Assessment Task 3

Title: The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 for Contemporary Australian Communities

Introduction 

The COVID-19 pandemic has not spared mental health anywhere in the world, including Australia. The pandemic not only caused numerous health issues but also resulted in various mental health issues in different groups of people. The interference with normal routines, social isolation, financial instability, and ongoing public health interventions have led to the highest rates of anxiety, depression, and stress in communities as revealed by global and Australian research (Bower et al., 2023). Adolescents, parents, and frontline healthcare workers have been the most affected, and some have reported post-traumatic stress disorder.   

According to University of Sydney (2023), in Australia, the effect of the pandemic on mental health settings could not be overstated. Mental health was under pressure to deliver services and shifted to telehealth as soon as they could so that they still could. It was reported that households especially with children were stressed and had poor mental health during long term lock downs. The government and health bodies replied with some actions, but the experts state that significantly more should be done to protect the mental balance in the long run due to the pandemic. This essay will focus on the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health in Australia with regards to the affected individuals, their families, the healthcare systems, and the importance of research-based interventions. 

Impact on Mental Health Settings 

COVID-19 had a deep influence on mental health services in Australia and its consequences are felt by both consumers and providers. One of the most significant changes was the use of telemedicine during the lock down (Imlach et al., 2020). While telehealth opened up mental health care to some, such as the people in the rural areas, it shut the door to others who could not access the internet or who were technologically illiterate and thus deepening the mental health divide.

Community mental health services in particular received a higher level of utilization because the pandemic led to a lot of stress. The Australian Government spent a lot of money, and provided $500 million to mental health services to cope with this influx, but it was still a strain (Bower et al., 2023). Telehealth was essential in maintaining service delivery, however, the demand for services challenged the workforce. This demand was observed in the healthcare workers, youth, and those with prior mental health issues, which caused the higher rates of anxiety, depression, and PTSD.

For instance, the National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan developed early in the pandemic played a vital role in the coordination of the response across the states and territories in Australia (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2020). The plan was to strengthen assertive aftercare, better the use of real-time data in measuring mental health, and increase service integration. 

However, the studies have shown that such measures, as useful as they are, have not eradicated the long-term effects of the illness on mental balance. Young people, migrant workers, and people with chronic health conditions are some of the groups that were most affected, which shows that efforts to solve the poor mental health of these groups cannot be limited to the response to the crisis only (Newby et al., 2020). In future, enhancing the sustainability and flexibility of mental health services will continue to be a focus of work to ensure that all Australians can receive the care they need. 

Impact on Individuals and Families 

The current COVID-19 pandemic has impacted families in Australia through increased stress, anxiety, and changes in their daily lives. The families had several problems – schools and child care facilities were closed, and the switch to remote work added more stress to working parents who now had to combine career and childcare. Several researches indicate that parents and especially mothers reported poor mental health and loneliness during the lockdowns (Westrupp et al., 2023).  

According to University of Sydney (2023), further, the caregiving needs increased due to the closing down of schools and child care facilities and this contributed to worsening mental health. Most of the parents were forced to work full-time while having young children at home and little help from outside since the lockdowns were in place. This caused family conflict, especially to couples, and increased alcohol consumption during the pandemic. Also, children’s mental peace was affected as they became more aggressive, anxious, and experienced changes in their learning and social processes. The young people were most sensitive to loneliness owing to disrupted schedules and social contacts. 

Parents relied on grandparents as essential caregivers in the family; however, the elderly were too vulnerable to COVID-19, which complicated the situation (Gilligan et al., 2020). Some of the families complained of loneliness and lack of contact with other members of the family thus deepening the problem. Such disruptions to the familiar support systems raised stress levels across households and had potential lasting impacts on both parents and children.

The intensification of financial pressure, the rising number of caregiving responsibilities, and social isolation have highlighted the need for continuing mental health support for families to cope with the emerging difficulties caused by the pandemic.

Safe and Supportive Care 

The pandemic forced the mental health system in Australia to respond to the concerns about safety of care settings and safety for vulnerable populations (Bower et al., 2022). From the very start of the plague the Australian Government and mental health organizations put forward several measures to keep mental health services going during lock-downs and times of social isolation. One of such efforts was the National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan which aimed at coordinating states and territories resources to strengthen the mental health services in the pandemic. 

The largest increase was in the use of telemedicine which was the most significant adjustment (Imlach et al., 2020). These digital platforms made it possible for mental health professionals to continue treating their patients while avoiding contact with the virus and at the same time, people with chronic mental health conditions could continue to be cared for.  While this change was useful in enhancing access for some, it had its drawbacks, especially for the elderly Australians and those who could not access the internet frequently.  

