The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable.

Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing.

We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies.

Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3–33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 –1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03).

People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

Responses to anticipateddiscrimination are common among mental health service users and can have adetrimental impact on their recovery. Since 2009, the Time to Change (TTC)anti-stigma program in England has aimed to improve service users’ empowerment,reducing public stigma and discrimination. In this paper, we aim to evaluatewhether service users’ awareness of TTC is associated with fewer responses toanticipated discrimination.

We used data collected for the evaluation of TTC from samples of mental health service users interviewed by telephone in annual surveys 2009-2014.

Five thousand and nine hundredand twenty-three participants completed the survey, mainly suffering from mooddisorders (depression, 28.4%, n = 1,681) and schizophrenia related disorders(15.4%, n = 915).

In 23.2% of cases,participants were aware of any aspects of the TTC program, while participationin TTC was reported by 2.6%. Being aware of the TTC program was notsignificantly associated with responses to anticipated discrimination, exceptfor those participating in the TTC campaign in 2013. Stopping oneself fromapplying for work was significantly associated with experienced discriminationin both finding (p < 0.001) and keeping (p < 0.001) a job.Concealing mental health problems was associated with a general experience ofbeing shunned (p < 0.001).

Awareness of a nationalanti-stigma program may not be sufficient to encourage people to seek work/educationor to be open about their illness in situations in which they currentlyanticipate discrimination. There is the need to identify new multi-levelstrategies for challenging anticipated discrimination, even focusing ondifferent target groups.

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.

To evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233).

Fifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.

All CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI −1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.

The CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.

Our aim was to investigate patterns of change in public knowledge, attitudes, desire for social distance and reporting having contact with people with mental health problems in England during the Time to Change (TTC) programme to reduce stigma and discrimination 2009–2017.

Using data from an annual face-to-face survey of a nationally representative quota sample of adults, we evaluated longitudinal trends of the outcome measures with regression analyses and made assumptions on the basis of a simple random sample. We tested interactions between year and demographic subgroups.

There were improvements in all outcomes in 2017 compared with baseline measures (2008 or 2009). Reported in s.d. units [95% confidence interval (CI)], the improvement for knowledge was 0.17 (0.10–0.23); for attitudes 0.25 (0.18–0.31); and for social distance 0.29 (0.23–0.35). A higher likelihood of reporting contact was also associated with most recent survey year (odds ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.27–1.71). Statistically significant interactions between year and region of England suggest greatest improvements in attitudes and intended behaviour in London, where both outcomes were significantly worse in the early years of the survey. However, for attitudes, this interaction was only significant among women. Other significant interactions suggest that attitudes improved most in the target age group (25–44).

The results provide support for the effectiveness of TTC across demographic groups. However, other societal changes may influence the results, such as the increasing prevalence of common mental disorder in young women.

Anti-stigma programmes should aim to increase disclosure to those who can support someone with a mental health problem and appropriate professional help-seeking.

We investigated associations among public awareness of England's Time to Change anti-stigma campaign and: (a) comfort envisaged in disclosing a mental health problem to family and friends; (b) comfort in disclosing to an employer; and (c) intended professional help-seeking from a general practitioner, i.e. a physician working in primary care.

Using data from a survey of a nationally representative sample of adults, we created separate logistic regression models to test for campaign awareness and other variables as predictors of comfort in disclosure and intended help-seeking.

We found positive relationships between campaign awareness and comfort in disclosing to family and friends (odds ratio (OR) = 1.27, 95% CI 1.14–1.43) and to a current or prospective employer (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06–1.35); and likelihood of help-seeking (OR=1.18 95% CI 1.03–1.36).

Awareness of an anti-stigma campaign was associated with greater comfort in disclosing a mental health problem and intended help-seeking.

Many mental health service users delay or avoid disclosing their condition to employers because of experience, or anticipation, of discrimination. However, non-disclosure precludes the ability to request ‘reasonable adjustments’. There have been no intervention studies to support decisionmaking about disclosure to an employer.

