the COVID-19 response (14,15).

Despite this guidance, MHPSS was not systemically integrated into the COVID-19 response in many countries (16). In the WHO survey, although 89% of countries reported that MHPSS was part of their national COVID-19 response plans, only 17% of them ensured that full additional funding was available for MHPSS activities, demonstrating a gap between planning, funding, and implementation. In 28 countries across Africa, the degree of implementation of MHPSS activities recommended by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) was less than 50% in most countries (16,17).

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many literature reviews on MHPSS interventions during infectious disease outbreaks. However, we are not aware of any published umbrella review of the evidence from these systematic reviews. Moreover, the existing literature rarely maps on to the coordination structure of outbreak response (pillars of the Incident management system) which is different to the structure used in humanitarian settings (the cluster approach), most common to MHPSS studies. We therefore aimed to (1) synthesise findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness of MHPSS interventions in the context of infectious disease outbreaks, (2) identify the different MHPSS interventions in relation to outbreak response pillars, and (3) propose a framework for systematically integrating MHPSS into infectious disease outbreak response.

Review Questions

We had two main review questions:

  • What are the MHPSS interventions that are deemed effective and feasible in the context of infectious disease outbreaks?

  • How can these MHPSS interventions be integrated into the recognised outbreak response pillars?

Inclusion Criteria

Types of participants

Review articles in which the study participants included people of all age groups and professions affected by infectious disease outbreaks, whether infected or not. The participants included (but was not limited to) children, adults, health care providers, volunteers, people with existing mental illness, people with disability, infectious disease patients (cases) and their carers/household/family, as well as the wider community.

Interventions

MHPSS interventions included any type of intervention that aims to protect or promote psycho-social well-being and/or prevent or treat mental disorders (18) and mitigate the effect of infectious disease outbreaks on mental health.

Context

The current umbrella review covered interventions implemented in the context of infectious disease outbreaks of different scales (e.g. EVD and SARS) up to a global pandemic such as COVID-19.

Outcomes

We included Systematic literature reviews that reported mental health-related outcomes. The main outcomes included (but were not limited to) stress, depression, anxiety, and post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other outcomes were resilience, coping, and quality of life. Measures of these outcomes included self-reports of mental health and well-being, use of mental health and psychological screening instruments, and psychiatric diagnostic interviews. We also included implementation outcomes related to the acceptability and feasibility of interventions (if available).

Types of studies

We limited our selection to peer-reviewed systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Reviews that did not report a systematic method of literature search and selection were excluded. Only reviews that exclusively or partially covered interventional studies were included. We included only reviews that had a full-text in English.

Materials and Methods

Umbrella reviews synthesise review-level evidence from the published literature and are increasingly common in public health research to summarise evidence for a given topic. This umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews (19). The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42022297138).

Search Strategy

We identified keywords for mental health interventions, outbreaks, and mental health- related outcomes and conducted a preliminary search on PubMed to test our strategy. After that, we searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Epistemonikos, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo for relevant studies published until January 2022. Furthermore, We searched the reference lists of the included review for potentially relevant articles. We did not use time or language limits in our search strategy (though were unable to analyse if full text was not available in English). The detailed search strategy for each database and the number of studies retrieved can be found in the Supplemental Files (S1).

Study screening and selection

After removing duplicate citations using the EndNote reference management software, reviewers, working in pairs, independently screened the titles and abstracts of the included studies guided by the eligibility criteria. A senior reviewer (IW) was consulted to resolve any conflicts in the screening results and made the final decisions about retrieval for full-text review. The pairs of reviewers continued to screen the retrieved full-text articles independently, and the senior reviewer consulted to resolve any conflict.

Assessment of methodological quality/critical appraisal

To assess the methodological quality of the included reviews, we used the JBI critical appraisal instrument for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses (19). We agreed upon the following cut-off scores based on fulfilling the 11 items of the instrument: less than 6 (low quality), 6-8 (moderate quality), and over 8 (high quality). Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included study and a third reviewer resolved any conflicts.

Data collection

We developed an data extraction tool using an Excel template. After discussing it with all reviewers, we piloted it before starting the actual extraction of data to maximize consistency between all reviewers and to ensure that all relevant information was extracted. Pairs of researchers extracted the data from the included studies and resolved any discrepancies by consensus. The extracted data included first named authors, year published, objectives of the included review, participants’ characteristics, context or geographic setting, date of database searching, type of study, countries of origin of the included primary studies, instrument used to appraise the primary studies and their quality rating, the outcomes reported that were relevant, and the method of synthesis/analysis employed to synthesize the evidence.

Data Summary

As the data in the included reviews were too heterogenous to synthesize quantitatively through meta-analysis, we used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings. To identify effective MHPSS interventions in the context of outbreaks, we extracted findings - reported in the included reviews - from RCTs of MHPSS interventions targeting different population groups affected by an outbreak. We then conducted a qualitative synthesis for the included reviews grouping interventions according to the outbreak response pillars and the target population. We sought to develop a model of MHPSS interventions from the findings that could be applied to outbreak response pillars.

Deviations from the review protocol

Initially, we planned to group interventions according to target population, but after consulting subject matter experts, and given our goal, which is integrating MHPSS into outbreak response, we decided to group interventions according to outbreak response pillars.

Results

Study inclusion

We initially identified 1,883 records, out of which 106 potentially met our inclusion criteria for full-text screening (Figure 1). Of the latter, 23 records met the inclusion criteria and were finally included in the qualitative synthesis.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram

Characteristics of the included study

All the included studies were systematic literature reviews, with six of them involving meta- analysis (Table 1). Only three reviews included RCTs exclusively (20–22). The included studies covered 47 countries; 27 of them (57%) were high-income countries (HIC), while 11% were low-income countries (LIC) (Figure 2).

Figure 2:
Figure 2: Countries covered by the included reviews according to the income category
View this table:
Table 1: Summary of the Included Reviews

All the included reviews addressed exclusively or partially MHPSS intervention in the context of outbreaks. Some of the reviews included interventions from other contexts that have the potential to be effective in the context of outbreaks (such as incarceration, which resembles quarantine) (23–27).

Methodological quality appraisal

Based on our quality appraisal criteria, we judged that 21.7% of the included reviews (n=5) were of high quality, 56.5% were of moderate quality (n=13), and 21.7% were of low quality (n=5). The overall quality appraisal result of each study is shown in Table 1. The quality appraisal tool and detailed quality appraisal results for the included studies can be found in the Supplemental Files (S2). Most of the primary studies included in the reviews were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and included a wide range of study designs, such as quasi- experimental and observational studies. The quality of evidence from the included primary studies was generally low, as reported by the included reviews’ authors. Limitations included small sample sizes, lack of randomisation and blinding, and high loss of follow-up.

