Editorial: ‘No pain - No gain’ – Towards the inclusion of mental health costs in balanced "lockdown" decision-making during health pandemics

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial

T2 - ‘No pain - No gain’ – Towards the inclusion of mental health costs in balanced "lockdown" decision-making during health pandemics

AU - Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S.

N1 - Funding Information: This editorial perspective is based on a talk given at the Emmanuel Miller Conference in March 2021. The author is grateful for helpful comments from Pasco Fearon, Samuel Cortese and Gordana Milavic. The author is the Editor‐in‐Chief of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. He has visiting chairs at Aarhus University in Denmark and the University of Sussex. He is also a consultant for Neurotech Solutions, Aarhus University, Copenhagen University, Berhanderling, Ghent University and KU Leuven. Further, the author is a member of the speakers’ advisory groups for Shire Pharmaceuticals and Janssen‐Cilag and has received speaker’s fees from numerous scientific organisations. This study was supported by the following grants: Shire Pharmaceuticals; MRC; ESRC; EU; Wellcome Trust; DoH/NHS; Nuffield Foundation; Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (FWO); and MQ – Transforming Mental Health. The author has declared he has no potential or competing conflicts of interest in relation to this editorial. Funding Information: This editorial perspective is based on a talk given at the Emmanuel Miller Conference in March 2021. The author is grateful for helpful comments from Pasco Fearon, Samuel Cortese and Gordana Milavi?. The author is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. He has visiting chairs at Aarhus University in Denmark and the University of Sussex. He is also a consultant for Neurotech Solutions, Aarhus University, Copenhagen University, Berhanderling, Ghent University and KU Leuven. Further, the author is a member of the speakers? advisory groups for Shire Pharmaceuticals and Janssen-Cilag and has received speaker?s fees from numerous scientific organisations. This study was supported by the following grants: Shire Pharmaceuticals; MRC; ESRC; EU; Wellcome Trust; DoH/NHS; Nuffield Foundation; Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ? Vlaanderen (FWO); and MQ ? Transforming Mental Health. The author has declared he has no potential or competing conflicts of interest in relation to this editorial. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/7

Y1 - 2021/7

N2 - Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, many governments have implemented national or regional lockdowns to slow the spread of infection. The widely anticipated negative impact these interventions would have on families, including on their mental health, were not included in decision models. The purpose of this editorial is, therefore, to stimulate debate by considering some of the barriers that have stopped governments setting the benefits of lockdown against, in particular, mental health costs during this process and so to make possible a more balanced approach going forward. First, evidence that lockdown causes mental health problems needs to be stronger. Natural experimental studies will play an essential role in providing such evidence. Second, innovative health economic approaches that allow the costs and benefits of lockdown to be compared directly are required. Third, we need to develop public health information strategies that allow more nuanced and complex messages that balance lockdown’s costs and benefits to be communicated. These steps should be accompanied by a major public consultation/engagement campaign aimed at strengthening the publics’ understanding of science and exploring beliefs about how to strike the appropriate balance between costs and benefits in public health intervention decisions.

AB - Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, many governments have implemented national or regional lockdowns to slow the spread of infection. The widely anticipated negative impact these interventions would have on families, including on their mental health, were not included in decision models. The purpose of this editorial is, therefore, to stimulate debate by considering some of the barriers that have stopped governments setting the benefits of lockdown against, in particular, mental health costs during this process and so to make possible a more balanced approach going forward. First, evidence that lockdown causes mental health problems needs to be stronger. Natural experimental studies will play an essential role in providing such evidence. Second, innovative health economic approaches that allow the costs and benefits of lockdown to be compared directly are required. Third, we need to develop public health information strategies that allow more nuanced and complex messages that balance lockdown’s costs and benefits to be communicated. These steps should be accompanied by a major public consultation/engagement campaign aimed at strengthening the publics’ understanding of science and exploring beliefs about how to strike the appropriate balance between costs and benefits in public health intervention decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105148535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jcpp.13435

DO - 10.1111/jcpp.13435

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:85105148535

SN - 0021-9630

VL - 62

SP - 801

EP - 804

JO - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines

JF - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines

IS - 7

ER -