Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic
Authors: Andy P Siddaway
Journal: The Lancet Psychiatry (2020)

The Position Paper outlining mental health research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic was timely and useful.1Holmes 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 (3645) Google Scholar 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. However, the same worldwide response has not been apparent for other large-scale life-threatening conditions, such as, for example, seasonal influenza, which kills an estimated 250 000–500 000 people annually,2WHOUp to 650 000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu each year.https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/14-12-2017-up-to-650-000-people-die-of-respiratory-diseases-linked-to-seasonal-flu-each-yearDate: 2017Date accessed: May 15, 2020Google Scholar or suicide, where around 800 000 people die annually worldwide.3WHOSuicide.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicideDate accessed: May 15, 2020Google Scholar The varied approaches taken to mitigate different health conditions potentially allow for comparisons to be made regarding alternative public health responses. There are advantages and disadvantages to each particular approach; different responses to managing COVID-19 and its impact need to be identified and compared using a range of metrics. Many different approaches to managing the spread of COVID-19 and delaying its impact on health services appear to have been taken within and between countries over time, making it possible to identify and compare the positive and negative consequences of different approaches. Evidence in this regard would enable governments and mental health services to provide a more informed, targeted, and coherent strategy, now and in the future. A key issue to be investigated is whether particular approaches to COVID-19 (eg, physical distancing and isolation) have actually caused more harm in terms of deaths, mental health difficulties, and other physical, psychological, cognitive, social, and economic consequences, than if a different response had been taken. We need empirical evidence. For example, what are the short-term and long-term consequences of mental health services reducing, stopping, or changing what they offer in response to COVID-19? Are services offering psychological support to frontline staff needed or effective? How have rates of domestic and child abuse as well as children's short-term and long-term social, developmental, and educational needs been affected by social distancing measures? What effect has stopping funerals had on rates of grief-related mental health problems? What are the mental health consequences of pausing or shutting down innumerable businesses, and potentially over time, mass unemployment and a worldwide recession? What are the mental health consequences of needed hospital appointments being postponed or cancelled? I declare no competing interests. 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 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 pandemicWe laud the aims of Emily Holmes and colleagues1 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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