Mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: protocol for a rapid review

  1. Ge Yu
  2. Dawn Craig
  3. Yu Fu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to mental health services, forcing the rapid implementation of alternative ways of delivering services alongside a greater immediate, and continuously growing, demand across those services. The care and level of mental health service provided are felt to be inadequate to respond to the increasing demand for mental health conditions in the time of the pandemic, leading to an urgent need to learn from service change and consequences to inform solutions and plans to support the NHS postpandemic plan in the UK. This rapid review aims to understand the changes in mental health services during the pandemic and summarise the impact of these changes on the health outcomes of people with mental health conditions.

Methods and analysis

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo will be searched for eligible studies with key terms indicating mental health AND COVID-19 AND health services. Peer-reviewed empirical studies aiming to investigate or describe new models of care, services, initiatives or programmes developed or evolved for patients (aged 18 years or over) with mental health in response to COVID-19, published in the English language and undertaken in a high-income country defined by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member will be included. Studies reporting views of the general public, letters of opinion to peer-review journals, editorial or commentaries will be excluded. Study selection and data extraction will be undertaken independently by two reviewers. Evidence will be summarised narratively and in a logic model.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required for this review. A list of interventions/services/models of care delivered to people with mental health conditions will be grouped as ‘Do’, ‘Don’t’ and ‘Don’t know’ based on the evidence on effectiveness and acceptability. The results will be written for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to the public and patients, clinicians, commissioners, funders and academic conferences.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022306923.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062078
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270931v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270931: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationYF will check for accuracy and completeness through random double-extraction of 10% of included studies.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    : Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfowill be searched for from 2019 to the present.
    Cochrane CENTRAL
    suggested: (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, RRID:SCR_006576)
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270931v1 on medRxiv