Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic
Authors: Shubulade Smith, Steve Gilbert, Kevin Ariyo, Laura-Louise Arundell, Kam Bhui, Jayati Das-Munshi, Stephani Hatch, Norman Lamb
Journal: The Lancet Psychiatry (2020)

We laud the aims of Emily Holmes and colleagues1Holmes EA O'Connor RC Perry VH et al.Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science.Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; (published online April 15.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3648) Google Scholar to highlight the impending mental health consequences of COVID-19, especially the call to ensure there is a joined-up multidisciplinary response. The authors note the impact of COVID-19 on vulnerable groups. For people from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups, there are already significant mental health inequalities. These inequalities warrant a specific research response above and beyond that expressed in this report. The Position Paper by Holmes and colleagues was informed by surveys from the health research charity MQ: Transforming Mental Health and Ipsos MORI. However, only 160 (8%) of 2000 respondents surveyed by the charity were from a BAME group, compared with around 14% in the UK population. These 160 people included about 20 respondents from Black or Black British backgrounds. Because those surveyed included carers and health professionals (40%) as well as people with direct experience of mental health problems (60%), it is probable that only 12 respondents were Black people who had lived experience of mental illness. Moreover, the Ipsos MORI survey, including 1099 people from the general population, did not report ethnicity. These unrepresentative surveys overlook a substantial section of the population that appears to be especially at risk of COVID-related complications, mental health sequelae, and death.2Khunti K Singh AK Pareek M Hanif W Is ethnicity linked to incidence or outcomes of COVID-19?.BMJ. 2020; 369m1548Crossref PubMed Scopus (360) Google Scholar, 3The LancetRedefining vulnerability in the era of COVID-19.The Lancet. 2020; 3951089Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (256) Google Scholar, 4UK National Institute for Health ResearchNIHR and UKRI launch call for research on COVID-19 and ethnicity.https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-and-ukri-launch-call-for-research-on-covid-19-and-ethnicity/24658Date: 2020Date accessed: May 21, 2020Google Scholar Phoebe Barnett and colleagues5Barnett P Mackay E Matthews H et al.Ethnic variations in compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data.Lancet Psychiatry. 2019; 6: 305-317Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar found that researchers tended to aggregate heterogeneous BAME groups and appeared to entrench narratives of racial determinism. The authors argued that the nature and structures of the research process are subject to biases from the outset. Without a response that specifically aims to understand the mental health needs of different BAME people, inequalities will be sustained and widened. In addition to specific research focusing on the post-COVID-19 mental health needs of the diverse range of people who are grouped under the abbreviated term BAME, we propose that at the outset of any research, there should be a race equality impact assessment applied to the research questions and the methodology. When reporting findings, authors should be expected to state how they think their research might affect those from ethnic minority groups. Funding bodies and journal editors should expect to see this race equality impact assessment, just as they now increasingly expect to see a Patient and Public Involvement statement and assessment. In doing so, mental health research is likely to become more relevant to those from ethnic minority backgrounds and to be more likely to provide effective interventions that have lasting positive effects on the mental health of BAME populations over time. Just as the inclusion of a Patient and Public Involvement element into all research has become standard practice, so should the inclusion of a race equality impact assessment. JD-M reports grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, and grants from the Health Foundation and the Academy of Medical Sciences. NL reports personal fees from Xenzone Limited, and personal fees from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, outside the submitted work; and will soon become Chair of the Children's and Young People's Mental Health Coalition, outside the submitted work. SG reports non-financial support from Mind (National), non-financial support from Association of Mental Health Providers, non-financial support from University of Wolverhampton, non-financial support from the Public Health England and National Suicide Prevention Alliance, personal fees from the Department of Health & Social Care, personal fees from NHS England, personal fees from Care Quality Commission, from Royal College of Psychiatrists, personal fees from West Midlands Combined Authority, personal fees from 4 Mental Health, personal fees from Think Ahead, personal fees from Thalamos, personal fees from Xenzone, personal fees from National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, personal fees from Mind, and personal fees from the Centre for Mental Health, outside the submitted work. SH reports grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, grants from Wellcome Trust, grants from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, outside the submitted work; and is a member of the following advisory groups: NHS England/NHS Improvement Patient and Carers Race Equalities Framework Steering Group, NHS England/NHS Improvement, Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce; Health Education England, Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup; Maudsley Learning, Maudsley Learning Advisory Board South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; Independent Advisory Groups, the SLaM Partnership Group; Lambeth Public Health, Serious Youth Violence Public Health Task and Finish Group; NHS England, Workforce Race Equality Standard Advisory Group; Thrive London, Thrive London Advisory Board Black Thrive; and Black Thrive, Black Thrive Advisory Board. All other authors have nothing to disclose. