Skip to main content
Download PDF

Changes in mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: a rapid review

BMC Psychiatry volume 24, Article number: 103 (2024) Cite this article

Background

Severe deterioration in mental health and disrupted care provision during the COVID-19 increased unmet needs for mental health. This review aimed to identify changes in mental health services for patients in response to the pandemic and understand the impact of the changes on patients and providers.

Methods

Following the Cochrane guidance for rapid reviews, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo were searched for empirical studies that investigated models of care, services, initiatives or programmes developed/evolved for patients receiving mental health care during COVID-19, published in English and undertaken in high-income countries. Thematic analysis was conducted to describe the changes and an effect direction plot was used to show impact on outcomes.

Results

33 of 6969 records identified were included reporting on patients’ experiences (n = 24), care providers’ experiences (n = 7) and mixed of both (n = 2). Changes reported included technology-based care delivery, accessibility, flexibility, remote diagnostics and evaluation, privacy, safety and operating hours of service provision. These changes had impacts on: (1) care access; (2) satisfaction with telehealth; (3) comparability of telehealth with face-to-face care; (4) treatment effectiveness; (5) continuity of care; (6) relationships between patients and care providers; (7) remote detection and diagnostics in patients; (8) privacy; (9) treatment length and (10) work-life balance.

Conclusions

A shift to telecommunication technologies had a significant impact on patients and care providers’ experiences of mental health care. Improvements to care access, flexibility, remote forms of care delivery and lengths of operating service hours emerged as crucial changes, which supported accessibility to mental health services, increased attendance and reduced dropouts from care. The relationships between patients and care providers were influenced by service changes and were vastly depending on technological literacy and context of patients and availability and care access ranging from regular contact to a loss of in-person contact. The review also identified an increase in care inequality and a feeling of being disconnected among marginalised groups including homeless people, veterans and ethic minority groups. Telehealth in mental care could be a viable alternative to face-to-face service delivery with effective treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of the changes identified particularly on underserved populations.

Peer Review reports

Background

The outbreak of Covid-19 resulted in the implementation of extensive infection control measures worldwide. National and subsequent local lockdown measures were imposed by the UK government during which the public was instructed to stay at home, socially distance and self-isolate with strict guidance about movement outside one’s household [1]. During this period of restrictions and beyond, there was a severe deterioration in mental health [2, 3]. The prevalence of mental health symptoms increased in previously healthy people with an additional 5.8% of adults in the UK reporting clinically significant levels of psychological distress [4] and increases in depression, anxiety and traumatic stress [5]. Individuals already experiencing mental health issues reported worsening symptoms with 65% of adults with mental health conditions surveyed reporting that their mental health deteriorated during this time [6, 7]. It was predicted that the mental health impact of the pandemic and associated lockdown measures would lead to additional mental health support needs for 10 million individuals in the UK, around 20% of the population which was expected to exceed the capacity of the NHS by 2–3 times in a 3–5 year window [8].

This increase in demand for essential mental health services was coupled with severe disruption to mental health care provision [9, 10]. To abide by infection control measures, mental health service providers were required to adapt their service provision [6]. Many service providers made changes such as ceasing or reducing face-to-face appointments, offering remote treatment sessions and altering their operating hours [9]. These alterations to care were recognised as having the potential to be disproportionately detrimental to those living with mental health conditions prior to the pandemic as well as those with newly developed mental health issues [11]. Difficulties attending review appointments in person and closure of support services were likely to impact all those in, or in need of, active treatment [12]. For example, those with worsening pre-existing mental health conditions who encountered poor access to services reported experiencing relapse and suicidal behaviour [6] and adults with mental health conditions identified that disruptions to health services were impacting their mental health trajectory [13].

The consequences of lockdown restrictions on those with pre-existing mental health conditions were further compounded as these individuals experienced disproportionately worse mental health during the pandemic [13]. This group were more likely to report steady deterioration of their mental health or very poor mental health compared to adults without existing mental health conditions [14]. Similarly, people with severe mental health illnesses faced significant health inequalities which were exacerbated and further entrenched by the unequal impacts of COVID-19 such as digital exclusion [15].

In addition to this, mental health services failed to meet the increased demand for support and treatment during this time, increasing the mental health prevention and care provision gap that existed prior to the pandemic [16].

The UK National Health Service (NHS) has set up a long-term plan to address this gap in mental health care service provision which is widely regarded as being under-resourced [17]. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased awareness of mental health issues, further highlighted these mental health service inadequacies, and has altered mental health service provision [6, 18]. As such, the pandemic offers an opportunity to rethink conventional approaches to mental health services. Learning from service changes throughout the pandemic and the consequences for care recipients and providers is vital to inform practical policy solutions for integrated service recovery and effectively plan services that reach those with the greatest need.

To date, no review has synthesised the available evidence relating to these service alterations for adult patients. As such, the overall aim of this review is to: (1) identify changes in mental health service provision for adult patients in response to the pandemic and (2) understand the impact of the changes on both patients and service providers.

Method

This rapid review (protocol published [19], PROSPERO registration number CRD42022306923) is part of a larger mixed method study (protocol published [20] aiming to establish culturally competent mental health services which also consists of an observational study of routinely collected primary and secondary care data, qualitative interviews with service users from ethnic minority backgrounds, and a Delphi study to establish consensus on core service provision.