Findings in relation to infectious disease outbreak response pillars

The included reviews reported the results of 26 RCTs (Table 2), in addition to other types of experimental and non-experimental studies. To facilitate the integration of MHPSS into outbreak response, we present findings of this umbrella review in relation to the infectious disease outbreak response pillars.

View this table:
Table 2. Summary of RCTs reporting MHPSS interventions in the context of infectious disease outbreaks

1. Multisector and Partner coordination

Partner coordination is essential to ensure the appropriate coverage and quality of services for the affected population, especially vulnerable groups. It also ensures the appropriate use of limited resources available, avoids duplication (68) and coordinates the response across multiple sectors (17,69).

Education was one of the sectors identified in our review that implemented MHPSS activities during outbreak response. One review reported interventions for children returning to school after crisis (23). Out of the 18 included interventions, 12 (66.7%) were school-based and only one intervention was conducted in an outbreak context. Evidence from other health crises was used to inform recovery and back-to-school strategies after the COVID-19 pandemic (23). Most of the interventions were school-based, used cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques, and were delivered by teachers, therapists, and clinicians (23). Another review reported an example of multisectoral collaboration during Ebola outbreak in West Africa, where mental health clinicians and law enforcement forces worked collaboratively to improve the outbreak response (40). Healthcare workers and police forces were trained on Psychological First Aid (PFA) and nonviolent de-escalation techniques that could be used for agitated patients, especially those in Ebola Treatment Units (ETUs), and improve their engagement with the public (40). This coordination also facilitated referrals to mental health services for those needing further intervention (40,70). Overall, the health sector generated most of the MHPSS evidence in outbreak response, with little evidence from other sectors on cross-sectoral activities.

2. Staff health and well-being

Six (26.1%) reviews addressed frontline staff well-being (22,24,28,33,35,41). While most of the reviews on frontline workers focussed on health care workers’ well-being, one review included other frontline (non-health) responders (24). In a Cochrane review that investigated MHPSS interventions for health and social care professionals during outbreaks, one interventional study that assessed the impact of PFA training on healthcare workers was included. According to the authors, the included study provided a very low certainty of evidence on the impact of workplace interventions on burnout among healthcare workers (33). The Cochrane review found no interventions for social care workers’ well-being during outbreaks. Authors suggested considering evidence from other emergencies due to the lack of available evidence from studies conducted in the context of outbreaks (33).

Training frontline workers in PFA has a potential benefit not only for those who will receive PFA but also for those who are trained to provide it. In one included review, PFA was reported to improve the positive mental health outcomes of health care workers and other first responders, such as resilience, coping, self-efficacy, perceived social support, and reduced perceived self-stigma (24). It also improved the trainees’ knowledge, understanding, and skills regarding providing support to affected individuals (24).

PFA training was not limited to medical staff only, but it also included others involved in the outbreak response. In the Ebola outbreak in west Africa, community and faith leaders, police, contact tracers, volunteers, Ebola survivors, social mobilization agents, and food providers to quarantined households were trained in PFA (71).

Peer-support was one of the frequently recommended approaches for staff well-being (72–75). The “buddy system” is a peer support model where two people who work together are able to monitor and support each other. In addition to the psychosocial benefits for the workers, peer support can have a technical benefit where less experienced personnel can learn quickly and closely from experienced colleagues (72).

In terms of disorder-specific interventions, a review (22) investigating MHPSS interventions for health personnel working in hospitals and emergency services who suffer from PTSD symptoms, reported significant improvement in the PTSD symptoms following exposure- based CBT and Mindfulness-Based Stretching and Deep Breathing Exercises (76,77). However, the level of evidence reported in that review was evaluated as low.

3. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures

IPC involves the measures taken to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent. This includes the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene, and environmental cleaning. It also includes safe burial practices in some outbreaks, such as Ebola. Included reviews reported some adaptations to MHPSS activities to be delivered safely during outbreaks. For instance, in addition to following IPC protocols, mental health services postponed unnecessary outpatient visits and replaced them with check-ins via phones; group activities were suspended or delivered remotely (e.g., using Zoom); family visits to in-patients were restricted (40,78). Since staff might be the only people in contact with patients in mental health facilities, electronic tracking of staff movement was applied in one of the studies to facilitate contact tracing (40,79). Another study reported a home hospitalisation model where people with severe mental illness who need admission were taken care of at home by a mental health team (40,80).

The use of remote interventions has witnessed a remarkable increase during COVID-19, in line with infection prevention and control measures. Many psychiatric and counselling services shifted to digital provision. One review summarised that providing psychotherapy and counselling services online can reduce anxiety and depression, especially in patients experiencing mild to moderate symptoms (36). Remote interventions included in reviews varied regarding length, delivery agent, and content. However, a 60-minute single online counselling session delivered by a clinical psychologist and focused on psycho-education, anxiety management strategies, and empathic listening was found to be effective in reducing anxiety and negative affect (60).

In some infectious disease outbreaks, such as Ebola, where deceased patients are highly infectious, MHPSS interventions included providing support to families of the deceased and ensuring safe and dignified burials (71).

4. Case management

Case management focuses on providing care and treatment for infected individuals and suspected cases who have been in contact with infected individuals. Integrating MHPSS into case management includes providing MHPSS to infected individuals and their contacts, especially those who are socially isolated. This can be provided remotely or in person (for those in healthcare facilities) after taking the necessary IPC measures to limit transmission.

Eleven RCTs of MHPSS interventions for infected patients were identified and extracted from the included reviews, all of which were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included five RCTs conducted in China with a total of 768 COVID-19 patients found that non-pharmacological interventions can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in COVID-19 patients (20). Interventions included progressive muscle relaxation, respiratory rehabilitation, life intervention, nursing with traditional Chinese medicine and internet-based integrated interventions (20). Progressive muscle relaxation exercises effectively reduced anxiety and improved sleep quality in a sample of patients with COVID-19 in Turkey (46). Other interventions included CBT, guided imagery, and self-help interventions (21). While some interventions were provided in person, others used technology such as recordings or tablets.

Training for staff working with infected people and their contacts is an essential component of MHPSS interventions for case management, and it was reported frequently in the included reviews (70,71,81). During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, those working in ETUs, Ebola survivors, police, and Psychosocial Support Teams received MHPSS training, including PFA and self-care (70,71,81).

5. Maintaining essential health services

Outbreaks cause a significant increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions and disrupt mental health services (3,12). This necessitates integrating MHPSS into essential health services to ensure that people with existing mental health conditions, those with other co-morbid chronic conditions, and those who newly develop a mental health condition receive appropriate care. However, despite the high prevalence of mental health problems among patients with chronic health conditions, one review addressing the mental health of this population group during COVID-19 found only one intervention study targeting COVID- 19 patients, among whom 35% had chronic health conditions (30). Another review reported a video-conferencing group intervention for scleroderma patients during COVID-19 (49), and a group debriefing intervention for people with chronic diseases affected by SARS (62). Another important consideration to deliver MHPSS services within essential services during outbreaks is that services should be adapted to the existing IPC measures to limit the risk of transmission and ensure the safety of patients and services providers (see section under the IPC pillar above).

