Depression and anxiety among people living with and beyond cancer: a growing clinical and research priority

Background: A cancer diagnosis can have a substantial impact on mental health and wellbeing. Depression and anxiety may hinder cancer treatment and recovery, as well as quality of life and survival. We argue that more research is needed to prevent and treat co-morbid depression and anxiety among people with cancer and that it requires greater clinical priority. For background and to support our argument, we synthesise existing systematic reviews relating to cancer and common mental disorders, focusing on depression and anxiety. We searched several electronic databases for relevant reviews on cancer, depression and anxiety from 2012 to 2019. Several areas are covered: factors that may contribute to the development of common mental disorders among people with cancer; the prevalence of depression and anxiety; and potential care and treatment options. We also make several recommendations for future research. Numerous individual, psychological, social and contextual factors potentially contribute to the development of depression and anxiety among people with cancer, as well as characteristics related to the cancer and treatment received. Compared to the general population, the prevalence of depression and anxiety is often found to be higher among people with cancer, but estimates vary due to several factors, such as the treatment setting, type of cancer and time since diagnosis. Overall, there are a lack of high-quality studies into the mental health of people with cancer following treatment and among long-term survivors, particularly for the less prevalent cancer types and younger people. Studies that focus on prevention are minimal and research covering low- and middle-income populations is limited. Conclusion: Research is urgently needed into the possible impacts of long-term and late effects of cancer treatment on mental health and how these may be prevented, as increasing numbers of people live with and beyond cancer

The economic case for investing in the prevention of mental health conditions in the UK

This report provides an overview of the economic case for the prevention of mental health conditions. To do this, we first estimated the societal costs of living with mental health conditions in the UK in 2019 and then reviewed what is known about the cost-effectiveness of wellevidenced actions to prevent these mental health conditions. To estimate costs, we used a prevalencebased costing approach. This measures the number of people living with mental health conditions over a specific short time period (usually one year) and estimates the average costs associated with these conditions over this time period. Our prevalencebased costing model makes use of data on prevalence from the 2019 Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. The GBD study quantifies the impact of all health conditions, both infectious and non-communicable, including mental health conditions, as well as the impacts on injury, including intentional self-harm. As part of the study, the GBD systematically searches for and assesses mental health surveys around the globe. To allow for comparability in measurement, case definitions used by GBD predominantly adhered to international diagnostic criteria guidance, either the DSM-IV-TR, mainly used in the United States or the ICD-10 criteria used mainly elsewhere, as these are used by the majority of mental health surveys included in the GBD. The GBD study estimates are periodically updated, apply a common methodology, are subject to peer review, and are routinely used by the World Health Organization (WHO) when looking at the global impact of mental health conditions. Furthermore, GBD estimates are provided separately for all four nations of the UK, as well as at English Region level. These estimates are conservative, as the GBD does not include the impact of sub-diagnostic threshold mental health conditions, as well as risk factors such as undue stress which do not fit into diagnostic criteria, all of which will also have economic costs. We included 11 of 12 broad categories of mental disorder meeting diagnosable thresholds used in the GBD1. These were depressive disorders (major depressive disorder and dysthymia), anxiety disorders, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), eating disorders (anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa), and a final category of other mental disorders (which mainly covers personality disorders). A detailed list of conditions is listed in Table A-2 in the appendix. We excluded the idiopathic intellectual disabilities category in the GBD. Neurological conditions such as dementia, as well as alcohol and substance use disorders, are not included. Although not all intentional self-harm is linked with a mental health condition, we also separately provide an estimate of the health and intangible costs associated with intentional self-harm, including suicide, reported in the GBD. All costs are calculated and reported in 2020 pounds sterling

Perspectives: Dementia education in Higher Education Institutions, now and in the future: the role of the professional regulatory bodies in the UK

Dementia is a global challenge and educating and upskilling the workforce is a policy imperative. A World Health Organisation priority area is the development of dementia knowledge and skills amongst health and social care professionals. The European Parliament has called for European countries to develop action plans and create common guidelines to provide education and training to professionals caring for people with dementia and their family caregivers. The inconsistencies and gaps in dementia education have been repeatedly highlighted internationally as well as in the United Kingdom (UK); this is despite the four home nations having voluntary frameworks and guidelines for dementia education. This perspectives article on dementia education is written by representatives of the Higher Education Dementia Network (HEDN), a well-established group of academics involved in dementia education and research in over 65 Higher Education Institutions across the UK. HEDN works collaboratively with Dementia UK to promote consistent, high quality dementia education and share best practice. At HEDN we believe that reference to the knowledge and skills frameworks of the four nations within Professional Regulatory Body (PRB) requirements would ensure a more rigorous and consistent approach to dementia education across the UK. Reference to the Frameworks would support their adoption as a required and monitored sector minimum standard across professional boundaries. HEDN therefore recommends that application of the knowledge and skills within these frameworks becomes a requirement for (re)validation/approval of relevant health, social and housing professional programmes. In this article we explain the rationale behind the recommendations made by HEDN and the implications for PRBs and Higher Education Institutions