The rapid review was guided by the Cochrane guidance for rapid review (Cochrane, 2020) PRISMA statement [21]. Feedback and comments were actively sought from the project advisory group who met twice a year to inform the design and delivery of this review. Patient and public members helped identify the key terms and phrases used in the search strategy and were presented with steps undertaken and preliminary findings.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible if they reported operational changes in mental health services such as new models of care/services, initiatives, adaption/expansion of existing services or changes in service delivery model in response to COVID-19 to provide support for patients aged 18 and over, published in the English language from January 2019 to present. All empirical studies, regardless of study design, conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country [22] (to ensure a degree of commonality in health system and socioeconomic and demographic context) were eligible for inclusion. We did not include grey literature, editorial commentaries, protocols or conference abstracts, views of the general public and letter of opinion to peer-review journals.

Search strategy

We searched four electronic databases including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo using a range of keywords and subject headings validated by the information specialist representing COVID-19, mental health and OECD countries described in a Supplementary file 1. Searches were carried out in August 2022.

Selection process

All records were exported to Rayyan [23], an online tool for review screening, for deduplication. All were screened by two reviewers (ES, AT) by title first followed by abstract if unsure. There was a 98% agreement rate. Where it was unclear based on title and abstract, the full texts were retrieved. Following the screening of titles and abstracts, full papers were retrieved and assessed for inclusion independently against the eligibility criteria by ES and AT. Where there was disagreement or uncertainty, studies were retrieved through consensus discussion with the research team.

Data extraction

Data extraction was carried out using two forms: one developed for mental health patients and one for care providers. ES and AT independently piloted the data extraction forms on a sample of four studies with different study designs. Extracted data included geographical location; population group; study design, methodology; description of mental health service provision prior to COVID-19; changes in service during COVID-19; experiences of service change and impacts and outcomes reported.

All remaining data extraction was conducted by ES and verified and appraised by the team through regular reflexive meetings. Studies included were scrutinised to ensure all relevant data were captured and extracted as appropriate. The review process did not incorporate an assessment of risk of bias as per protocol [19]. To ensure quality assessment a tabulated and narrative synthesis was conducted. This approach allowed to report and discuss the results of the included studies in accordance with best practice guidance [24,25,26].

Data synthesis

Guided by transparent and reproducible evidence synthesis we selected thematic and tabulated analysis of the data [24, 25, 27]. First, thematic analysis was selected to allow considerable latitude to reviewers and enabled the analysis of findings from both qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies [28]. Using this approach, we familiarised ourselves with the completed data extraction forms and inductively generated themes. Thematic analysis of each study was carried out to sort the findings into conceptual categories and groups.

Secondly, findings from the included studies were synthesised using tables and a narrative summary to report changes identified and their impacts reported as per protocol following current best practice to conduct synthesis systematically and transparently [24, 25, 29]. Meta-analysis was not possible because the included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the populations, study designs, methods and outcomes reported. Instead, we used effect direction following the Cochrane guidance [30] which allowed us to tabulate the reported heterogeneous changes in services and access the complex set of multiple outcomes. We applied the developed effect direction plot method with some adaptation to the characteristics of our research [30, 31]. A visual representation with arrows demonstrated the effect direction reported where ▲ was seen as an improvement in the outcome; ▼ was a deterioration in outcome and ◀▶ was no change. Due to a variety of study designs included, pooled analysis was not deemed appropriate, therefore we did not indicate study size and statistical significance.

Results

Search results

A total of 6969 records were screened and 42 were assessed potentially eligible based on title and abstract. Of these, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. A PRISMA flow chart is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram demonstrating search strategy

Full size image

Study characteristics

Of the 33 studies included, 13 were quantitative, 12 were qualitative, 5 reported case studies, 2 were RCT, 2 were descriptive and 1 used mixed methods. The majority of studies focused on mental health patients (n = 24) followed by mental health service providers (n = 7) or both (n = 2). Nineteen of the studies were conducted in the US, and the rest were in the UK (n = 4), EU countries (n = 6, Ireland (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), Spain (n = 1), Austria (n = 1) and the Netherlands (n = 1), Canada (n = 3) and Japan (n = 1). Table 1 provides an overview of the included studies.

Table 1 Study characteristics table
Full size table

There was a high level of diversity of study populations included. The majority of studies (n = 23) were undertaken with a wide range of service users and staff including: general population [33, 40], patients with psychiatric disorder [31, 35, 54], patients with social anxiety disorder [38, 46, 56], patients with substance abuse disorder [37, 48, 61], patients with serious mental health illnesses (SMI) [31, 34,35,36, 40,41,42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 58, 59], and the rest of 10 studies had a narrow and specific focus on homeless people [32], prison inmates [39], patients in psychiatric centres [42], veterans [43, 47, 63], patients of specific treatment units or clinics (a tertiary care anxiety disorders clinic [45], (The Salamanca Psychiatry Department [49], patients at risk of suicide [60] and acute psychiatric patients who require a higher level of care [53]. Several studies included various groups of patients or focus of care provision (for example: a study includes patients with SMI and substance abuse disorder [37].