6. Risk communication and Community Engagement (RCCE)

The RCCE pillar in an outbreak involves the effective communication of information about the outbreak to the public, as well as engagement with the community to mitigate the impact of outbreaks on their well-being and livelihood. During outbreaks, public health authorities might impose some measures to control the infection. Those measures can be associated with negative mental health impacts. Integrating MHPSS into RCCE includes communicating the risk of outbreaks on people’s psychosocial well-being and how to mitigate this risk (e.g., stress management and coping mechanisms). In general, there was a lack of literature on RCCE activities targeting vulnerable groups such as children and adolescents, older persons, caregivers, and people with psychosocial and physical disabilities.

In one of the primary studies, healthcare workers were trained to increase their preparedness for the H1N1 influenza pandemic (31,35,41,82). Training included information about the infectious agent, normal stress response, and coping mechanisms (82). The percentage of healthcare workers who felt confident about dealing with the pandemic increased from 35 % to 76% (82). Another review included studies that used text messages to support populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (40). Subscribers received free daily supportive messages for three months. Messages were prepared by a team of mental health professionals and service users (83,84). Participants in the intervention group receiving these messages had lower prevalence of stress and depression compared to the control group (84).

Given the impact of quarantine and lockdown on well-being, RCCE activities should address the psychosocial impact and provide evidence-based recommendations to mitigate the negative impact of these measures. Several reviews identified interventions that can be performed, in adherence to the IPC measures, to mitigate the negative impact of lockdown and isolation (25–27). In their review, Williams et al. (2021) investigated interventions for loneliness and social isolation that can be applied in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown. Mindfulness-based interventions, meditation, and laughter therapy were among the most effective interventions for loneliness and social isolation. Puyat et al. (2020) explored similar contexts to lockdown, such as prisons and summarised that activities such as exercise and yoga have beneficial effects on the mental health of prisoners.

Another review (27) investigated the effectiveness of meditation and mindfulness-based interventions for prisoners and people affected by lockdown and summarised that meditation and mindfulness-based interventions were effective in reducing symptoms related to stress and trauma among prisoners. Such activities could be performed at home easily with a little guidance and could be suggested as ways to reduce the negative impact of lockdown and other infection control measures.

Discussion

This umbrella review identified limited evidence on MHPSS interventions in the context of outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. Many interventions were identified, but few were considered to demonstrate strong evidence. Despite experiencing several epidemics and pandemics in the last two decades, most of the available literature was produced during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the majority of studies were carried out only in healthcare settings which limits the scope of our findings. Research on MHPSS in outbreaks often focuses on healthcare staff well-being and providing psychological support for infected patients as part of clinical case management. In the sections below, we discuss the review findings according to outbreak response pillars and propose a model for integrating MHPSS into outbreak response in light of the exciting literature, guidelines and our technical expertise.

MHPSS activities in outbreaks response

Despite the significant impact of public health emergencies on those involved in the response, the majority of the existing evidence we found focused on medical staff’s well-being, with little attention to others involved in the response (e.g., police, social services). The peer support approaches (e.g., buddy system) for staff well-being, which have important psychological, social, and technical benefits, are frequently mentioned in the literature (72–75). The buddy system was also used by the WHO during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as a part of a holistic approach to ensure the occupational health and safety of emergency response personnel (85,86).

Healthcare workers are at high risk of contracting and transmitting the infection, which further exposes them to stigma and social isolation. Therefore, WHO recommends that public awareness campaigns address outbreak-related stigma and encourage the public to value the role of frontline workers in protecting people’s health (86). For example, local community members could send support and appreciation messages to healthcare workers (87). In addition, Healthcare workers should be fairly remunerated for their work. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure responders’ safety and well-being pre-, during, and post- deployment in an outbreak (86). In Table (3), we summarise the recommended actions derived from the existing literature and guidelines, that need to be in place to ensure the well- being of all responders involved in an outbreak response.

Our review identified a lack of RCCE interventions targeting vulnerable groups in the context of outbreaks. This finding is consistent with that of Bailey et al. (2023), who analysed 141 COVID-19 risk communication messages and found that less than 9 % of those messages are directed to vulnerable groups (i.e., older persons, people with psychosocial or physical disabilities), and less than 3 % of the messages addressed mental health. In addition, only two of the 26 RCTs identified in this review addressed children and adolescents, and none of the included RCTs addressed the caregivers’ MHPSS needs.

Several studies identified communication inequalities during outbreaks which led to considerable disparities in exposure to risk communication messages and hence in the adoption of IPC measures and the impact of the outbreak on different population groups (89–92). Communication inequality was associated with several factors such as age, income, education, ethnicity, disability, and language (89–92). Therefore, we recommend that RCCE interventions should consider these factors and be tailored to the needs of different population groups.

Inappropriate risk communication messages can trigger fear and anxiety among community members (93). During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, risk communication messages focused on the lethality of the virus (such as “Ebola kills”) triggered fear, anxiety and hopelessness among affected community members. In contrast, messages focused on the importance of early treatment and survival improved health-seeking behaviours (93). Therefore, community representatives and different population groups should be involved in developing and delivering RCCE messages to ensure their appropriateness and acceptability.

Per the IASC recommendations, MHPSS activities implemented as a part of outbreak response should be adapted to minimise the risk of infection and ensure the continuity of services (17). In this review, we have presented examples from the literature where some adaptations and restrictions were made to ensure the safety of patients and providers (78–80). Although the use of technology to provide MHPSS interventions was found to be effective as it facilitates access to service, there is a concern that heavy reliance on technology may increase the disparity in health services, especially for people who are socially and digitally disadvantaged (30). Accordingly, this issue should be considered while developing and delivering MHPSS interventions.

In some outbreaks, such as EVD, MHPSS has a role in ensuring that burial is carried out in a safe and dignified manner. The IASC guidance for Ebola stresses that people should be allowed to mourn and practice their rituals without compromising IPC measures (e.g., from a safe distance without touching the body) (94). As a part of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)’s response to the Ebola outbreak, staff trained in PFA provide condolence during burials and home visits to the families of deceased patients. This helps to gain trust and access to local communities (95).