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicThe need for real-time mental health monitoring is emerging as a key research priority in psychiatric research. The Lancet Psychiatry Position Paper by Emily Holmes and colleagues1 identifies several "multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic", proposing that real-time mental health monitoring (ie, through the use of smartphones and related connected technologies) is a central priority for understanding and managing the psychological impacts of the current crisis and future pandemics. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicEmily Holmes and colleagues' Position Paper1 in The Lancet Psychiatry outlines some important mental health research priorities for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This pandemic presents an unusual, large-scale opportunity to examine the far-reaching impact of the language that we use to describe human distress because the impact of COVID-19 has been widely pathologised. The media has discussed a "pandemic of severe mental health disorders",2 and there is a widespread perceived need to offer psychological interventions. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health scienceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicThe Position Paper outlining mental health research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic was timely and useful.1 I write to add that research is urgently needed to evaluate the mental health impact of different public health approaches to COVID-19. The world seems to have generally approached the COVID-19 pandemic from a humanitarian perspective; perhaps because the contagiousness of COVID-19 means that it has been widely perceived as personally salient. To focus on threat and try to immediately save as many people as possible from COVID-19-related deaths is an understandable and effective approach. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicWe appreciate the proactive outlook of Emily Holmes and colleagues1 in setting priorities for mental health science in the COVID-19 pandemic in their Lancet Psychiatry Position Paper.1 A paper of this kind necessarily uses a broad brush, and we agree particularly with the need for harmonised data and interdisciplinarity. We further agree that the pandemic is likely to have pervasive and diverse effects on the mental health of young people globally, including those in education and those not in education. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary: research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicIn The Lancet Psychiatry, Emily A Holmes and colleagues1 set a formidable and very important challenge to "explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of [coronavirus disease] COVID-19 and spell out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research". We absolutely must answer their call to action, but the authors1 have not addressed the next generation who are in utero during the outbreak in their Article. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicI read with great interest the recently published position paper by Holmes and colleagues,1 outlining most appropriately the multidisciplinary priorities for mental health research in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I concur that we are already seeing the fallout of COVID-19, reflected in more acute presentations with perceived greater risk. This distress is driven in many cases by the consequences of reduced service provision or the loss of economic livelihood. Undoubtedly, mental health is a priority and a coordinated, focused, and robust approach is needed. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicWe read with interest Emily A Holmes and colleagues' call for action regarding research around the current national COVID-19 pandemic.1 Their suggestion that UK research funding agencies collaborate with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high-level coordination group and ensure that priorities are actioned, is welcomed by us as Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatrists. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicThe COVID-19 pandemic and measures to contain the spread of the virus have led to marked changes in our social worlds, within a very short timeframe. There is widespread worry, fear, and distress among populations worldwide. Not surprisingly, there is growing concern about the consequences of the pandemic on mental health. In their Position Paper, Emily Holmes and colleagues1 set out their priorities for research, to inform the development of effective strategies that could mitigate the effects of the pandemic on mental health. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemicIn their Position Paper1 in The Lancet Psychiatry, Emily Holmes and colleagues have laid out a comprehensive outline for mental health research, with a focus on a multidisciplinary approach to guide policy and practice using a bio-psychosocial approach, and have suggested research areas making use of existing research infrastructure and aligning ongoing research with COVID-19 priorities. Full-Text PDF Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic – Authors' replyWe are encouraged and stimulated by the responses to our Position Paper on COVID-19 mental health science. Some key messages are consistent: the mental health effects of COVID-19 are likely to be profound, long lasting, and will touch all sectors of society. Moreover, there was consensus that only by harnessing a truly multidisciplinary response will we be able to mitigate the mental health risks effectively. How best to respond will be a challenge that requires most of us to think and work differently, and for our scientific, research, and practice communities to come together to create novel solutions. Full-Text PDF