Changes in services reported

Most studies reported a transition of service delivery from in-person to a range of telehealth (n = 29) with only four studies reporting a hybrid method of service delivery. The most common teleconference method was through video calls (n = 15), multiple sources of contact through video, phone, texts, emails and electronic health consultations (n = 5), telephone (n = 5), both telephone and video calls (n = 4), face-to-face and phone or videoconferencing (n = 2), text messaging (n = 1) and use of immersive virtual reality reminiscence (n = 1).

The changes in mental health services were grouped into seven categories based on the description of key adjustments in service delivery and provision in response to COVID-19. They related to technological support when using or delivering care, accessibility and flexibility to services, remote diagnostics and assessment, privacy of patients and care providers, safety measures and operating hours of services (Table 2).

Table 2 Changes identified in mental health services table
Full size table

The changes in services in this study are found to focus on the procedural mechanisms of care delivery which influenced ways of service delivery (from face-to-face care delivery to telehealth or mixed), longevity of service delivery (reduction or increase of operating hours), characteristics of service delivery (flexibility/accessibility/privacy/safety). Despite the changes often being an ad-hoc response to lockdown restrictions, it produced diverse and diametrical impacts on both service users and staff. Studies have reported mixed experiences of receiving care remotely in a diverse range of service users. For example, service users who were homeless could not access the services and did not feel that their safety or privacy were maintained when using the services remotely [32]. The existing pre-pandemic research did not identify any specific groups of patients who experienced deterioration in access of telehealth and broadly referred to them as patients who live in isolated areas or those “wanting total anonymity for personal reasons” [64]. Conversely, new emergency contact line which was available 24/7 enabled more accessibility in service provision [36]. Combined with a variety of clinical settings (e.g. inpatient or outpatient care, closed units such as prison settings), models of service delivery (e.g. intensive compulsory therapy, optional regular text messages, voluntary group therapy), diversity of characteristics and sociodemographic factors of service users and staff specialities, evidence has been limited in the effectiveness and feasiblity of remote care implemented throughout the current health system, which is consistent with mixed impacts identified in this review. The existing evidence on use telemental health in pre-pandemic settings goes in line with some of our findings. Accessibility is found as the central feature of telemental health for the predominant number of patients which is supported by high satisfactory rates [64]. Among other changes, the existing literature reported cost implications [64] which was not identified in the current review.

Outcomes reported

Ten outcomes domains were reported including (1) care access; (2) satisfaction with telehealth; (3) comparability of telehealth with face-to-face care; (4) treatment effectiveness; (5) continuity of care; (6) relationships between patients and care providers (includes relationships and interactions between patients and care providers); (7) remote detection and diagnostics in patients; (8) privacy; (9) treatment length and (10) work-life balance. The most common three outcome areas reported in the included studies were access to services, satisfaction with telehealth and comparability of telehealth with face-to-face care. Table 3 demonstrates a list of outcomes reported followed by examples of positive and negative outcomes.

Table 3 Outcomes Identified after changes implemented in mental health services table
Full size table

Impact of changes

The effect direction plot (Fig. 2) was developed to visualise how the changes in mental health services impacted the experiences and outcomes reported in the included studies.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effect direction plot of impact of changes in mental health service delivery on care providers and patients [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]

Full size image

The effect direction plot illustrates a diversity of outcomes and often diametrically different experiences. Although the impact and experiences were very mixed across all of the included studies, there were two categories which demonstrated solemnly positive impact. It included improvement in stress management when accessing care and positive experiences of remote detection and diagnostics in patients.

Changes in flexibility, accessibility, operating hours of service delivery and methods of care delivery improved care access and reduced stress in accessing care [31, 33, 35, 37,38,39,40, 42, 46, 49,50,51, 56, 61, 62]. This was driven by four changes in service delivery including increased flexibility of service delivery, removing barriers to accessing care, positive changes in operating hours and care delivery via technology. Patients reported easier access (for example: [31, 35] less congested waiting rooms [39] and an increased likelihood of receiving same-day primary care compared to before the pandemic [43]. Appreciation of receiving support along with reducing risks of getting COVID-19 was also seen as an important feature of remote accessibility.

Remote diagnostics and assessment were reported in three studies where patients experienced improvement in accessing assessment services [31, 36, 42].

Conversely, three studies [32, 44, 58] reported reduced hours of service provision, lack of private space for meetings, absence of appropriate equipment and internet connection, and lack of IT skills, resulting in difficulties in receiving treatment. Although support was provided such as IT training and equipment provision, it was not always perceived as inclusive and feasible (for example: homeless [27], veterans [43] and elderly [52] did not have any access or skills to use technology [32]. It was also highlighted that Women and Black veterans were less represented among telehealth services when compared to in-person appointments [43].

Twelve papers found positive outcomes in patients’ continuity of care and extended length of care use [34, 35, 38, 42, 45, 47,48,49, 53, 54, 58, 62]. Seven studies related positive outcomes of remaining in care to improved accessibility to care [34, 35, 47, 53, 54, 58, 62] including technology-based care delivery and flexibility of care by both care users and care providers [58, 62].

