Gender differences in structural and attitudinal barriers to mental healthcare in UK Armed Forces personnel and veterans with self-reported mental health problems

Purpose: Structural and attitudinal barriers often hinder treatment-seeking for mental health problems among members of the Armed Forces. However, little is known about potential gender differences in structural and attitudinal barriers among members of the UK Armed Forces. The current study aimed to explore how men and women differ in terms of these barriers to care among a sample of UK Armed Forces personnel and veterans with self-reported mental health problems. Methods: Currently serving and ex-serving members of the UK Armed Forces who self-reported a mental health problem were invited to participate in a semi-structured phone interview on mental health and treatment-seeking. The final sample included 1448 participants (1229 men and 219 women). All participants reported on their current mental health, public stigma, self-stigma, and barriers to mental healthcare. Results: Overall, men and women reported similar levels of both structural and attitudinal barriers, with no significant differences detected. The highest scores for both men and women were observed in attitudinal barriers relating to self-stigma domains, which encapsulate internalised attitudes and beliefs about mental illness and treatment. Conclusions: Findings suggest that anti-stigma campaigns can be targeted simultaneously at both men and women within the Armed Forces. In particular, targeting self-stigma may be beneficial for health promotion campaigns

'You get looked at like you're failing': A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff

Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) are under considerable strain, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. We interviewed 48 healthcare workers from 18 NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking, such as manager training and peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours, but this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. METHODS: We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. FINDINGS: The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL

Factors associated with unintended weight change in the UK Armed Forces: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with self-reported unintended weight change in (ex-) military personnel of the UK Armed Forces. DESIGN: A cohort study whereby a self-report questionnaire was administered at baseline (2003–2005) and follow-up (2007–2009). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6352 former and serving military personnel of the UK Armed Forces. SETTING: United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Personnel were asked about socio-demographic, military and (mental) health characteristics, including screening measures for common mental health disorders. Further, participants were asked to report unintended weight fluctuations (none, < or > than 10 lbs in the past month). Multinomial regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with self-reported weight change at follow-up. RESULTS: Out of the 6352 former and serving military personnel, 123 (2.1%) reported unintended weight loss and 577 (9.0%) reported unintended weight gain in the past month. At follow-up, multivariable analyses indicated that unintended weight loss or weight gain was more likely to be reported by those who screened positive for mental health problems and those reporting weight changes at baseline. Reported weight loss was more common among smokers than non-smokers, whereas reported weight gain at follow-up was associated with having a higher BMI at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: At follow-up, self-reported unintended weight changes in former and serving military personnel of the UK Armed Forces were found to be associated with mental health problems, body mass index, smoking and self-reported weight changes at baseline

Moral Injuries in Healthcare Workers: What Causes Them and What to Do About Them?

Moral injury (MI) refers to the persisting distress which may occur following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to MI in healthcare workers, who have been found to experience more frequent PMIEs in their day-to-day work than those in other occupational groups such as the military. These events may occur on an individual, team, organizational or system level and have been associated with increased clinician burnout and distress, and poor psychological wellbeing. This paper focuses on healthcare workers’ experiences of MI, including potential causes and ways to reduce them. There are myriad challenges that influence the development of MI, such as chronic understaffing and the pressure to treat high numbers of patients with limited resources. There are also multiple impacts of MI: at the individual-level, MI can lead to increased staff absences and understaffing, and prolonged patient contact with limited decision-making power. COVID-19 exacerbated such impacts, with a lack of organizational support during a time of increased patient mortality, and uncertainty and heightened pressure on the clinical frontline associated with scarce resources and understaffing. Potential methods for reduction of MI in healthcare workers include pre-exposure mitigation, such as fostering work environments which treat PMIEs in the same way as other occupational hazards and post-exposure mitigation, such as facilitating healthcare workers to process their experiences of PMIEs in peer support groups or with spiritual advisors and, if MI is associated with mental ill-health, talking therapies using trauma-focused and compassion-oriented frameworks

Do serving and ex-serving personnel of the UK armed forces seek help for perceived stress, emotional or mental health problems?

Background: UK armed forces personnel are at risk of occupational psychological injury; they are often reluctant to seek help for such problems. Objective: We aimed to examine and describe sources of support, prevalence and associates of help-seeking among UK serving and ex-serving personnel. Method: A total of 1450 participants who self-reported a stress, emotional or mental health problem in the past 3 years were sampled from a health and wellbeing study and subsequently completed a telephone interview comprising measures of mental disorder symptoms, alcohol misuse and help-seeking behaviour. Results: Seven per cent of participants had not sought any help, 55% had accessed medical sources of support (general practitioner or mental health specialist), 46% had received formal non-medical (welfare) support and 86% had used informal support. Gender, age, perceived health, functional impairment, social support, deployment, alcohol and comorbidity impacted upon the choice of help source. Conclusions: This study found that the majority of those with perceived mental health problems sought some form of help, with over half using formal medical sources of support

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053221140255 – Supplemental material for ‘You get looked at like you’re failing’: A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053221140255 for ‘You get looked at like you’re failing’: A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff by Corinne Clarkson, Hannah R Scott, Siobhan Hegarty, Emilia Souliou, Rupa Bhundia, Sam Gnanapragasam, Mary Jane Docherty, Rosalind Raine, Sharon AM Stevelink, Neil Greenberg, Matthew Hotopf, Simon Wessely, Ira Madan, Anne Marie Rafferty and Danielle Lamb in Journal of Health Psychology</p