Outbreaks challenge healthcare service efforts to provide care for infected individuals and simultaneously maintain services for other conditions. An assessment conducted by the WHO during COVID-19 found 93 % of countries reported disruption of mental health services due to the pandemic partially due to the diversion of the health system’s resources to COVID-19 (13). In many cases, mental health professionals were reallocated to work in Intensive Care Units and COVID-19 wards (96). In addition, several studies reported the suspension of mental health services to control and prevent infection (78–80). Such decisions will likely affect people with severe or acute mental health conditions who might need hospital admission. This indicates the importance of integrating MHPSS into general health services and exploring innovative ways to deliver MHPSS services. Despite their negative impact on mental health, emergencies such as outbreaks also present an opportunity to ‘Build Back Better’ mental health systems (97). Therefore, the role of MHPSS should not be limited to the response phase of public health emergencies but should also include preparedness and long-term recovery.

Despite the long-term psychosocial impacts of infection, most reviews focused on the acute response to infectious disease outbreaks, and none of the included interventions addressed long-term impacts. Therefore, attention should be given to those suffering from the long- term health effects of the infection. Active monitoring for psychological symptoms and referral to mental health services, when needed, were among the recommendations for post- COVID-19 rehabilitation (98).

Outbreaks and pandemics perpetuate the long-standing inequalities in healthcare among low-income communities and vulnerable groups (e.g., minority ethnic groups, children, refugees, migrants, and people with physical or psychosocial disabilities). This is evident when comparing COVID-19 deaths among minority ethnic groups. For instance, Black Americans accounted for 34% of confirmed COVID-19 cases, despite only comprising 13% of the US population (99). In the UK, the Bangladeshi group had the highest COVID-19 mortality rates during the second wave, which was 4-5 times higher than the White British group (100). Seemingly, children and young people were among the most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, given the closure of schools, limited physical activity, lockdown, loss of loved ones due to infection, limited understanding of the situation, and spending hours online, which might have an impact on their mental health (32). Overall, there was a lack of MHPSS interventions targeting marginalised and vulnerable groups. Therefore, community-based MHPSS interventions should be developed to target marginalised and vulnerable groups, especially those who might not have access to health services.

Table (4) summarises research gaps we identified and the recommendations to narrow these gaps.

Integrating MHPSS into outbreak response: a proposed framework

Given the immense impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO has stressed the importance of MHPSS “as an integral component in public health emergency response that must be addressed across a range of response pillars, including case management, risk communication and community engagement, and the maintenance of safe and accessible essential health services” (69). The WHO’s Incident Management System (IMS) is a standardised, yet flexible structure to managing a public health emergency response (68). As the IMS is the recognised structure for managing public health emergencies, including outbreaks, we used it to inform our proposed framework for integrating MHPSS into outbreak response (Figure 3). The framework summarises MHPSS operational considerations in relation to relevant IMS functions/sub-functions and outbreak response pillars.

Figure 3:
Figure 3: Operational framework to integrate MHPSS considerations into WHO’s Incident Management System (IMS)

Given that outbreak response is usually multi-sectoral, coordination becomes a necessity. For a better coordination between different actors involved in outbreak response, the IASC guidelines recommend establishing an intersectoral coordination group for MHPSS to ensure that psychological well-being is considered in all response activities (18). This becomes more evident during outbreaks, where many control measures can affect psychosocial well-being (e.g. quarantine and lockdown). While coordination can happen more readily between MHPSS actors, MHPSS actors need to work harder with non-MHPSS actors to ensure they integrate MHPSS considerations into their work. In Table 5, we recommend a set of actions to improve the MHPSS component of outbreaks preparedness and response, and hence mitigate their psychosocial impact.

View this table:
Table 3: Recommended actions to ensure the well-being of responders before, during, and after deployment in an outbreak
View this table:
Table 4. Identified research gaps and recommendations
View this table:
Table 5. Recommendations for policy and practice

Strengths and Limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first umbrella review to summarise review-level evidence. It is also the first review to address MHPSS interventions in relation to infectious disease outbreak response pillars. We believe that our findings and the proposed framework can guide the process of integrating MHPSS into future infectious disease outbreaks. However, our review has several limitations. The majority of the reviews included were of low quality, and the majority of included primary evidence included in those reviews was also of low quality. To mitigate the impact of this limitation, we focused on the evidence obtained from RCTs. (as reported in the included review). We did not carry out a quality appraisal for primary studies, but we included their quality as reported in the included reviews. Heterogeneity regarding study designs, interventions, and outcome measures was a major limitation for most of the included studies. The main causes of bias in the primary studies include lack of randomisation and blinding, small sample sizes, attrition bias, and selective reporting.

Conclusion

Outbreaks have a substantial psychological impact on individuals, communities, and frontline workers. Therefore MHPSS should be an essential component of the outbreak response. Despite the low quality of the majority of the existing evidence, MHPSS interventions have the potential to improve the psychosocial well-being of those affected by and those responding to outbreaks. They also can improve the outcomes of the outbreak response activities such as contact tracing, infection prevention and control, and clinical case management. We proposed a framework for integrating MHPSS into outbreak response informed by the WHO’s IMS. The framework addresses MHPSS operational considerations that can help mitigate the mental health impact of outbreaks. Further research is needed to deepen the evidence for MHPSS interventions in infectious disease outbreaks.

Data Availability

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

none

Supplemental Files

S1: Detailed search strategy

S2: Detailed Quality appraisal results

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank members of the Africa public mental health consortium; Dr Florence Baingana (WHO AFRO), Dr. Mohammed Abdulaziz, Dr Adelard Kakunz, and Dumsani Njobo Mamba (Africa CDC) , and Rosemary Mwaisaka (ECSA-HC) for providing technical support throughout the project.

This review was conducted as a part of a project funded by the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST). The UK-PHRST is funded by UK Aid from the Department of Health and Social Care and is jointly run by UK Health Security Agency and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Footnotes