Patients and clinicians were able to increase hours of care provision due to improved capacity for delivering mental health services [38, 45, 53, 54].

Eight studies showed no significant changes in treatment outcomes between face-to-face and remote care delivery [37, 38, 47,48,49, 52,53,54]. Five studies reported that remote diagnostics and evaluation, accessibility to services, privacy of care providers, safety of patients and care delivery mode via technology contributed to improvements in patient’s mental well-being [31, 33, 45, 46, 60].

Relationships between patients and care providers were influenced by changes in the mode of care delivery. Five studies reported negative outcomes of having remote care due to the transition to telehealth [31, 32, 42, 55, 56]. Care providers reported that changes in service delivery mode together with changes in privacy and remote diagnostics positively impacted their relationships with patients and were seen as a comfortable way of providing care [58, 59, 61, 63]. An included study [59] found that 70% of service providers felt that video appointments were the same or even better than in-person appointments.

Remote diagnostics and assessment were reported to be an effective approach to evaluate patients’ conditions [31, 33, 37,38,39,40, 58, 59, 66]. In addition to standardised assessment procedures, evaluation could also include such beneficial factors as real-time observations of home environment of a patient. As a negative impact, a fear of missing subtle signs of body language, nonverbal cues or physical signs of disease was seen as a possible barrier to using remote diagnostics [67].

A small number of studies reported that the privacy of patients and care providers was impacted by care delivered remotely. Lack of private and quiet spaces for an appointment, confidentiality challenges and inability to identify acute stress and agitation were all seen as barriers to maintaining private and safe care provision. One study reported improved experiences in privacy among care providers due to the transition to telehealth [32]. A combination of changes in privacy, safety and mode of care delivery all contributed positively privacy of patients. Three studies with patients [32, 35, 44] highlighted that changes in services delivered remotely jeopardised patients’ privacy due to the lack of private space for receiving care for patients.

Twenty-one studies [31, 35, 37,38,39,40,41,42, 44, 49, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] reported patients’ and care providers satisfaction with care delivered in a remote format (patients = 15 studies; care providers = 6 studies). Twelve studies demonstrated high satisfaction rates among patients and care providers highlighting that the care delivered was of appropriate standard followed by positive overall experiences [31, 37, 39,40,41, 52, 56, 58,59,60,61,62]. Changes in service delivery mode via technology, accessibility and flexibility contributed to patients’ care satisfaction. Nine studies reported no differences in mixed satisfaction in experiences compared to pre-pandemic depending on individual circumstances.

Fourteen studies reported their assessment of service comparability [32, 38, 45, 47,48,49, 51,52,53,54, 57, 59, 60, 62]. Four reported preferences for telehealth compared to face-to-face provision [45, 51, 59, 62] due to remote care delivery method and accessibility to services. Nine studies suggested no difference [38, 47,48,49, 52,53,54, 57], and one study showed a preference for face-to-face care [32].

Discussion

Key findings

As a response to COVID-19, mental health services faced immediate challenges and opportunities to adapt the delivery of service provision underpinned by the need of increased physical distancing [68]. This often included telehealth referring to telemental health, telepsychiatry, teletherapy, or telepsychology [68]. Although telehealth has been in use for several decades, it has often been optional and has never been followed by a context of pressing and increased need for mental health services from wider population.

In the context of national reliance on mental health services’ transition to new safe formats of care delivery,, the review aimed to synthesise the changes to mental health services in response to COVID-19 and the impact of those changes. It identified changes to service delivery mainly from face-to-face provision to telehealth formats, primarily delivered through telecommunication technologies and videoconferencing supported by phone calls, text messages and hybrid modes of service provision. The service users in the included studies presented a range of population groups from broad catergories (general population, individuals with MCI or SMI) to narrow groups (veterans, prison inmates, eldery, homeless people, people at risk of suicide or at higher level of care). The existing research found that telemental health was predominantly used by women [69]. This has not been identified in our review due to lack of information on gender in included samples.

During a significant shift to telehealth the key changes in services included the transition to remote forms of care followed by technical aspects of using equipment among different patient populations, accessibility and flexibility of services, practicalities of diagnosing mental health conditions remotely, safety measures and privacy of remote services. Accessibility and flexibility were often identified as positive changes by a broad range of service users and care providers. The accessibility issue has also been evidenced in pre-pandemic use of telehealth where treatment facilities would otherwise be not available for underserved areas [70]. For some specific groups of patients (homeless people, current and ex-substance users) who heavily relied on mental health services providing space for therapy, accessibility was jeopardised by limited availability of safe and private space for remote meetings.

Where the operating hours of service delivery were increased either by introducing a new on-call member of care providers or opening a 24/7 emergency phone line, patients were also satisfied by the change. Conversely, in one patients’ group of homeless people operating hours were reduced which had a negative impact on their treatment. Implementation of remote mental health services was hindered by a series of barriers including identification of appropriate equipment, use of suitable applications and identification of telehealth strategies which would be patient-friendly and cost-effective. All of the mentioned features of telehealth require additional education for both patients and care providers which is also evident in other research [71,72,73,74,75]. Where remote diagnostics was introduced, it appeared as a useful element to maintain assessment of patients’ state and conditions whilst following COVID-19 lockdown regulations. Remote assessment was particularly effective in advancing severe mental illness including schizophrenia-spectrum disorders [76]. Our review demonstrates a variety of different patient groups including the general population who had digital evaluation applied successfully. Although changes in privacy and safety were rarely mentioned in included studies, they caused a lot of concern among both patients and care providers. It was suggested that specifics of maintaining privacy and safety during telehealth required training, awareness and knowledge which was not often possible due to limited resources and time.