MVP Implementation Interviews : Final Report

This report presents evidence from a small-scale qualitative research project which took place between January 2021 and November 2021. The project was designed to investigate the facilitators and barriers to implementing the Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) Scotland. This report provides some background on these issues before reporting on the main results and drawing conclusions

Dementia education in Higher Education Institutions, now and in the future: the role of the professional regulatory bodies in the UK

Dementia is a global challenge and educating and upskilling the workforce is a policy imperative. A World Health Organisation priority area is the development of dementia knowledge and skills amongst health and social care professionals. The European Parliament has called for European countries to develop action plans and create common guidelines to provide education and training to professionals caring for people with dementia and their family caregivers. The inconsistencies and gaps in dementia education have been repeatedly highlighted internationally as well as in the United Kingdom (UK); this is despite the four home nations having voluntary frameworks and guidelines for dementia education. This perspectives article on dementia education is written by representatives of the Higher Education Dementia Network (HEDN), a well-established group of academics involved in dementia education and research in over 65 Higher Education Institutions across the UK. HEDN works collaboratively with Dementia UK to promote consistent, high quality dementia education and share best practice. At HEDN we believe that reference to the knowledge and skills frameworks of the four nations within Professional Regulatory Body (PRB) requirements would ensure a more rigorous and consistent approach to dementia education across the UK. Reference to the Frameworks would support their adoption as a required and monitored sector minimum standard across professional boundaries. HEDN therefore recommends that application of the knowledge and skills within these frameworks becomes a requirement for (re)validation/approval of relevant health, social and housing professional programmes. In this article we explain the rationale behind the recommendations made by HEDN and the implications for PRBs and Higher Education Institutions

The Economic Case for Investing in the Prevention of Mental Health Conditions in the UK

This report provides an overview of the economic case for the prevention of mental health conditions. To do this, we first estimated the societal costs of living with mental health conditions in the UK in 2019 and then reviewed what is known about the cost-effectiveness of wellevidenced actions to prevent these mental health conditions. To estimate costs, we used a prevalencebased costing approach. This measures the number of people living with mental health conditions over a specific short time period (usually one year) and estimates the average costs associated with these conditions over this time period. Our prevalencebased costing model makes use of data on prevalence from the 2019 Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. The GBD study quantifies the impact of all health conditions, both infectious and non-communicable, including mental health conditions, as well as the impacts on injury, including intentional self-harm. As part of the study, the GBD systematically searches for and assesses mental health surveys around the globe. To allow for comparability in measurement, case definitions used by GBD predominantly adhered to international diagnostic criteria guidance, either the DSM-IV-TR, mainly used in the United States or the ICD-10 criteria used mainly elsewhere, as these are used by the majority of mental health surveys included in the GBD. The GBD study estimates are periodically updated, apply a common methodology, are subject to peer review, and are routinely used by the World Health Organization (WHO) when looking at the global impact of mental health conditions. Furthermore, GBD estimates are provided separately for all four nations of the UK, as well as at English Region level. These estimates are conservative, as the GBD does not include the impact of sub-diagnostic threshold mental health conditions, as well as risk factors such as undue stress which do not fit into diagnostic criteria, all of which will also have economic costs. We included 11 of 12 broad categories of mental disorder meeting diagnosable thresholds used in the GBD1. These were depressive disorders (major depressive disorder and dysthymia), anxiety disorders, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), eating disorders (anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa), and a final category of other mental disorders (which mainly covers personality disorders). A detailed list of conditions is listed in Table A-2 in the appendix. We excluded the idiopathic intellectual disabilities category in the GBD. Neurological conditions such as dementia, as well as alcohol and substance use disorders, are not included. Although not all intentional self-harm is linked with a mental health condition, we also separately provide an estimate of the health and intangible costs associated with intentional self-harm, including suicide, reported in the GBD. All costs are calculated and reported in 2020 pounds sterling