Aims Longitudinal data on the mental health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic in healthcare workers is limited. We estimated prevalence, incidence and persistence of probable mental disorders in a cohort of Spanish healthcare workers (Covid-19 waves 1 and 2) -and identified associated risk factors. Methods 8996 healthcare workers evaluated on 5 May-7 September 2020 (baseline) were invited to a second web-based survey (October-December 2020). Major depressive disorder (PHQ-8 >= 10), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD-7 >= 10), panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorder (PCL-5 >= 7), and alcohol use disorder (CAGE-AID >= 2) were assessed. Distal (pre-pandemic) and proximal (pandemic) risk factors were included. We estimated the incidence of probable mental disorders (among those without disorders at baseline) and persistence (among those with disorders at baseline). Logistic regression of individual-level [odds ratios (OR)] and population-level (population attributable risk proportions) associations were estimated, adjusting by all distal risk factors, health care centre and time of baseline interview. Results 4809 healthcare workers participated at four months follow-up (cooperation rate = 65.7%; mean = 120 days s.d. = 22 days from baseline assessment). Follow-up prevalence of any disorder was 41.5%, (v. 45.4% at baseline, p < 0.001); incidence, 19.7% (s.e. = 1.6) and persistence, 67.7% (s.e. = 2.3). Proximal factors showing significant bivariate-adjusted associations with incidence included: work-related factors [prioritising Covid-19 patients (OR = 1.62)], stress factors [personal health-related stress (OR = 1.61)], interpersonal stress (OR = 1.53) and financial factors [significant income loss (OR = 1.37)]. Risk factors associated with persistence were largely similar. Conclusions Our study indicates that the prevalence of probable mental disorders among Spanish healthcare workers during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic was similarly high to that after the first wave. This was in good part due to the persistence of mental disorders detected at the baseline, but with a relevant incidence of about 1 in 5 of HCWs without mental disorders during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Health-related factors, work-related factors and interpersonal stress are important risks of persistence of mental disorders and of incidence of mental disorders. Adequately addressing these factors might have prevented a considerable amount of mental health impact of the pandemic among this vulnerable population. Addressing health-related stress, work-related factors and interpersonal stress might reduce the prevalence of these disorders substantially. Study registration number: NCT04556565

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the mental health of healthcare workers, yet studies in primary care workers are scarce. AimTo investigate the prevalence of and associated factors for psychological distress in primary care workers during the first COVID-19 outbreak. Design and settingThis was a multicentre, cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted in primary healthcare workers in Spain, between May and September 2020. Method Healthcare workers were invited to complete a survey to evaluate sociodemographic and work-related characteristics, COVID-19 infection status, exposure to patients with COVID-19, and resilience (using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), in addition to being screened for common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, and substance use disorder). Positive screening for any of these disorders was analysed globally using the term ‘any current mental disorder’. Results A total of 2928 primary care professionals participated in the survey. Of them, 43.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 41.9 to 45.4) tested positive for a current mental disorder. Female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, 95% CI = 1.25 to 2.06), having previous mental disorders (OR 2.58, 95% CI = 2.15 to 3.10), greater occupational exposure to patients with COVID-19 (OR 2.63, 95% CI = 1.98 to 3.51), having children or dependents (OR 1.35, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.76 and OR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.11, respectively), or having an administrative job (OR 2.24, 95% CI = 1.66 to 3.03) were associated with a higher risk of any current mental disorder. Personal resilience was shown to be a protective factor. Conclusion Almost half of primary care workers showed significant psychological distress. Strategies to support the mental health of primary care workers are necessary, including designing psychological support and resilience-building interventions based on risk factors identified

Background: Primary care plays a central role in the treatment of depression. Nonetheless, shortcomings in its management and suboptimal outcomes have been identified. Collaborative care models improve processes for the management of depressive disorders and associated outcomes. We developed a strategy to implement the INDI collaborative care program for the management of depression in primary health care centers across Catalonia. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate a trial implementation of the program to identify barriers, facilitators, and proposals for improvement.
Methods: One year after the implementation of the INDI program in 18 public primary health care centers we performed a qualitative study in which the opinions and experiences of 23 primary care doctors and nurses from the participating centers were explored in focus groups. We performed thematic content analysis of the focus group transcripts.
Results: The results were organized into three categories: facilitators, barriers, and proposals for improvement as perceived by the health care professionals involved. The most important facilitator identified was the perception that the INDI collaborative care program could be a useful tool for reorganizing processes and improving the management of depression in primary care, currently viewed as deficient. The main barriers identified were of an organizational nature: heavy workloads, lack of time, high staff turnover and shortages, and competing demands. Additional obstacles were inertia and resistance to change among health care professionals. Proposals for improvement included institutional buy-in to guarantee enduring support and the organizational changes needed for successful implementation.
Conclusions: The INDI program is perceived as a useful, viable program for improving the management of depression in primary care. Uptake by primary care centers and health care professionals, however, was poor. The identification and analysis of barriers and facilitators will help refine the strategy to achieve successful, widespread implementation.

In recent years, there has been an increase in studies evaluating the effectiveness of mental health literacy programs within the context of education as a universal, preventive intervention. A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of mental health literacy interventions in schools, from 2013 to the present, on mental health knowledge, stigma, and help-seeking is conducted. Of the 795 identified references, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Mental health knowledge increased after the interventions (standardized mean difference: SMD = 0.61; 95% CI (0.05, 0.74)), at two months (SMD = 0.60; 95% CI (0.4, 1.07)) and six months (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI (0.27, 0.51)). No significant differences were observed between stigma and improving help-seeking. Mental health literacy interventions are effective in augmenting mental health knowledge, but not in reducing stigma or improving help-seeking behavior.