The review demonstrated that experiences and outcomes for patients and care providers were mixed and influenced by the telehealth changes identified. Experiences related to care access, care effectiveness, continuity of care use, relationships between care providers and patients, privacy and remote diagnostics were reported. The strong interconnections between telemental health changes and their impact on patients’ and service providers’ experiences of care were also echoed in pre-, during and post- pandemic studies demonstrating varied outcomes [68, 74]. For example, the previous research found that telephone services were the most affordable and easily accessible form of care in comparison with other ways including face-to-face services [68]. However, the study also indicated strong preference of patients to use videoconferencing over telephone-based services which raised a dilemma of most effective service modality. In contrast our review did not identify clear connections of service mode and experiences of accessibility of patients. Instead, access to care was shaped and supported by changes in flexibility, accessibility, operating hours of service delivery and digital methods of care delivery and was improved in nearly half of the included studies. This validates other studies [77, 78] demonstrating that accessibility and flexibility are significant cues to attend telehealth treatment despite the absence of face-to-face appointments. Not only were opportunities to reach care affected, stress levels of patients were also impacted. Where mental health services could not accommodate easy access to treatment and its round-the-clock availability and had to reduce hours of service provision, patients reported negative mental well-being.

The evidence on mental health interventions and service changes has focused on increasing attendance and reducing non-attendance of patients [79]. This was echoed in this review that changes in improved access and flexibility of care were able to accommodate extended treatment length and reduced the number of dropouts from care.

Mixed interpersonal relationships between patients and care providers were identified by a rapid shift to telehealth. The existing pre-pandemic research suggested that the relationships between patients and care providers need to maintain a subtle balance between in-person and remote interactions to avoid risk of losing and openness [80]. In contrast to gradual transition to telehealth [81], a critical factor in a balanced care provision between in-person and remote care, a rapid shift to virtualization of both patients and care providers identified in this review subsequently led to some negative impact on patient-care provider relationships.

Positive outcomes in relationships which were reported by care providers were associated with accessible and regular appointments often easier to achieve in digital care as opposed to face-to-face provision. Conversely, due to care providers’ turnover patients experienced disjoined care. The pre-pandemic research reported that telehealth was “manageable” for patients when they received support from a care team they previously met face-to-face [82]. Our findings showed that rapid changes in staff in delivering telehealth often resulted in care provision by someone a patient did not know or met, leading to discontinuity of care.

Telemental health was considered to be “unquestionably effective” across many population [64] pre-pandemic and consistently useful in reduction of severe sysmptoms in patients with SMI [83]. The more recent research focusing on effectiveness of telemental health referred it as “not inferior to face-to-face services” [84] and found it to be a feasible mode of treatment and equally acceptable when compared with face-to-face services [68, 85,86,87]. In this review, although the predominant number of studies suggests that remote mental health care is a viable alternative to face-to-face service delivery with associated improved treatment outcomes we cannot draw the conclusion that telemental health is a desiarable form of mental health services due to heterogenious accessibility, privacy, safety and flexibility needs of patients. By synthesising the available evidence and a mixed range of population groups, patients’ mental health conditions, experiences and treatment arrangements in the included studies, it is important to consider the individual circumstances and patients’ needs when telehealth is applied.

Limitations

This rapid review was designed and reported following recommendations by the Cochrane guidance for rapid reviews. A review protocol was designed and published [19]. A rapid yet thorough search of multiple databases was conducted. Despite the rigorous search, screening, and analysis process, we acknowledge the existence of some limitations of this study. Firstly, grey literature was not searched which may provide an important forum for disseminating studies that might otherwise not be disseminated. However we aimed to draw on conclusions based at rigorously designed and conducted studies but no all grey literature is subject to a similarly rigorous pre-publication review process [88]. Second, the selection criteria for this review centred on studies in English and limited to OECD countries to ensure a degree of commonality in context. In addition, a formal risk of bias assessment was not undertaken due to the design being a rapid review. However, this is the first rapid review addressing what and how mental health service changes impacted patients’ and care providers' outcomes during COVID-1.

Conclusion

In this rapid review, we have reported changes in mental health services and patients and care providers’ outcomes which occurred in response to COVID-19 restrictions. A key finding of the review is the interconnection between changes in services and outcomes of patients and care providers. Changes in access to care, flexibility, hours of service provision and remote forms of telehealth in response to COVID-19 in mental health services could affect health outcomes and care experiences. Telehealth was perceived as an equally feasible mode of service delivery compared to face-to-face care and is argued to augment mental health care provision. A certain focus needs to be put on privacy regulations enabling patients to find space and time for appointments, use of technology, remote diagnostics and development of techniques which would identify nonverbal signs and cues and finally establishment of trusting and lasting relationships between service providers and patients.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its Supplementary information files]. For any queries/requests related to data please contact the corresponding author [Evgenia Stepanova, email: evgenia.stepanova2@newcastle.ac.uk], upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Institute for Government Analysis. Timeline coronavirus lockdown December 2021. 2022.