  • ↵** William K Bosu and Ian Walker should be considered joint senior author

References

  1. 1.↵
    World Health Organization. Statement on the fifteenth meeting of the IHR (2005) Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 3]. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/
  3. 3.↵
    World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early evidence of the pandemic’s impact: Scientific brief, 2 March 2022 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1
  4. 4.↵
    Fisher JRW, Tran TD, Hammarberg K, Sastry J, Nguyen H, Rowe H, et al. Mental health of people in Australia in the first month of COVID-19 restrictions: a national survey. Med J Aust [Internet]. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];213(10):458–64. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50831
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    Kochhar AS, Bhasin R, Kochhar GK, Dadlani H, Mehta VV, Kaur R, et al. Lockdown of 1.3 billion people in India during Covid-19 pandemic: A survey of its impact on mental health. Asian J Psychiatr [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];54:102213. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7301781/
  6. 6.↵
    Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, Reynolds S, Shafran R, Brigden A, et al. Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 1;59(11):1218–1239.e3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Esterwood E, Saeed SA. Past Epidemics, Natural Disasters, COVID19, and Mental Health: Learning from History as we Deal with the Present and Prepare for the Future. Psychiatr Q [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];91(4):1121. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7429118/
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Jalloh MF, Li W, Bunnell RE, Ethier KA, O’Leary A, Hageman KM, et al. Impact of Ebola experiences and risk perceptions on mental health in Sierra Leone, July 2015. BMJ Glob Heal [Internet]. 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];3(2):e000471. Available from: https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000471
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Cénat JM, Felix N, Blais-Rochette C, Rousseau C, Bukaka J, Derivois D, et al. Prevalence of mental health problems in populations affected by the Ebola virus disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul 1;289:113033.
  10. 10.↵
    Park HY, Park WB, Lee SH, Kim JL, Lee JJ, Lee H, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression of survivors 12 months after the outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in South Korea. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2020 May 15 [cited 2022 Oct 6];20(1). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7224724/
  11. 11.↵
    Chau SWH, Wong OWH, Ramakrishnan R, Chan SSM, Wong EKY, Li PYT, et al. History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002–2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Oct 6];21(1):1–23. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-10701-3
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Santomauro DF, Mantilla Herrera AM, Shadid J, Zheng P, Ashbaugh C, Pigott DM, et al. Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet [Internet]. 2021 Nov 6 [cited 2022 Oct 6];398(10312):1700–12. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140673621021437/fulltext
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    World Health Organization. The impact of COVID-19 on mental, neurological and substance use services : results of a rapid assessment. 2020;
  14. 14.↵
    World Health Organization. Mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID- 19 outbreak [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-MentalHealth-2020.1
  15. 15.↵
    UN Sustainable Development Group. UNSDG | Policy Brief: COVID-19 and the Need for Action on Mental Health [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jun 5]. Available from: https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-covid-19-and-need-action-mental-health
  16. 16.↵
    Walker A, Alkasaby MA, Baingana F, Bosu WK, Abdulaziz M, Westerveld R, et al. Challenges and Opportunities for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in the COVID-19 Response in Africa: A Mixed-Methods Study. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2022, Vol 19, Page 9313 [Internet]. 2022 Jul 29 [cited 2022 Oct 6];19(15):9313. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9313/htm
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Interim Briefing Note adressing mental health and psychosocial aspects of COVID-19 outbreak, IASC Reference Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 1]; Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novelcoronavirus-2019
  18. 18.↵
    Inter-Agency Standing Committee. IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings. 2007; Available from: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc-task-force-mental-health-and-psychosocial-support-emergency-settings/iasc-guidelines-mental-health-and-psychosocial-support-emergency-settings-2007
  19. 19.↵
    Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc [Internet]. 2015 Sep 1 [cited 2022 Apr 14];13(3):132–40. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/Fulltext/2015/09000/Summarizing_systematic_reviewsmethodological.4.aspx
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Ding H, He F, Lu YG, Hao SW, Fan XJ. Effects of non-drug interventions on depression, anxiety and sleep in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 18];25(2):1087–96. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33577065/
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Doherty A, Benedetto V, Harris C, Boland P, Christian DL, Hill J, et al. The effectiveness of psychological support interventions for those exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];21(1):1–28. Available from: https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-021-03602-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Sun Z, Yu C, Zhou Y, Liu Z. Psychological Interventions for Healthcare Providers With PTSD in Life-Threatening Pandemic: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 29;12:1218.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Gómez G, Basagoitia A, Burrone MS, Rivas M, Solís-Soto MT, Dy Juanco S, et al. Child-Focused Mental Health Interventions for Disasters Recovery: A Rapid Review of Experiences to Inform Return-to-School Strategies After COVID-19. Front Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Oct 5 [cited 2022 Jun 19];12:713407. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC8524184/
  24. 24.↵
    Hooper JJ, Saulsman L, Hall T, Waters F. Addressing the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers: learning from a systematic review of early interventions for frontline responders. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021 May 1 [cited 2022 Jun 20];11(5):e044134. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/5/e044134
  25. 25.↵
    Puyat JH, Ahmad H, Avina-Galindo AM, Kazanjian A, Gupta A, Ellis U, et al. A rapid review of home-based activities that can promote mental wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jun 19];15(12). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33270755/
  26. 26.
    Williams CYK, Townson AT, Kapur M, Ferreira AF, Nunn R, Galante J, et al. Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: A rapid systematic review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Jun 19];16(2):e0247139. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247139
  27. 27.↵
    Bursky M, Kosuri M, Walsh Carson K, Babad S, Iskhakova A, Nikulina V. The Utility of Meditation and Mindfulness-Based Interventions in the Time of COVID-19: A Theoretical Proposition and Systematic Review of the Relevant Prison, Quarantine and Lockdown Literature: https://doi.org/101177/00332941211048734 [Internet]. 2021 Dec 10 [cited 2022 Jul 11];0(0):1–44. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00332941211048734?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Bertuzzi V, Semonella M, Bruno D, Manna C, Edbrook-childs J, Giusti EM, et al. Psychological Support Interventions for Healthcare Providers and Informal Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Jul 14];18(13). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34203529/
  29. 29.
    Damiano RF, Di Santi T, Beach S, Pan PM, Lucchetti AL, Smith FA, et al. Mental health interventions following COVID-19 and other coronavirus infections: a systematic review of current recommendations and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Brazilian J Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 15];43(6):665. Available from:/pmc/articles/PMC8639008/
