Emerging mental health challenges, strategies, and opportunities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives from South American decision-makers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Objective. To identify emerging mental health problems, strategies to address them, and opportunities to reform mental health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic in South America.

Methods. An online questionnaire was sent to mental health decision-makers of ministries of health in 10 South American countries in mid-April 2020. The semi-structured questionnaire had 12 questions clustered into three main sections: emerging challenges in mental health, current and potential strategies to face the pandemic, and key elements for mental health reform. We identified keywords and themes for each section through summative content analysis.

Results. Increasing mental health burden and needs were reported as direct and indirect consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. National lockdowns challenge the delivery and access to mental health treatment and care. Strategies to meet mental health needs rely heavily on timely and adequate responses by strengthened mental health governance and systems, availability of services, virtual platforms, and appropriate capacity-building for service providers. Short- and medium-term strategies focused on bolstering community-based mental health networks and telemedicine for high-risk populations. Opportunities for long-term mental health reform entail strengthening legal frameworks, redistribution of financial resources, and collaboration with local and international partners.

Conclusions. Mental health and psychosocial support have been identified as a priority area by South American countries in the COVID-19 response. The pandemic has generated specific needs that require appropriate actions, including implementing virtual interventions, orienting capacity-building toward protecting users and health providers, strengthening evidence-driven decision-making, and integrating mental health and psychosocial support in high-level mechanisms guiding the response to COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155630: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The protocol and questionnaire were submitted to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the PAHO ethics review committee and all procedures were exempted for review.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    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.

    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.