Perinatal mental health service provision in Switzerland and the UK

Questions under study: The epidemiology of maternal perinatal-psychiatric disorders as well as their effect on the baby is well recognised. Increasingly well researched specialised treatment methods can reduce maternal morbidity, positively affect mother-baby bonding and empower women’s confidence as a mother. Here, we aimed to compare guidelines and the structure of perinatal-psychiatric service delivery in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland from the government’s perspective. Methods: Swiss cantons provided information regarding guidelines and structure of service delivery in 2000. A subsequent survey using the same questionnaire was carried out in 2007. In the UK, similar information was accessed through published reports from 2000-2012. Results: Guidelines for perinatal psychiatry exist in the UK, whereas in Switzerland in 2000 none of the 26 cantons had guidelines, and in 2007 only one canton did. Joint mother-baby admissions on general psychiatric wards were offered by 92% of the Swiss cantons. In the UK, pregnant women and joint mother-baby admissions are only advised onto specialised perinatal-psychiatric units. In Switzerland, in 2007, three specialised units (max. 24 beds) were in place corresponding to 1 unit per 2.5 million people, while in the UK there were 22 mother-baby units (168 beds) in 2012 (1 unit per 2.8 million). In the UK, less than 50% of trusts provided specialised perinatal-psychiatric health care. Conclusions: The main difference between the UK and Switzerland was the absence of guidelines, regular assessment and plans for future development of perinatal psychiatry in Switzerland. There are still geographical differences in the provision of perinatal-psychiatric services in the UK

Perinatal mental health service provision in Switzerland and in the UK.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY The epidemiology of maternal perinatal-psychiatric disorders as well as their effect on the baby is well recognised. Increasingly well researched specialised treatment methods can reduce maternal morbidity, positively affect mother-baby bonding and empower women's confidence as a mother. Here, we aimed to compare guidelines and the structure of perinatal-psychiatric service delivery in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland from the government's perspective. METHODS Swiss cantons provided information regarding guidelines and structure of service delivery in 2000. A subsequent survey using the same questionnaire was carried out in 2007. In the UK, similar information was accessed through published reports from 2000-2012. RESULTS Guidelines for perinatal psychiatry exist in the UK, whereas in Switzerland in 2000 none of the 26 cantons had guidelines, and in 2007 only one canton did. Joint mother-baby admissions on general psychiatric wards were offered by 92% of the Swiss cantons. In the UK, pregnant women and joint mother-baby admissions are only advised onto specialised perinatal-psychiatric units. In Switzerland, in 2007, three specialised units (max. 24 beds) were in place corresponding to 1 unit per 2.5 million people, while in the UK there were 22 mother-baby units (168 beds) in 2012 (1 unit per 2.8 million). In the UK, less than 50% of trusts provided specialised perinatal-psychiatric health care. CONCLUSIONS The main difference between the UK and Switzerland was the absence of guidelines, regular assessment and plans for future development of perinatal psychiatry in Switzerland. There are still geographical differences in the provision of perinatal-psychiatric services in the UK

Expression of antenatal symptoms of common mental disorders in The Gambia and the UK: a cross-sectional comparison study.

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: We would like to thank the women and clinicians in the antenatal clinics in the Gambia and at Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital in the UK. Thank you also to Pa Bakary Sonko and Charlotte Hanlon for their advice and support, Giles Partington for analysis advice and Jane Offerman for helping with administration.OBJECTIVES: It is important to be able to detect symptoms of common mental disorders (CMDs) in pregnant women. However, the expression of these disorders can differ across cultures and depend on the specific scale used. This study aimed to (a) compare Gambian pregnant women's responses to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Self-reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) and (b) compare responses to the EPDS in pregnant women in The Gambia and UK. DESIGN: This cross-sectional comparison study investigates Gambian EPDS and SRQ-20 scores through correlation between the two scales, score distributions, proportion of women with high levels of symptoms, and descriptive item analysis. Comparisons between the UK and Gambian EPDS scores were made by investigating score distributions, proportion of women with high levels of symptoms, and descriptive item analysis. SETTING: This study took place in The Gambia, West Africa and London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 221 pregnant women from The Gambia completed both the SRQ-20 and the EPDS; 368 pregnant women from the UK completed the EPDS. RESULTS: Gambian participants' EPDS and SRQ-20 scores were significantly moderately correlated (rs=0.6, p<0.001), had different distributions, 54% overall agreement, and different proportions of women identified as having high levels of symptoms (SRQ-20=42% vs EPDS=5% using highest cut-off score). UK participants had higher EPDS scores (M=6.5, 95% CI (6.1 to 6.9)) than Gambian participants (M=4.4, 95% CI (3.9 to 4.9)) (p<0.001, 95% CIs (-3.0 to -1.0), Cliff's delta = -0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in scores from Gambian pregnant women to the EPDS and SRQ-20 and the different EPDS responses between pregnant women in the UK and The Gambia further emphasise how methods and understanding around measuring perinatal mental health symptoms developed in Western countries need to be applied with care in other cultures.Cite Now

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use