To determine whether the decision aid has an effect that is sustained beyond its immediate impact; to determine whether a large-scale trial is feasible; and to optimise the designs of a larger trial and of the decision aid.

In this exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) in London, participants were randomly assigned to use of a decision aid plus usual care or usual care alone. Follow-up was at 3 months. Primary outcomes were: (a) stage of decision-making; (b) decisional conflict; and (c) employment-related outcomes (trial registration number: NCT01379014).

We recruited 80 participants and interventions were completed for 36 out of 40 in the intervention group; in total 71 participants were followed up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that reduction in decisional conflict was significantly greater in the intervention group than among controls (mean improvement −22.7 (s.d. = 15.2) v. −11.2 (s.d. = 18.1), P = 0.005). More of the intervention group than controls were in full-time employment at follow-up (P = 0.03).

The observed reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure has a number of potential benefits which next need to be tested in a definitive trial.

People with borderline personality disorder frequently experience crises. To date, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of crisis interventions for this population have been published.

To examine the feasibility of recruiting and retaining adults with borderline personality disorder to a pilot RCT investigating the potential efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using a joint crisis plan.

An RCT of joint crisis plans for community-dwelling adults with borderline personality disorder (trial registration: ISRCTN12440268). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of self-harming behaviour over the 6-month period following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, engagement and satisfaction with services, quality of life, well-being and cost-effectiveness.

In total, 88 adults out of the 133 referred were eligible and were randomised to receive a joint crisis plan in addition to treatment as usual (TAU; n=46) or TAU alone (n=42). This represented approximately 75% of our target sample size and follow-up data were collected on 73 (83.0%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences in the proportion of participants who reported self-harming (odds ratio (OR) =1.9, 95% CI 0.53-6.5,P = 0.33) or the frequency of self-harming behaviour (rate ratio (RR)=0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.63, P=0.46) between the two groups at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between the two groups on any of the secondary outcome measures or costs.

It is feasible to recruit and retain people with borderline personality disorder to a trial of joint crisis plans and the intervention appears to have high face validity with this population. However, we found no evidence of clinical efficacy in this feasibility study.

Evidence on the economic impact of social marketing antistigma campaigns in relation to people with mental illness is limited.

To describe the economic impact of the Time to Change (TTC) anti-stigma social marketing campaign, including the potential effects on the wider economy.

Data collected for the evaluation of TTC were combined with the social marketing campaign expenditure data to investigate differences in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in relation to campaign awareness. To evaluate the return on investment, we applied a decision model that estimated the impact on employment for people with depression.

Based on average national social marketing campaign costs, the economic benefits outweighed costs even if the campaign resulted in only 1% more people with depression accessing services and gaining employment if they experienced a health improvement The cost per person with improved intended behaviour was at most £4 if we assume the campaign was responsible for 50% of the change. Costs associated with improved knowledge and attitudes, however, were more variable.

The findings suggest that the TTC anti-stigma social marketing campaign is a potentially cost-effective and low-cost intervention for reducing the impact of stigma on people with mental health problems.

England's Time To Change (TTC) social marketing campaign emphasised social contact between people with and without mental health problems to reduce stigma and discrimination.

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the mass media component and also that of the mass social contact events.

Online interviews were performed before and after each burst of mass media social marketing to evaluate changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour and associations between campaign awareness and outcomes. Participants at social contact events were asked about the occurrence and quality of contact, attitudes, readiness to discuss mental health and intended behaviour towards people with mental health problems.