  2. Banks J, Xu X. The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Fisc Stud. 2020;41(3):685–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pierce M, Hope H, Ford T, Hatch S, Hotopf M, John A, et al. Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):883–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Daly M, Robinson E. Psychological distress associated with the second COVID-19 wave: Prospective evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. J Affect Disord. 2022;310:274–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Shevlin M, McBride O, Murphy J, Miller JG, Hartman TK, Levita L, et al. Anxiety, depression, traumatic stress and COVID-19-related anxiety in the UK general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. BJPsych Open. 2020;6(6):e125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moreno C, Wykes T, Galderisi S, Nordentoft M, Crossley N, Jones N, et al. How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(9):813–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mind. The consequence of coronavirus for mental health final report pdf. 2021.

  8. O'Shea N. Covid-19 and the nation’s mental health Forecasting needs and risks in the UK. Centre for Mental Health; 2021.

  9. World Health Organisation. Covid-19 disrupting mental health services in most countries who survey. 2020.

  10. World Health Organisation. The impact of COVID-19 on mental, neurological and substance use services: results of a rapid assessment. 2020.

  11. Xiang YT, Yang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Zhang Q, Cheung T, et al. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3):228–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson G, Frank JW, Naylor CD, Wodchis W, Feng P. Using socioeconomics to counter health disparities arising from the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ. 2020;369:m2149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. COVID-19 mental health and wellbeing surveillance: report. UK Government,; 2022.

  14. Pierce M, McManus S, Hope H, Hotopf M, Ford T, Hatch SL, et al. Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: a latent class trajectory analysis using longitudinal UK data. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(7):610–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Spanakis P, Peckham E, Mathers A, Shiers D, Gilbody S. The digital divide: amplifying health inequalities for people with severe mental illness in the time of COVID-19. Br J Psychiatry. 2021;219(4):529–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Campion J, Javed A, Lund C, Sartorius N, Saxena S, Marmot M, et al. Public mental health: required actions to address implementation failure in the context of COVID-19. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(2):169–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Alderwick H, Dixon J. The NHS long term plan. BMJ. 2019;364:l84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Javid S, editor Mental health: a decade of change in just 2 years. Global Mental Health Summit; 2021; Paris, France.

  19. Yu G, Craig D, Fu Y. Mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: protocol for a rapid review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(6):e062078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu G, Panagioti M, Tang EY, Robinson D, Husain N, Lasrado R, et al. Establishing evidence to inform culturally competent mental health services: A mixed methods study protocol. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(3):e0282445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2020;2021:88.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reibling N, Ariaans M, Wendt C. Worlds of Healthcare: A Healthcare System Typology of OECD Countries. Health Policy. 2019;123(7):611–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2016.

  24. Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, McKenzie JE, Thomson H. Improving Conduct and Reporting of Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative Data (ICONS-Quant): protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2).

  25. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme2006.

  26. Tricco AC, Langlois E, Straus SE, Organization WH. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide: World Health Organization; 2017.

  27. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith V, Begley CM, Clarke M, Devane D. Professionals’ views of fetal monitoring during labour: a systematic review and thematic analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. bmj. 2020;368.

  30. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abate S, Lausi G, Mari E, Giannini AM, Burrai J. Case study on psychological first aid on Italian COVID-Hospital. J Psychopathology. 2021;27(4):217–22.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Adams EA, Parker J, Jablonski T, Kennedy J, Tasker F, Hunter D, et al. A qualitative study exploring access to mental health and substance use support among individuals experiencing homelessness during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6).

  33. Agyapong VIO, Shalaby R, Hrabok M, Vuong W, Noble JM, Gusnowski A, et al. Mental Health Outreach via Supportive Text Messages during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Improved Mental Health and Reduced Suicidal Ideation after Six Weeks in Subscribers of Text4Hope Compared to a Control Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4).

  34. Avalone L, Barron C, King C, Linn-Walton R, Lau J, McQuistion HL, et al. Rapid telepsychiatry implementation during COVID-19: increased attendance at the largest health system in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2021;72(6):708–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abdullah S, Burton ET, Bell IC Jr. Working on the Frontlines From Home: Residents’ Experiences With Telepsychiatry During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Psychiatr Pract. 2021;27(1):48–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Barry H, Doherty AM, Clancy M, Moore S, MacHale S. Lockdown logistics in consultation-liaison psychiatry. Ir J Psychol Med. 2022;39(4):414–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bean CAL, Aurora P, Maddox CJ, Mekota R, Updegraff A. A comparison of telehealth versus in-person group therapy: Results from a DBT-based dual diagnosis IOP. J Clin Psychol. 2022;78(11):2073–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bulkes NZ, Davis K, Kay B, Riemann BC. Comparing efficacy of telehealth to in-person mental health care in intensive-treatment-seeking adults. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;145:347–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Burton PRS, Morris NP, Hirschtritt ME. Mental health services in a U.S. prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv. 2021;72(4):458–60.