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Davison KM, Thakkar V, Lin S, Stabler L, Macphee M, Carroll S, et al. Interventions to Support Mental Health among Those with Health Conditions That Present Risk for Severe Infection from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Scoping Review of English and Chinese- Language Literature. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2021, Vol 18, Page 7265 [Internet]. 2021 Jul 7 [cited 2022 Jul 7];18(14):7265. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7265/htm
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Kunzler AM, Stoffers-Winterling J, Stoll M, Mancini AL, Lehmann S, Blessin M, et al. Mental health and psychosocial support strategies in highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks of substantial public concern: A systematic scoping review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Jul 13];16(2). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33534786/
  32. 32.↵
    Meherali S, Punjani N, Louie-Poon S, Rahim KA, Das JK, Salam RA, et al. Mental Health of Children and Adolescents Amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: A Rapid Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2021, Vol 18, Page 3432 [Internet]. 2021 Mar 26 [cited 2022 Jul 14];18(7):3432. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3432/htm
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Pollock A, Campbell P, Cheyne J, Cowie J, Davis B, McCallum J, et al. Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review. Cochrane database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2020 Nov 5 [cited 2022 Jun 19];11(11). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33150970/
  34. 34.
    Rivera-Torres S, Mpofu E, Jean Keller M, Ingman S. Older Adults’ Mental Health Through Leisure Activities During COVID-19: A Scoping Review. Gerontol Geriatr Med [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 13];7:1–10. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34395816/
  35. 35.↵
    Serrano-Ripoll MJ, Meneses-Echavez JF, Ricci-Cabello I, Fraile-Navarro D, Fiol-deRoque MA, Pastor-Moreno G, et al. Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord [Internet]. 2020 Dec 12 [cited 2022 Aug 15];277:347. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7443314/
  36. 36.↵
    Shatri H, Prabu OG, Tetrasiwi EN, Faisal E, Putranto R, Ismail RI. The Role of Online Psychotherapy in COVID-19: An Evidence Based Clinical Review. Acta Med Indones. 2021;53(3):352–9.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    Soklaridis S, Lin E, Lalani Y, Rodak T, Sockalingam S. Mental health interventions and supports during COVID- 19 and other medical pandemics: A rapid systematic review of the evidence. Gen Hosp Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1 [cited 2022 Jul 14];66:133. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7442905/
  38. 38.
    Strudwick G, Sockalingam S, Kassam I, Sequeira L, Bonato S, Youssef A, et al. Digital Interventions to Support Population Mental Health in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Rapid Review. JMIR Ment Heal 2021;8(3)e26550 https://mental.jmir.org/2021/3/e26550 [Internet]. 2021 Mar 2 [cited 2022 Aug 15];8(3):e26550. Available from: https://mental.jmir.org/2021/3/e26550
  39. 39.
    Yang Y, Sun S, Hu S, Tang C, Zhang Y, Lin H. Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 22;12:252.
  40. 40.↵
    Yue JL, Yan W, Sun YK, Yuan K, Su SZ, Han Y, et al. Mental health services for infectious disease outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. Psychol Med [Internet]. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Jun 21];50(15):2498–513. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/mental-health-services-for-infectious-disease-outbreaks-including-covid19-a-rapid-systematic-review/97AC466C1B5D0400574455CB9F33685A
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Zaçe D, Hoxhaj I, Orfino A, Viteritti AM, Janiri L, Di Pietro ML. Interventions to address mental health issues in healthcare workers during infectious disease outbreaks: A systematic review. J Psychiatr Res [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Jun 19];136:319–33. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33636688/
  42. 42.
    Kong X, Kong F, Zheng K, Tang M, Chen Y, Zhou J, et al. Effect of Psychological–Behavioral Intervention on the Depression and Anxiety of COVID-19 Patients. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 20;11:1241.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Li J, Li X, Jiang J, Xu X, Wu J, Xu Y, et al. The Effect of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Oct 30;11:1096.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Liu K, Chen Y, Wu D, Lin R, Wang Z, Pan L. Effects of progressive muscle relaxation on anxiety and sleep quality in patients with COVID-19. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020 May 1;39:101132.
  45. 45.
    Liu K, Zhang W, Yang Y, Zhang J, Li Y, Chen Y. Respiratory rehabilitation in elderly patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled study. Complement Ther Clin Pract [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];39. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32379637/
  46. 46.↵
    Özlü İ, Öztürk Z, Karaman Özlü Z, Tekin E, Gür A. The effects of progressive muscle relaxation exercises on the anxiety and sleep quality of patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled study. Perspect Psychiatr Care [Internet]. 2021 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];57(4):1791–7. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ppc.12750
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.
    Parizad N, Goli R, Faraji N, Mam-Qaderi M, Mirzaee R, Gharebaghi N, et al. Effect of guided imagery on anxiety, muscle pain, and vital signs in patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Clin Pract [Internet]. 2021 May 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];43. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33647676/
  48. 48.
    Sotoudeh HG, Alavi SS, Akbari Z, Jannatifard F, Artounian V. The Effect of Brief Crisis Intervention Package on Improving Quality of Life and Mental Health in Patients with COVID-19. Iran J Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Jul 20 [cited 2022 Jun 18];15(3):205–12. Available from: https://ijps.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijps/article/view/2237
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Thombs BD, Kwakkenbos L, Levis B, Bourgeault A, Henry RS, Levis AW, et al. Effects of a multi-faceted education and support programme on anxiety symptoms among people with systemic sclerosis and anxiety during COVID-19 (SPIN-CHAT): a two-arm parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Rheumatol [Internet]. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];3(6):e427–37. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2665991321000606/fulltext
  50. 50.
    Wei N, Huang B chao, Lu S jia, Hu J bo, Zhou X yi, Hu C chan, et al. Efficacy of internet-based integrated intervention on depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with COVID-19. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2022 Jun 19];21(5):400. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7203540/
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.
    Liu Y, Yang YQ, Liu Y, Pei SL, Yang HH, Wu JJ, et al. Effects of group psychological intervention combined with pulmonary rehabilitation exercises on anxiety and sleep disorders in patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in a Fangcang hospital. https://doi.org/101080/1354850620211916956 [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 18];27(2):333–42. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13548506.2021.1916956
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.
    Liu Z, Qiao D, Xu Y, Zhao W, Yang Y, Wen D, et al. The Efficacy of Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Patients With COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(5)e26883 http://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e26883 [Internet]. 2021 May 14 [cited 2022 Jun 18];23(5):e26883. Available from: https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e26883
  53. 53.
    Dincer B, Inangil D. The effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques on nurses’ stress, anxiety, and burnout levels during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial. EXPLORE. 2021 Mar 1;17(2):109–14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.
    Fiol-DeRoque MA, Serrano-Ripoll MJ, Jiménez R, Zamanillo-Campos R, Yáñez-Juan AM, Bennasar-Veny M, et al. A Mobile Phone–Based Intervention to Reduce Mental Health Problems in Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PsyCovidApp): Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021;9(5)e27039 https://mhealth.jmir.org/2021/5/e27039 [Internet]. 2021 May 18 [cited 2022 Jun 18];9(5):e27039. Available from: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2021/5/e27039
  55. 55.