Apart from telehealth, other community-based mental health awareness programs like InThisTogether encouraged emotional and social support during social isolation (Gilligan et al., 2020). These campaigns offered Australians tangible resources to cope with anxiety, stress, and social isolation, based on daily schedules that involved physical activity, sleep, and social connection through technology. These programs were very helpful in creating the feeling of togetherness and alleviating the psychological pressure caused by long periods of isolation.

However, the healthcare workers were under tremendous pressure and the high number of them stated that they had burnout, fatigue and emotional stress. The self-administered questionnaires revealed that the participants were using both professional mental health services and natural sources of support including family and friends. The idea of taking care of the body and the soul as a major approach to handling the mental health needs during the pandemic was adopted. In the future, sustained efforts in investing in digital health and community-based mental health will be important in developing a strong mental health system that will be responsive to any future shocks.

Ethical and Legal Issues in Mental Health during COVID-19

It highlighted many ethical and legal issues in mental well-being, including patient treatment, confidentiality, and resource allocation. Telehealth and remote mental health services are common in Australia, and their use raised ethical issues concerning the quality of services. Remote assessments while essential for preventing infections raised issues of suitability of virtual consultations for sensitive mental health evaluations especially where the patient is detained under the Mental Health Act (Schölin et al., 2021). Doctors and police discussed the use of video assessments as moral when working with patients under mental health acts while considering the safety of the public.  

Another major ethical concern was the consequences of the lock down and social distancing measures for the most vulnerable groups such as elderly people in the care homes, those with former mental health conditions and victims of domestic violence. Social distancing measures and limited visiting rights meant that people were deprived of their social contacts and support systems, which made them more vulnerable to developing psychological problems (Stevens et al., 2021). These effects were especially felt by these groups, which exposed existing disparities within mental health services and the challenge of equal service provision during crises.

The pandemic also raised legal issues with regard to human rights. The actions like mandatory isolation and quarantine were crucial to contain the virus spread but limited people’s liberties at the same time (Raposo, 2021). Legal questions were raised regarding the extent to which the public health considerations could be pursued at the cost of violating civil liberties, particularly where mental health was concerned. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted the importance of the government to come up with policies that address health risks while at the same time respecting human rights of those vulnerable groups.

These challenges highlighted the need for the creation of better ethical frameworks for future public health emergencies, so that mental health services stay affordable and accessible to all Australians.

Mental Health Promotion during COVID-19

It led to the emergence of new mental health problems in Australia and different mental health promotion strategies were developed to address these issues. One of them was the National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan that aimed at coordinating the federal, state and territory actions to meet mental health needs of all Australians in both response and recovery stages of the pandemic (Bower et al., 2023).

This plan contained the following: increasing mental health access through technology, for instance, the Head to Health portal that provided links to available mental health services. It also meant increasing community engagement especially for women, youths, and Indigenous people which are some of the groups most affected by the pandemic. For instance, Youth Recovery Plan published in 2022 provided the viable solutions to enhance the young people’s mental health by focusing on the modifiable risk factors including financial pressure, social isolation, and insufficient access to the treatment (University of Sydney, 2023). 

In addition, initiatives such as "InThisTogether" focused on the need to stay connected during the lock-in, practice self-care, and get help if necessary. This was helpful in advising Australians on how to deal with anxiety, stress, and loneliness and how to develop healthy habits concerning exercise, sleep, and use of technology. 

One of the major things that the pandemic taught was the need for sustained mental health promotion, particularly in light of economic difficulties and continuous natural disasters which worsen mental health (University of Sydney, 2023). But scholars emphasized that more work has to be done in order to strengthen mental health services and make them ready for future shocks.

Ensuring that the vulnerable groups are still supported and raising the government’s financial input to mental health causes are some of the ways through which the effects of the illness on the mental health of people can be alleviated in the long-run. 

Assessment and Planning in Mental Health Care during COVID-19

A major shift in the way mental health care assessment and planning occurred in Australia as the healthcare system responded to a dramatic increase in psychological morbidity. A study conducted among Australians revealed that many of them experienced increased levels of stress, depression and anxiety during the pandemic because of factors such as social isolation, economic insecurity, and the virus (Zhao et al., 2022). To manage these difficulties, health authorities and mental health practitioners introduced superior assessment instruments and creative treatment approaches. 

One of the most important aspects of delivering mental health care during the pandemic was the use of telehealth services. This made it possible for mental health professionals to keep evaluating and treating patients from the comfort of their homes during lockdowns. In remote consultations, the severity of depression and anxiety was assessed by the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) (Stocker et al., 2021). Furthermore, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT) when provided through telehealth were also found to be helpful in treating mental health disorders in the patients. 

Better Access initiative provided additional funding which enabled Australians to have up to 20 mental health sessions per year so that people could be supported continuously during the pandemic (Bower et al., 2023). Other programs such as Beyond Blue’s NewAccess program also opened more doors to mental health care services especially to those with relatively mild conditions. 