  40. Gannon JM, Schlesinger A, Glance J, Sujata M, Fredrick N, Wyler J, et al. Rapid expansion of direct-to-consumer telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case series. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2021;33(1):27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Glancy D, Reilly L, Cobbe C, Glynn M, Punchoo S, Foy K. Lockdown in a specialised rehabilitation unit: the best of times. Ir J Psychol Med. 2020;37(3):169–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guinart D, Marcy P, Hauser M, Dwyer M, Kane JM. Patient Attitudes Toward Telepsychiatry During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide, Multisite Survey. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(12):e24761.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Haderlein TP, Dobalian A, Raja PV, Der-Martirosian C. Association Between Virtual Care Use and Same-Day Primary Care Access in VA Primary Care-Mental Health Integration. J Prim Care Community Health. 2022;13:21501319221091430.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Vera San Juan N, Shah P, Schlief M, Appleton R, Nyikavaranda P, Birken M, et al. Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis. PloS one. 2021;16(9):e0257270.

  45. Milosevic I, Cameron DH, Milanovic M, McCabe RE, Rowa K. Face-to-face versus video teleconference group cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and related disorders: a preliminary comparison. Can J Psychiatry. 2022;67(5):391–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Molino ATC, Kriegshauser KD, McNamara TD. Transitioning From In-Person to Telehealth Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Flexibility in an Adverse Context. Clin Case Stud. 2022;21(4):273–90.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Pinciotti CM, Bulkes NZ, Horvath G, Riemann BC. Efficacy of intensive CBT telehealth for obsessive-compulsive disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord. 2022;32:100705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Puspitasari AJ, Heredia D, Coombes BJ, Geske JR, Gentry MT, Moore WR, et al. Feasibility and Initial Outcomes of a Group-Based Teletherapy Psychiatric Day Program for Adults With Serious Mental Illness: Open, Nonrandomized Trial in the Context of COVID-19. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(3):e25542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Roncero C, Garcia-Ullan L, de la Iglesia-Larrad JI, Martin C, Andres P, Ojeda A, et al. The response of the mental health network of the Salamanca area to the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of the telemedicine. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Saunders J, Allen C. Transitioning Transdiagnostic CBT from Face-to-Face to Telephone Delivery During the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Case Study. Clin Case Stud. 2021;20(6):498–514.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Skime MK, Puspitasari AJ, Gentry MT, Heredia D Jr, Sawchuk CN, Moore WR, et al. Patient Satisfaction and Recommendations for Delivering a Group-Based Intensive Outpatient Program via Telemental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Cohort Study. JMIR Ment Health. 2022;9(1):e30204.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Yahara M, Niki K, Ueno K, Okamoto M, Okuda T, Tanaka H, et al. Remote reminiscence using immersive virtual reality may be efficacious for reducing anxiety in patients with mild cognitive impairment even in COVID-19 pandemic: a case report. Biol Pharm Bull. 2021;44(7):1019–2023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zimmerman M, Terrill D, D'Avanzato C, Tirpak JW. Telehealth Treatment of Patients in an Intensive Acute Care Psychiatric Setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Safety and Effectiveness to In-Person Treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021;82(2).

  54. Zimmerman M, Ward M, D'Avanzato CWT, Julianne. Telehealth treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder in a partial hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparative safety, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of in-person treatment. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2022;36(3):277–95.

  55. Liberati E, Richards N, Parker J, Willars J, Scott D, Boydell N, et al. Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e049210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Watts S, Marchand A, Bouchard S, Gosselin P, Langlois F, Belleville G, et al. Telepsychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder: Impact on the working alliance. J Psychother Integr. 2020;30(2):208–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Humer E, Stippl P, Pieh C, Pryss R, Probst T. Experiences of Psychotherapists With Remote Psychotherapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e20246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Feijt M, de Kort Y, Bongers I, Bierbooms J, Westerink J, W IJ. Mental Health Care Goes Online: Practitioners' Experiences of Providing Mental Health Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020;23(12):860–4.

  59. Parikh SV, Taubman DS, Grambeau M, Menke RA, Blazek MC, Sullivan J, et al. Going virtual during a pandemic: an academic psychiatry department’s experience with telepsychiatry. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2021;51(1):59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Pruitt Z, Chapin KP, Eakin H, Glover AL. Telehealth During COVID-19: Suicide Prevention and American Indian Communities in Montana. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(3):325–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sugarman DE, Horvitz LE, Greenfield SF, Busch AB. Clinicians’ Perceptions of Rapid Scale-up of Telehealth Services in Outpatient Mental Health Treatment. Telemed J E Health. 2021;27(12):1399–408.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Svistova J, Harris C, Fogarty B, Kulp C, Lee A. Use of Telehealth Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experiences of Mental Health Providers Serving Rural Youth and Elderly in Pennsylvania. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022;49(4):530–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Weiskittle R, Tsang W, Schwabenbauer A, Andrew N, Mlinac M. Feasibility of a COVID-19 Rapid Response Telehealth Group Addressing Older Adult Worry and Social Isolation. Clin Gerontol. 2022;45(1):129–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hilty DM, Ferrer DC, Parish MB, Johnston B, Callahan EJ, Yellowlees PM. The effectiveness of telemental health: a 2013 review. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2013;19(6):444–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Sagar V. Parikh DST, Grambeau M, Menke RA, Blazek MC, Sullivan J, et al. Going virtual during a pandemic: an academic psychiatry department’s experience with telepsychiatry. 2021.