    Perri RL, Castelli P, La Rosa C, Zucchi T, Onofri A. COVID-19, Isolation, Quarantine: On the Efficacy of Internet-Based Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Ongoing Trauma. Brain Sci 2021, Vol 11, Page 579 [Internet]. 2021 Apr 30 [cited 2022 Jun 18];11(5):579. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/5/579/htm
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.
    Procaccia R, Segre G, Tamanza G, Manzoni GM. Benefits of Expressive Writing on Healthcare Workers’ Psychological Adjustment During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 25;12:360.
  57. 57.
    Sijbrandij M, Horn R, Esliker R, O’may F, Reiffers R, Ruttenberg L, et al. The Effect of Psychological First Aid Training on Knowledge and Understanding about Psychosocial Support Principles: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2020, Vol 17, Page 484 [Internet]. 2020 Jan 11 [cited 2022 Jun 7];17(2):484. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/484/htm
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.
    Al-Alawi M, McCall RK, Sultan A, Al Balushi N, Al-Mahrouqi T, Al Ghailani A, et al. Efficacy of a Six-Week-Long Therapist-Guided Online Therapy Versus Self-help Internet-Based Therapy for COVID-19–Induced Anxiety and Depression: Open-label, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Heal 2021;8(2)e26683 https://mental.jmir.org/2021/2/e26683 [Internet]. 2021 Feb 12 [cited 2022 Jun 18];8(2):e26683. Available from: https://mental.jmir.org/2021/2/e26683
  59. 59.
    Bossche D Vanden, Lagaert S, Willems S, Decat P. Community Health Workers as a Strategy to Tackle Psychosocial Suffering Due to Physical Distancing: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2021, Vol 18, Page 3097 [Internet]. 2021 Mar 17 [cited 2022 Jun 18];18(6):3097. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3097/htm
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Carbone GA, Zarfati A, Nicoli MS, Paulis A, Tourjansky G, Valenti G, et al. Online psychological counselling during lockdown reduces anxiety symptoms and negative affect: Insights from Italian framework. Clin Psychol Psychother [Internet]. 2022 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];29(1):367–72. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpp.2608
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    Malboeuf-Hurtubise C, Léger-Goodes T, Mageau GA, Taylor G, Herba CM, Chadi N, et al. Online art therapy in elementary schools during COVID-19: results from a randomized cluster pilot and feasibility study and impact on mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];15(1):1–11. Available from: https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-021-00367-5
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Ng SM, Chan THY, Chan CLW, Lee AM, Yau JKY, Chan CHY, et al. Group debriefing for people with chronic diseases during the SARS pandemic: Strength-Focused and Meaning-Oriented Approach for Resilience and Transformation (SMART). Community Ment Health J [Internet]. 2006 Feb 21 [cited 2022 Jun 18];42(1):53–63. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10597-005-9002-y
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.
    Shabahang R. Cognitive behavioural intervention for health anxiety, somatosensory amplification, and depression in coronavirus disease 2019 anxiety: an interventional study in Iran. Psychiatr i Psychol Klin. 2020;20(2):87–93.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.
    Vukčević Marković M, Bjekić J, Priebe S. Effectiveness of Expressive Writing in the Reduction of Psychological Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Psychol. 2020 Nov 10;11:2936.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.
    Wahlund T, Mataix-Cols D, Olofsdotter Lauri K, De Schipper E, Ljótsson B, Aspvall K, et al. Brief Online Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Dysfunctional Worry Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Psychother Psychosom [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Jun 18];90(3):191–9. Available from: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/512843
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Zheng MX, Masters-Waage TC, Yao J, Lu Y, Tan N, Narayanan J. Stay Mindful and Carry on: Mindfulness Neutralizes COVID-19 Stressors on Work Engagement via Sleep Duration. Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 21;11:3638.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    Zheng Y, Wang W, Zhong Y, Wu F, Zhu Z, Tham YC, et al. A Peer-to-Peer Live-Streaming Intervention for Children During COVID-19 Homeschooling to Promote Physical Activity and Reduce Anxiety and Eye Strain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(4)e24316 http://www.jmir.org/2021/4/e24316 [Internet]. 2021 Apr 30 [cited 2022 Jun 18];23(4):e24316. Available from: https://www.jmir.org/2021/4/e24316
  68. 68.↵
    World Health Organization. Emergency response framework (ERF). 2017; Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512299
  69. 69.↵
    World Health Organization. COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP 2021) [Internet]. Geneva; 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-WHE-2021.02
  70. 70.↵
    Kohrt BA, Blasingame E, Compton MT, Dakana SF, Dossen B, Lang F, et al. Adapting the crisis intervention team (CIT) Model of police-mental health collaboration in a low-income, post-conflict country: Curriculum development in Liberia, West Africa. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar 1;105(3):e73–80.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Cénat JM, Mukunzi JN, Noorishad PG, Rousseau C, Derivois D, Bukaka J. A systematic review of mental health programs among populations affected by the Ebola virus disease. J Psychosom Res [Internet]. 2020 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Jun 21];131. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32087433/
  72. 72.↵
    Albott CS, Wozniak JR, McGlinch BP, Wall MH, Gold BS, Vinogradov S. Battle Buddies: Rapid Deployment of a Psychological Resilience Intervention for Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Anesth Analg [Internet]. 2020 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Mar 20];131(1):43–54. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2020/07000/Battle_BuddiesRapid_Deployment_of_a.9.aspx
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.
    Donnelly PD, Davidson M, Dunlop N, McGale M, Milligan E, Worrall M, et al. Well-Being during Coronavirus Disease 2019: A PICU Practical Perspective. Pediatr Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2023 Mar 24];21(8):E584–6. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/pccmjournal/Fulltext/2020/08000/Well_Being_During_Coronavirus_Disease_2019A_PICU.37.aspx
  74. 74.
    Cheng W, Zhang F, Liu Z, Zhang H, Lyu Y, Xu H, et al. A psychological health support scheme for medical teams in COVID-19 outbreak and its effectiveness. Gen Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Mar 24];33(5):e100288. Available from: https://gpsych.bmj.com/content/33/5/e100288
  75. 75.↵
    Rastegar Kazerooni AA, Amini M, Tabari P, Moosavi M. Peer mentoring for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic via a social media platform. Med Educ [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2023 Mar 24];54(8):762–3. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/medu.14206
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Bryant RA, Kenny L, Rawson N, Cahill C, Joscelyne A, Garber B, et al. Efficacy of exposure-based cognitive behaviour therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in emergency service personnel: a randomised clinical trial. Psychol Med [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Jul 14];49(9):1565–73. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/efficacy-of-exposurebased-cognitive-behaviour-therapy-for-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-in-emergency-service-personnel-a-randomised-clinical-trial/7A241B49AC3B951E1E5D3401DFC398DA
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    Kim SH, Schneider SM, Bevans M, Kravitz L, Mermier C, Qualls C, et al. PTSD symptom reduction with mindfulness-based stretching and deep breathing exercise: randomized controlled clinical trial of efficacy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab [Internet]. 2013 Jul [cited 2022 Jul 14];98(7):2984–92. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23720785/
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Starace F, Ferrara M. COVID-19 disease emergency operational instructions for Mental Health Departments issued by the Italian Society of Epidemiological Psychiatry. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Mar 22];29:e116. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-psychiatric-sciences/article/covid19-disease-emergency-operational-instructions-for-mental-health-departments-issued-by-the-italian-society-of-epidemiological-psychiatry/C478CBAB0C399F4EEF192747B7082B33
