ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2022
LeiP#netz 2.0: mapping COVID-19-related changes in mental health services in the German city of Leipzig.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services: A systematic review.Journal of psychiatric research · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to mental health services and socioeconomic inequalities in Italy.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Governance in mental healthcare policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to investigate the changes in psychosocial and psychiatric services in the German city of Leipzig during the COVID-19-pandemic.
methodsA participatory, mixed-methods study was used involving a quantitative online survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews with professionals. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data.
resultsFifty professionals from various mental health services participated in the survey and eleven professionals were interviewed. Quantitative findings showed that some services were closed intermittently and that there was a stiff increase in use of digital/telephonic service and a decrease in face-to-face services. Staff or funding did not change considerably during the pandemic. Psychosocial groups were suspended or reduced, while access to services became more difficult and professional training for staff was stopped. Thematic analysis of the interviews showed that professionals experienced different phases and levels of change during the pandemic, including changes on a structural level, on the users' level, and on the staff' level. Professionals particularly criticised the equivocality of COVID-19 regulations, a defective flow of information and lack of attention for mental healthcare in public policies. They also saw positive aspects, such as the capacity of users and the outpatient care system to adapt to the new situation.
conclusionThis study suggests directions for policy and service development, such as communicating clearly in infection-control measures, fostering outpatient care and networks between services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.