The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply altered social and working environments in several ways. Social distancing policies, mandatory lockdowns, isolation periods, and anxiety of getting sick, along with the suspension of productive activity, loss of income, and fear of the future, jointly influence the mental health of citizens and workers. Workplace aspects can play a crucial role on moderating or worsening mental health of people facing this pandemic scenario. The purpose of this literature review is to deepen the psychological aspects linked to workplace factors, following the epidemic rise of COVID-19, in order to address upcoming psychological critical issues in the workplaces. We performed a literature search using Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus, selecting papers focusing on workers' psychological problems that can be related to the workplace during the pandemic. Thirty-five articles were included. Mental issues related to the health emergency, such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and sleep disorders are more likely to affect healthcare workers, especially those on the frontline, migrant workers, and workers in contact with the public. Job insecurity, long periods of isolation, and uncertainty of the future worsen the psychological condition, especially in younger people and in those with a higher educational background. Multiple organizational and work-related interventions can mitigate this scenario, such as the improvement of workplace infrastructures, the adoption of correct and shared anti-contagion measures, including regular personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, and the implementation of resilience training programs. This review sets the basis for a better understanding of the psychological conditions of workers during the pandemic, integrating individual and social perspectives, and providing insight into possible individual, social, and occupational approaches to this "psychological pandemic".

COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review.

Background Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. Objectives Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Search methods On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. Main results We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. Authors' conclusions There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

/pdf/interventions-to-support-the-resilience-and-mental-health-of-334vnzcq9s.pdf

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

Veterinary surgeons are known to be at a higher risk of suicide compared with the general population. There has been much speculation regarding possible mechanisms underlying the increased suicide risk in the profession, but little empirical research. A computerised search of published literature on the suicide risk and influences on suicide among veterinarians, with comparison to the risk and influences in other occupational groups and in the general population, was used to develop a structured review. Veterinary surgeons have a proportional mortality ratio (PMR) for suicide approximately four times that of the general population and around twice that of other healthcare professions. A complex interaction of possible mechanisms may occur across the course of a veterinary career to increase the risk of suicide. Possible factors include the characteristics of individuals entering the profession, negative effects during undergraduate training, work-related stressors, ready access to and knowledge of means, stigma associated with mental illness, professional and social isolation, and alcohol or drug misuse (mainly prescription drugs to which the profession has ready access). Contextual effects such as attitudes to death and euthanasia, formed through the profession's routine involvement with euthanasia of companion animals and slaughter of farm animals, and suicide 'contagion' due to direct or indirect exposure to suicide of peers within this small profession are other possible influences.

Veterinary surgeons and suicide: a structured review of possible influences on increased risk

Details on suicide among US physicians: data from the National Violent Death Reporting System

Doctors experience high levels of work stress even under normal circumstances, but many would be reluctant to disclose mental health difficulties or seek help for them, with stigma an often-cited reason. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis places additional pressure on doctors and on the healthcare system in general and research shows that such pressure brings a greater risk of psychological distress for doctors. For this reason, we argue that the authorities and healthcare executives must show strong leadership and support for doctors and their families during the COVID-19 outbreak and call for efforts to reduce mental health stigma in clinical workplaces. This can be facilitated by deliberately adding ‘healthcare staff mental health support process’ as an ongoing agenda item to high-level management planning meetings.

/pdf/the-mental-health-of-doctors-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-3ax27dhn4u.pdf

The mental health of doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A postal survey of 3,512 doctors in Birmingham was carried out to assess attitudes to becoming mentally ill. The response rate for the questionnaire was 70% (2,462 questionnaires). In total, 1,807 (73.4%) doctors would choose to disclose a mental illness to family and friends rather than to a professional. Career implications were cited by 800 (32.5%) respondents as the most frequent reason for failure to disclose. For outpatient treatment, 51.1% would seek formal professional advice. For inpatient treatment, 41.0% would choose a local private facility, with only 21.1% choosing a local NHS facility. Of respondents 12.4% indicated that they had experienced a mental illness. Stigma to mental health is prevalent among doctors. At present there are no clear guidelines for doctors to follow for mental healthcare. Confidential referral pathways to specialist psychiatric care for doctors and continuous education on the vulnerability of doctors to mental illness early on in medical training is crucial.

A postal survey of doctors' attitudes to becoming mentally ill.

AIMS AND METHOD To determine the opinions of psychiatrists on mental illness among 
themselves and their colleagues a postal survey was conducted across the West 
Midlands. RESULTS Most psychiatrists (319/370, 86.2%) would be reluctant to disclose mental 
illness to colleagues or professional organisations (323/370, 87.3%). Their 
choices regarding disclosure and treatment would be influenced by issues of 
confidentiality ( n =245, 66%), stigma ( n =83, 22%) and career 
implications ( n =128, 35%) rather than quality of care ( n =60, 
16%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The stigma associated with mental illness remains prevalent among the 
psychiatric profession and may prevent those affected from seeking adequate 
treatment and support. Appropriate, confidential specialist psychiatric 
services should be provided for this vulnerable group, and for doctors as a 
whole, to ensure that their needs, and by extension those of their patients, 
are met.

/pdf/barriers-to-mental-healthcare-for-psychiatrists-563w8jjw57.pdf

Barriers to mental healthcare for psychiatrists

Terrorism is often construed as a well-thought-out, extreme form of violence to perceived injustices. The after effects of terrorism are usually reported without understanding the underlying psychological and social determinants of the terrorist act. Since ‘9/11’ Pakistan has been at the epicentre of both terrorism and the war against it. This special paper helps to explain the psychosocial perspective of terrorism in Pakistan that leads to violent radicalisation. It identifies the terrorist acts in the background of Pakistan's history, current geopolitical and social scenario. The findings may also act as a guide on addressing this core issue.

/pdf/terrorism-in-pakistan-the-psychosocial-context-and-why-it-4eom43d74f.pdf

Terrorism in Pakistan: the psychosocial context and why it matters.

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic used for treatment resistant schizophrenia. Its potential to induce agranulocytosis is well known but it can also cause myocarditis. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic known to induce this side effect, typically early in the treatment, and literature is scarce on this condition. We are presenting a case report of a 21-year-old schizophrenic male who developed myocarditis within 3 weeks of starting on clozapine for his treatment resistant psychosis. We then aim to review some of the available literature and raise awareness among physicians as this condition can potentially be fatal if not detected early.

https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/crips/2014/513108.pdf

Tariq Hassan

Papers

The mental health of doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A postal survey of doctors' attitudes to becoming mentally ill.

Barriers to mental healthcare for psychiatrists

Terrorism in Pakistan: the psychosocial context and why it matters.

Clozapine-Induced Myocarditis: Is Mandatory Monitoring Warranted for Its Early Recognition?