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Poremski D, Subner SH, Lam GFK, Dev R, Mok YM, Chua HC, et al. Effective infection prevention and control strategies in a large, accredited, psychiatric facility in Singapore. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Mar 22];41(10):1238–40. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/infection-control-and-hospital-epidemiology/article/effective-infection-prevention-and-control-strategies-in-a-large-accredited-psychiatric-facility-in-singapore/D3C53436736AEF313E458E11E856FE34
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Garriga M, Agasi I, Fedida E, Pinzón-Espinosa J, Vazquez M, Pacchiarotti I, et al. The role of mental health home hospitalization care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Psychiatr Scand [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2023 Mar 22];141(5):479–80. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acps.13173
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    Weissbecker I, Roshania R, Cavallera V, Mallow M, Leichner A, Antigua J, et al. Integrating psychosocial support at Ebola treatment units in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Intervention [Internet]. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Mar 22];16(2):69. Available from: http://www.interventionjournal.org/article.asp?issn=1571-8883;year=2018;volume=16;issue=2;spage=69;epage=78;aulast=Weissbecker
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    Aiello A, Young-Eun Khayeri M, Raja S, Peladeau N, Romano D, Leszcz M, et al. Resilience training for hospital workers in anticipation of an influenza pandemic. J Contin Educ Health Prof [Internet]. 2011 Dec [cited 2023 Mar 23];31(1):15–20. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcehp/Fulltext/2011/31010/Resilience_Training_for_Hospital_Workers_in.3.aspx
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Agyapong VIO. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Health System and Community Response to a Text Message (Text4Hope) Program Supporting Mental Health in Alberta. Disaster Med Public Health Prep [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Mar 23];14(5):1. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7198462/
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Agyapong VIO, Shalaby R, Hrabok M, Vuong W, Noble JM, Gusnowski A, et al. Mental Health Outreach via Supportive Text Messages during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Improved Mental Health and Reduced Suicidal Ideation after Six Weeks in Subscribers of Text4Hope Compared to a Control Population. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2021, Vol 18, Page 2157 [Internet]. 2021 Feb 23 [cited 2023 Jun 18];18(4):2157. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2157/htm
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    World Health Organization. WHO Ebola outbreak response handbook for health and safety in the field [Internet]. Geneva; 2014 [cited 2023 Mar 24]. Available from: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/Ebola_PEC_Deploiement_healthandsafetyhandbook_Eng.pdf
  86. 86.↵
    World Health Organization, International Labour Organization. Occupational safety and health in public health emergencies: a manual for protecting health workers and responders. 2018;
  87. 87.↵
    Gonzalez A, Cervoni C, Lochner M, Marangio J, Stanley C, Marriott S. Supporting health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Mental health support initiatives and lessons learned from an academic medical center. Psychol Trauma Theory, Res Pract Policy. 2020;12(S1):S168.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.
    Bailey A, Harris MA, Bogle D, Jama A, Muir SA, Miller S, et al. Coping With COVID-19: Health Risk Communication and Vulnerable Groups. Disaster Med Public Health Prep [Internet]. 2023 Jul 12 [cited 2023 Mar 25];17:e22. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/abs/coping-with-covid19-health-risk-communication-and-vulnerable-groups/02A22532721F07EF198AED229CACA369
  89. 89.↵
    Lin L, Savoia E, Agboola F, Viswanath K. What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: A systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2014 May 21 [cited 2023 Mar 26];14(1):1–13. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-484
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Lin L, McCloud RF, Bigman CA, Viswanath K. Tuning in and catching on? Examining the relationship between pandemic communication and awareness and knowledge of MERS in the USA. J Public Health (Oxf) [Internet]. 2017 Jun 1 [cited 2023 Mar 26];39(2):282–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27084759/
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.
    Lin L, Jung M, McCloud RF, Viswanath K. Media Use and Communication Inequalities in a Public Health Emergency: A Case Study of 2009–2010 Pandemic Influenza a Virus Subtype H1N1. http://dx.doi.org/101177/00333549141296S408 [Internet]. 2014 Nov 1 [cited 2023 Mar 26];129:49–60. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00333549141296S408?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Wang X, Lin L, Xuan Z, Xu J, Wan Y, Zhou X. Risk communication on behavioral responses during COVID-19 among general population in China: A rapid national study. J Infect. 2020 Dec 1;81(6):911–22.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.↵
    Franklin SI. ‘It was organized from the bottom’: the response from community-based institutions during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. J Institutional Econ [Internet]. 2023 Apr 3 [cited 2023 Jul 18];1–16. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137423000085/type/journal_artic le
  94. 94.↵
    IASC Reference Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. Mental health and psychosocial support in Ebola virus disease outbreaks: A guide for public health programme planners. 2015;
  95. 95.↵
    International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies. Psychosocial support in Ebola: Lessons learned [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 Mar 26]. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/sierra-leone/lessons-learned-psychosocial-support-ebola-july-2016
  96. 96.↵
    Alkasaby MA, Philip S, Agrawal A, Jakhar J, Ojeahere MI, Ori D, et al. Early career psychiatrists advocate reorientation not redeployment for COVID-19 care: https://doi.org/101177/00207640211057734 [Internet]. 2021 Nov 21 [cited 2021 Dec 12];002076402110577. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207640211057734
  97. 97.↵
    World Health Organization. Building back better: sustainable mental health care after emergencies. World Health Organization; 2013.
  98. 98.↵
    Barker-Davies RM, O’Sullivan O, Senaratne KPP, Baker P, Cranley M, Dharm-Datta S, et al. The Stanford Hall consensus statement for post-COVID-19 rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2022 Oct 3];54(16):949–59. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32475821/
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    Holmes L, Enwere M, Williams J, Ogundele B, Chavan P, Piccoli T, et al. Black–White Risk Differentials in COVID-19 (SARS-COV2) Transmission, Mortality and Case Fatality in the United States: Translational Epidemiologic Perspective and Challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Jun 2 [cited 2023 Mar 26];17(12):1–18. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7345143/
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. 100.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Updating ethnic contrasts in deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), England [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/updatingethniccontrastsindeathsinvolvingthecoronaviruscovid19englandandwales/24january2020to31march2021
  101. 101.
    World Health Organization. Living guidance for clinical management of COVID-19. World Health Organization Geneva; 2021.
  102. 102.
    Kamara S, Walder A, Duncan J, Kabbedijk A, Hughes P, Muana A. Mental health care during the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Sierra Leone. Bull World Health Organ [Internet]. 2017 Dec 12 [cited 2023 Mar 27];95(12):842. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5710077/
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted July 28, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Integrating Mental Health and Psycho-Social Support (MHPSS) into infectious disease outbreak and epidemic response: an umbrella review and operational framework
Muhammad Alkasaby, Sharad Philip, Zain Douba, Hanna Tu, Julian Eaton, Muftau Mohammed, Mohammad Yasir Essar, Manar Ahmed Kamal, Mehr Muhammad Adeel Riaz, Marianne Moussallem, William K Bosu, Ian Walker
medRxiv 2023.07.27.23293219; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.27.23293219
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area