The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns were predicted to have a major impact on suicidal behaviour, including self-harm. However, current studies have produced contradictory findings with limited trend data.

Nine years of linked individual-level administrative data were utilised to examine changes in hospital-presenting self-harm and ideation (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) before and during the pandemic.

National self-harm registry data were linked to demographic and socioeconomic indicators from healthcare registration records (n = 1 899 437). Monthly presentations of self-harm or ideation were split (pre-COVID-19 restrictions: April 2012 to February 2020; and during restrictions: March to September 2020). Auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were trained in R taking into consideration trends and seasonal effects. Forecast (‘expected’) monthly values were compared with ‘actual’ values, stratified by demographic factors and method of harm.

The number of individuals presenting with self-harm or ideation dropped significantly at the beginning of the pandemic (March–May 2020), before returning mostly to expected trends from June 2020. Stratified analysis showed similar presentation trends across most demographic subgroups except for those aged over 65 years, living alone or in affluent areas, where presentations remained unaffected, and those aged under 16 years, where numbers presenting with self-harm or ideation increased above expected levels.

Although population trends show an overall drop in presentations before a return to ‘normal’ from June 2020, the demographic profile of those presenting with self-harm or ideation varied significantly, with increases in children under the age of 16 years. This highlights important potential target groups who may have been most negatively affected by the pandemic.

Children in contact with social services are at high risk for mental ill health, but it is not known what proportion of the child population has contact with social services or how risk varies within this group compared to unexposed peers. We aim to quantify the extent and nature of contact with social services within the child population in Northern Ireland (NI) and the association with mental ill health. We also examine which social care experiences identify those most at risk.

This is a population-based record-linkage study of 497,269 children (aged under 18 years) alive and resident in NI in 2015 using routinely collected health and social care data. Exposure was categorized as (1) no contact, (2) referred but assessed as not in need (NIN), (3) child in need (CIN) and (4) child in care (CIC). Multilevel logistic regression analyses estimated odds ratios (ORs) for mental ill health indicated by receipt of psychotropic medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics and hypnotics), psychiatric hospital admission and hospital-presenting self-harm or ideation.

Over one in six children (17.2%, n = 85,792) were currently or previously in contact with social services, and almost one child in every 20 (4.8%, n = 23,975) had contact in 2015. Likelihood of any mental ill health outcome increased incrementally with the level of contact with social services relative to unexposed peers: NIN (OR 5.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.10–6.83]), CIN (OR 5.99 [95% CI 5.50–6.53]) and CIC (OR 12.60 [95% CI 10.63–14.95]). All tiers of contact, number of referrals, number of care episodes and placement type were strongly associated with the likelihood of mental ill health.

Children who have contact with social services account for a large and disproportionate amount of mental ill health in the child population. Likelihood of poor mental health across indicators is highest in care experienced children but also extends to the much larger population of children in contact with social services but never in care. Findings suggest a need for targeted mental health screening and enhanced support for all children in contact with social services.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns were predicted to have a major impact on mental health, however current studies have produced contradictory findings with limited longitudinal data.

Nine years of linked, individual-level administrative data were used to examine changes in psychotropic medication uptake before and during the pandemic.

Medication data from a population-wide prescribing database were linked to demographic and socioeconomic indicators from healthcare registration records (n = 1 801 860). Monthly prescription uptake was split (pre-restrictions: January 2012 to February 2020 and during restrictions: March to October 2020). Auto regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were trained in R taking into consideration trends and seasonal effects. Forecast (‘expected’) monthly values were compared with ‘actual’ values, stratified by demographic factors.

Over the study period 38.5% of the study population were in receipt of ≥1 psychotropic medication. Uptake of these medications have been following a strong upward trend since January 2012. In March 2020 uptake of all medications increased beyond expected values, returning to expected trends from May 2020 for antidepressants, anxiolytics and antipsychotics. In the 8 months during restrictions uptake of hypnotic medication was 12% higher than expected among those <18 years, and anxiolytic medication higher than expected in those >65 years.

Results suggest an initial ‘stockpiling’ of medications in March 2020 before trends mostly returned to expected levels. The anticipated tsunami of mental ill health is not yet manifest in psychotropic medication uptake. There are indications of increased anxiety and sleep difficulties in some subgroups, although these conditions may resolve as we emerge from the pandemic without need for psychiatric intervention.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions.

We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome.

There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41–1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89–0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61–0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73–0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87–0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03).

We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

Durkheim's seminal historical study demonstrated that religious affiliation reduces suicide risk, but it is unclear whether this protective effect persists in modern, more secular societies.

To examine suicide risk according to Christian religious affiliation and by inference to examine underlying mechanisms for suicide risk. If church attendance is important, risk should be lowest for Roman Catholics and highest for those with no religion; if religiosity is important, then ‘conservative’ Christians should fare best.

A 9-year study followed 1 106 104 people aged 16–74 years at the 2001 UK census, using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for census-based cohort attributes.

In fully adjusted models analysing 1119 cases of suicide, Roman Catholics, Protestants and those professing no religion recorded similar risks. The risk associated with conservative Christians was lower than that for Catholics (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.52–0.97).

The relationship between religious affiliation and suicide established by Durkheim may not pertain in societies where suicide rates are highest at younger ages. Risks are similar for those with and without a religious affiliation, and Catholics (who traditionally are characterised by higher levels of church attendance) do not demonstrate lower risk of suicide. However, religious affiliation is a poor measure of religiosity, except for a small group of conservative Christians, although their lower risk of suicide may be attributable to factors such as lower risk behaviour and alcohol consumption.

Suicide rates vary markedly between areas but it is unclear whether this is due to differences in population composition or to contextual factors operating at an area level.

To determine if area factors are independently related to suicide risk after adjustment for individual and family characteristics.

A 5-year record linkage study was conducted of 1 116 748 non-institutionalised individuals aged 16–74 years, enumerated at the 2001 Northern Ireland census.

The cohort experienced 566 suicides during follow-up. Suicide risks were lowest for women and for those who were married or cohabiting. Indicators of individual and household disadvantage and economic and health status at the time of the census were also strongly related to risk of suicide. The higher rates of suicide in the more deprived and socially fragmented areas disappeared after adjustment for individual and household factors. There was no significant relationship between population density and risk of suicide.

Differences in rates of suicide between areas are predominantly due to population characteristics rather than to area-level factors, which suggests that policies targeted at area-level factors are unlikely to significantly influence suicides rates.