  66. Roncero C, García-Ullán L, de la Iglesia-Larrad JI, Martín C, Andrés P, Ojeda A, et al. The response of the mental health network of the Salamanca area to the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of the telemedicine. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113252.

  67. Guinart D, Marcy P, Hauser M, Dwyer M, Kane JM. Patient attitudes toward telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide, multisite survey. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(12):e24761.

  68. Molfenter T, Heitkamp T, Murphy AA, Tapscott S, Behlman S, Cody OJ. Use of telehealth in mental health (MH) services during and after COVID-19. Community Ment Health J. 2021;57(7):1244–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Hao X, Qin Y, Lv M, Zhao X, Wu S, Li K. Effectiveness of telehealth interventions on psychological outcomes and quality of life in community adults during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2023.

  70. Uscher-Pines L, Cantor J, Huskamp HA, Mehrotra A, Busch A, Barnett M. Adoption of telemedicine services by substance abuse treatment facilities in the US. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;117:108060.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Edirippulige S, Armfield NR. Education and training to support the use of clinical telehealth: A review of the literature. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(2):273–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Jameson JP, Farmer MS, Head KJ, Fortney J, Teal CR. VA community mental health service providers’ utilization of and attitudes toward telemental health care: the gatekeeper’s perspective. J Rural Health. 2011;27(4):425–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Jumreornvong O, Yang E, Race J, Appel J. Telemedicine and Medical Education in the Age of COVID-19. Acad Med. 2020;95(12):1838–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bright AM, Doody O. Mental health service users' experiences of telehealth interventions facilitated during the COVID-19 pandemic and their relevance to nursing: An integrative review. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2023.

  75. Perry K, Gold S, Shearer EM. Identifying and addressing mental health providers’ perceived barriers to clinical video telehealth utilization. J Clin Psychol. 2020;76(6):1125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Bauer RM, Iverson GL, Cernich AN, Binder LM, Ruff RM, Naugle RI. Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27(3):362–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Jørgensen SW, Lee K, HarnowKlausen S, Petersen EN, Nørgaard B. Patients’ perspectives on telemedicine in the encounter between healthcare and patients with mental illness: A systematic review. Eur J Psychiatry. 2023;37(1):44–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Chen S, Cardinal RN. Accessibility and efficiency of mental health services, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(9):674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Fortier CB, Currao A, Kenna A, Kim S, Beck BM, Katz D, et al. Online Telehealth Delivery of Group Mental Health Treatment Is Safe, Feasible, and Increases Enrollment and Attendance in Post-9/11 U.S. Veterans. Behav Ther. 2022;53(3):469–80.

  80. Fu Y, McNichol E, Marczewski K, José CS. The management of chronic back pain in primary care settings: Exploring perceived facilitators and barriers to the development of patient–professional partnerships. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(9):1462–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Shore JH, Schneck CD, Mishkind MC. Telepsychiatry and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic—current and future outcomes of the rapid virtualization of psychiatric care. JAMA Psychiat. 2020;77(12):1211–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sabesan S, Allen D, Caldwell P, Loh P, Mozer R, Komesaroff PA, et al. Practical aspects of telehealth: doctor–patient relationship and communication. Intern Med J. 2014;44(1):101–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Lawes-Wickwar S, McBain H, Mulligan K. Application and effectiveness of telehealth to support severe mental illness management: systematic review. JMIR mental health. 2018;5(4):e8816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Gurm K, Wampold BE, Piatt C, Jagodzinski R, Caperton DD, Babins-Wagner R. Effectiveness of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score noninferiority analysis of outcomes. Psychotherapy. 2023.

  85. Gloff NE, LeNoue SR, Novins DK, Myers K. Telemental health for children and adolescents. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(6):513–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Osenbach JE, O’Brien KM, Mishkind M, Smolenski DJ. Synchronous telehealth technologies in psychotherapy for depression: a meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(11):1058–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Venville A, O'Connor S, Roeschlein H, Ennals P, McLoughlan G, Thomas N. Mental health service user and worker experiences of psychosocial support via telehealth through the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study. JMIR Mental Health. 2021;8(8).

  88. Mahood Q, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5(3):221–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank patients and/or the public who were involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. This research (or named person) is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (ARC NWC) and by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria (ARC NENC). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Funding

This Research Award (MHF018 and MH027) was funded as part of the Three NIHR Research Schools Mental Health Programme. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

    Evgenia Stepanova & Alex Thompson

  2. Health Services and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s Health Economics, King’s College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK

    Ge Yu

  3. Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Yu Fu

Authors
  1. Evgenia Stepanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ge Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Formulating the research questions: YF, GY; Designing the study: YF, GY; Conducting the study (including analysis): YF, AT, ES; Writing and revising the paper: YF, AT, ES.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evgenia Stepanova.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stepanova, E., Thompson, A., Yu, G. et al. Changes in mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: a rapid review. BMC Psychiatry 24, 103 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05497-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05497-6

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us