Prompted campaign awareness was 38-64%. A longitudinal improvement was noted for one intended behaviour item but not for knowledge or attitudes. Campaign awareness was positively associated with greater knowledge (β = 0.80, 95% CI 0.52-1.08) and more favourable attitudes (commonality OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10-1.70; dangerousness OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.22-1.63) and intended behaviour (β = 0.75, 95% CI 0.53-0.96). Social contact at events demonstrated a positive impact (M=2.68) v. no contact (M = 2.42) on perceived attitude change; t(211)= 3.30, P=0.001. Contact quality predicted more positive attitude change (r=0.33, P<0.01) and greater confidence to challenge stigma (r=0.38, P<0.01).

The favourable short-term consequences of the social marketing campaign suggest that social contact can be used by anti-stigma programmes to reduce stigma.

In 2006 the Shaw Trust charity found high levels of ignorance and poor preparedness to deal with mental health problems among 480 senior employers in the UK. The UK government, non-governmental organisations and Time to Change (TTC) have since provided relevant assistance to employers.

To examine whether there have been improvements in mental health-related knowledge, attitudes and workplace practices among British senior employers between 2006 and 2010.

A telephone survey was conducted of senior British employers (n = 480 in 2006 and n = 500 in 2009 and 2010).

An increased awareness of common mental health problems was detected. Employers continued to believe that job candidates should disclose a mental health problem, but became less likely to view colleagues' attitudes as a barrier to employing someone with such a problem. Formal policies on mental health and the use of workplace accommodations became increasingly common.

These results are consistent with those of the TTC national public attitudes and the Viewpoint survey of service users between 2008 and 2010, which showed improved public attitudes to mental illness and a reduction in experiences of discrimination in employment.

Better newspaper coverage of mental health-related issues is a target for the Time to Change (TTC) anti-stigma programme in England, whose population impact may be influenced by how far concurrent media coverage perpetuates stigma and discrimination.

To compare English newspaper coverage of mental health-related topics each year of the TTC social marketing campaign (2009-2011) with baseline coverage in 2008.

Content analysis was performed on articles in 27 local and national newspapers on two randomly chosen days each month.

There was a significant increase in the proportion of anti-stigmatising articles between 2008 and 2011. There was no concomitant proportional decrease in stigmatising articles, and the contribution of mixed or neutral elements decreased.

These findings provide promising results on improvements in press reporting of mental illness during the TTC programme in 2009-2011, and a basis for guidance to newspaper journalists and editors on reporting mental illness.

Research suggests that levels of discrimination against people using mental health services are high; however, reports of these people's experiences are rare.

To determine whether the Time to Change (TTC) programme target of 5% reduction in discrimination has been achieved.

Separate samples of people using mental health services were interviewed annually from 2008 to 2011 using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale to record instances of discrimination.

Ninety-one per cent of participants reported one or more experiences of discrimination in 2008 compared with 88% in 2011 (z=-1.9, P=0.05). The median negative discrimination score was 40% in 2008 and 28% in 2011 (Kruskal-Wallis χ2=83.4, P < 0.001).

The proportion of participants experiencing no discrimination increased significantly over the course of TTC but by less than the initial target The overall median discrimination score fell by 11.5%. Data from 2010 and 2011 suggest that these gains may be hard to maintain during economic austerity.

Education Not Discrimination (END) is the component of the Time to Change programme intended to reduce mental health stigma among professionals and professional trainees.

To investigate the impact of the END anti-stigma programme on medical students immediately and after 6 months with regard to knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and empathy.

A total of 1452 medical students participated in the study (intervention group n = 1066, control group n = 386).

Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, and at immediate and 6-month follow-up. Groups were compared for changes in stigma outcomes.

All measures improved in both groups, particularly among students with less knowledge and more stigmatising attitudes and intended behaviour at baseline. At immediate follow-up the intervention group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in stigma-related knowledge and reductions in stigma-related attitudes and intended behaviour, relative to the control group. At 6 months' follow-up, however, only one attitude item remained significantly better.

Although the intervention produced short-term advantage there was little evidence for its persistent effect, suggesting a need for greater integration of ongoing measures to reduce stigma into the medical curriculum.