Back

Hit hardest, healed least: disruption and incomplete recovery of public mental-health outpatient services across two COVID-19 waves in India, 2017-2022

Mishra, V.; Parihar, K. S.

2026-09-13 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.09.11.26362835 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare worldwide, but whether mental health was affected differently from physical healthcare, and whether it recovered following successive waves, has not been described from routine administrative data in a low- or middle-income country. Methods: Interrupted time-series analysis of India's routine Health Management Information System (HMIS), April 2017 to March 2022. We extracted monthly counts of mental-illness outpatient visits and adolescent counseling sessions across ~700 districts, projected expected monthly counts from a log-linear model fitted to pre-pandemic trends, and compared disruption and recovery against an index of routine physical-health services. Results: Mental-illness outpatient visits fell to 31.2% of expected in April 2020 during the national lockdown, a collapse deeper than that observed for routine immunisation (48.3%) or institutional delivery (72.1%). During the Delta wave (April-June 2021), mental-health outpatient visits dropped again to 57.8% of expected. In the post-Delta recovery period (July 2021-March 2022), while immunisation and delivery volumes returned to >95% of expected, mental-illness outpatient visits reached only 58.4% of expected, representing a cumulative two-year deficit of 41.6% (~5.8 million missed outpatient visits). Deficits were widespread across states. Conclusion: Public mental-health outpatient services in India were hit harder than physical-health services by the pandemic and showed essentially no post-Delta volume recovery. As India implements its national digital mental health initiative (Tele-MANAS), these data define the large, quantified outpatient deficit that digital and facility-based services must urgently address.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.