The National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan also highlighted the need for integrated care and system redesign to enhance the quality of services and the process of linking patients to appropriate care (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2020). These efforts targeted the delivery of timely assessments and interventions to vulnerable groups, including those with existing mental health disorders, given the unique demands of pandemic mental health.

In the future, these innovative ways of delivering mental health care will have to be sustained in order to address the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of the Australian population. 

Conclusion 

The COVID-19 has affected mental health care and populations, families, and the wider Australian community. Mental health care was under pressure due to the growing needs and, as a result, many providers transitioned to telehealth, which provided good outcomes but also exposed the issue of the digital divide. Families had a high level of psychological impact, and parents and other special groups had increased levels of anxiety and depression. These challenges were met through National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan by improving access to mental health services, increasing funding, and increasing the focus on community mental health interventions. 

In the future, it is critical to continue investing in mental health services to avoid adverse consequences of the pandemic. Mental health promotion has to be recognized as a high policy priority, and the role of implementing mental health promotion strategies for disadvantaged groups has to be acknowledged (Singh et al., 2022). Focusing on sustaining new mental health care paradigms that emerged during COVID-19 like telemedicine and outreach will be crucial in constructing effective mental health systems that will be ready for the next challenge.

It is imperative that Australian policymakers and healthcare providers do not let the pandemic’s lessons go to waste and make improvements to mental health care that are sustainable, accessible, and prepared for future crises. 
 

Top Nursing Samples
 

References

Bower, M., Donohoe-Bales, A., Smout, S., Ngyuen, A. Q. H., Boyle, J., Barrett, E., & Teesson, M. (2022). In their own words: An Australian community sample’s priority concerns regarding mental health in the context of COVID-19. PloS one, 17(5), e0268824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268824 
Bower, M., Smout, S., Donohoe-Bales, A., O’Dean, S., Teesson, L., Boyle, J., Lim, D., Nguyen, A., Calear, A. L., Batterham, P. J., Gournay, K., & Teesson, M. (2023). A hidden pandemic? An umbrella review of global evidence on mental health in the time of COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1107560–1107560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1107560 
Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Rurka, M., & Silverstein, M. (2020). Multigenerational social support in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(4), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12397 
Imlach, F., McKinlay, E., Middleton, L., Kennedy, J., Pledger, M., Russell, L., ... & McBride-Henry, K. (2020). Telehealth consultations in general practice during a pandemic lockdown: survey and interviews on patient experiences and preferences. BMC family practice, 21, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01336-1 
Newby, J. M., O’Moore, K., Tang, S., Christensen, H., & Faasse, K. (2020). Acute mental health responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. PloS one, 15(7), e0236562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236562 
Raposo, V. L. (2021). Quarantines: Between precaution and necessity. A look at COVID-19. Public Health Ethics, 14(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa037 
Salvador-Carulla, L., Rosenberg, S., Mendoza, J., Tabatabaei-Jafari, H., & Network, P. M. H. I. (2020). Rapid response to crisis: Health system lessons from the active period of COVID-19. Health Policy and Technology, 9(4), 578-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.011 
Schölin, L., Connolly, M., Morgan, G., Dunlop, L., Deshpande, M., & Chopra, A. (2021). Limits of remote working: the ethical challenges in conducting Mental Health Act assessments during COVID-19. Journal of medical ethics, 47(9), 603-607. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107273 
Singh, V., Kumar, A., & Gupta, S. (2022). Mental health prevention and promotion—A narrative review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 898009. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.898009 
Stevens, A. J., Ray, A. M., Thirunavukarasu, A., Johnson, E., Jones, L., Miller, A., & Elston, J. W. (2021). The experiences of socially vulnerable groups in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid health needs assessment. Public Health in Practice, 2, 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100192 
Stocker, R., Tran, T., Hammarberg, K., Nguyen, H., Rowe, H., & Fisher, J. (2021). Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) data contributed by 13,829 respondents to a national survey about COVID-19 restrictions in Australia. Psychiatry research, 298, 113792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113792 
University of Sydney (2023, March 9) Moving on from COVID means facing its impact on mental health, say experts. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2023/03/09/moving-on-from-covidmeans-facing-its-impact-on-mental-health--s.html 
Westrupp, E. M., Bennett, C., Berkowitz, T., Youssef, G. J., Toumbourou, J. W., Tucker, R., ... & Sciberras, E. (2023). Child, parent, and family mental health and functioning in Australia during COVID-19: comparison to pre-pandemic data. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 32(2), 317-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01861-z 
Zhao, Y., Leach, L. S., Walsh, E., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., Phillips, C., ... & Banwell, C. (2022). COVID-19 and mental health in Australia–a scoping review. BMC public health, 22(1), 1200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13527-9