Background Cannabis use is associated with increased risk of later psychotic disorder but whether it affects incidence of the disorder remains unclear. We aimed to identify patterns of cannabis use with the strongest effect on odds of psychotic disorder across Europe and explore whether differences in such patterns contribute to variations in the incidence rates of psychotic disorder. Methods We included patients aged 18-64 years who presented to psychiatric services in 11 sites across Europe and Brazil with first-episode psychosis and recruited controls representative of the local populations. We applied adjusted logistic regression models to the data to estimate which patterns of cannabis use carried the highest odds for psychotic disorder. Using Europe-wide and national data on the expected concentration of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the different types of cannabis available across the sites, we divided the types of cannabis used by participants into two categories: low potency (THC <10%) and high potency (THC ≥10%). Assuming causality, we calculated the population attributable fractions (PAFs) for the patterns of cannabis use associated with the highest odds of psychosis and the correlation between such patterns and the incidence rates for psychotic disorder across the study sites. Findings Between May 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015, we obtained data from 901 patients with first-episode psychosis across 11 sites and 1237 population controls from those same sites. Daily cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder compared with never users (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3•2, 95% CI 2•2-4•1), increasing to nearly five-times increased odds for daily use of high-potency types of cannabis (4•8, 2•5-6•3). The PAFs calculated indicated that if high-potency cannabis were no longer available, 12•2% (95% CI 3•0-16•1) of cases of first-episode psychosis could be prevented across the 11 sites, rising to 30•3% (15•2-40•0) in London and 50•3% (27•4-66•0) in Amsterdam. The adjusted incident rates for psychotic disorder were positively correlated with the prevalence in controls across the 11 sites of use of high-potency cannabis (r = 0•7; p=0•0286) and daily use (r = 0•8; p=0•0109). Interpretation Differences in frequency of daily cannabis use and in use of high-potency cannabis contributed to the striking variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across the 11 studied sites. Given the increasing availability of high-potency cannabis, this has important implications for public health.

No abstract

Deletions within the neurexin 1 gene (NRXN1; 2p16.3) are associated with autism and have also been reported in two families with schizophrenia. We examined NRXN1, and the closely related NRXN2 and NRXN3 genes, for copy number variants (CNVs) in 2977 schizophrenia patients and 33 746 controls from seven European populations (Iceland, Finland, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and UK) using microarray data. We found 66 deletions and 5 duplications in NRXN1, including a de novo deletion: 12 deletions and 2 duplications occurred in schizophrenia cases (0.47%) compared to 49 and 3 (0.15%) in controls. There was no common breakpoint and the CNVs varied from 18 to 420 kb. No CNVs were found in NRXN2 or NRXN3. We performed a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel exact test to estimate association between all CNVs and schizophrenia (P = 0.13; OR = 1.73; 95% CI 0.81-3.50). Because the penetrance of NRXN1 CNVs may vary according to the level of functional impact on the gene, we next restricted the association analysis to CNVs that disrupt exons (0.24% of cases and 0.015% of controls). These were significantly associated with a high odds ratio (P = 0.0027; OR 8.97, 95% CI 1.8-51.9). We conclude that NRXN1 deletions affecting exons confer risk of schizophrenia.

In early-phase psychosis, EIS are superior to TAU across all meta-analyzable outcomes. These results support the need for funding and use of EIS in patients with early-phase psychosis.

No abstract

BackgroundStaff burnout is a critical issue for mental healthcare delivery, as it can lead to decreased work performance and, ultimately to poorer treatment outcomes.AimsTo explore the relative weight of job-related characteristics and perceived organisational factors in predicting burnout in staff working in community-based psychiatric services.MethodA representative sample of 2000 mental health staff working in the Veneto region, Italy, participated. Burnout and perceived organisational factors were assessed by using the Organizational Checkup Survey.ResultsOverall, high levels of job distress affected nearly two-thirds of the psychiatric staff and one in five staff members suffered from burnout. Psychiatrists and social workers reported the highest levels of burnout, and support workers and psychologists, the lowest. Burnout was mostly predicted by a higher frequency of face-to-face interaction with users, longer tenure in mental healthcare, weak work group cohesion and perceived unfairness.ConclusionsImproving the workplace atmosphere within psychiatric services should be one of the most important targets in staff burnout prevention strategies. The potential benefits of such programmes may, in turn, have a favourable impact on patient outcomes.

ObjectiveTo determine burn-out levels and associated factors among healthcare personnel working in a tertiary hospital of a highly burdened area of north-east Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignObservational study conducted from 21 April to 6 May 2020 using a web-based questionnaire.SettingResearch conducted in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy).ParticipantsOut of 2195 eligible participants, 1961 healthcare workers with the full range of professional profiles (89.3%) completed the survey.Primary outcome measureLevels of burn-out, assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with burn-out in each MBI-GS dimension (emotional exhaustion, EX; professional efficacy, EF; cynicism, CY).ResultsOverall, 38.3% displayed high EX, 46.5% low EF and 26.5% high CY. Burn-out was frequent among staff working in intensive care units (EX 57.0%; EF 47.8%; CY 40.1%), and among residents (EX 34.9%; EF 63.9%; CY 33.4%) and nurses (EX 49.2%; EF 46.9%; CY 29.7%). Being a resident increased the risk of burn-out (by nearly 2.5 times) in all the three MBI subscales and being a nurse increased the risk of burn-out in the EX dimension in comparison to physicians. Healthcare staff directly engaged with patients with COVID-19 showed more EX and CY than those working in non-COVID wards. Finally, the risk of burn-out was higher in staff showing pre-existing psychological problems, in those having experienced a COVID-related traumatic event and in those having experienced interpersonal avoidance in the workplace and personal life.ConclusionsBurn-out represents a great concern for healthcare staff working in a large tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact is more burdensome for front-line junior physicians. This study underlines the need to carefully address psychological well-being of healthcare workers to prevent the increase of burn-out in the event of a new COVID-19 healthcare emergency.

Aims Healthcare workers exposed to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients could be psychologically distressed. This study aims to assess the magnitude of psychological distress and associated factors among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large tertiary hospital located in north-east Italy. Methods All healthcare and administrative staff working in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy) during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a web-based survey from 21 April to 6 May 2020. Symptoms of post-traumatic distress, anxiety and depression were assessed, respectively, using the Impact of Event Scale (IES-R), the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Personal socio-demographic information and job characteristics were also collected, including gender, age, living condition, having pre-existing psychological problems, occupation, length of working experience, hospital unit (ICUs and sub-intensive COVID-19 units vs. non-COVID-19 units). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the three mental health outcomes. Results A total of 2195 healthcare workers (36.9% of the overall hospital staff) participated in the study. Of the participants, 35.7% were nurses, 24.3% other healthcare staff, 16.4% residents, 13.9% physicians and 9.7% administrative staff. Nine per cent of healthcare staff worked in ICUs, 8% in sub-intensive COVID-19 units and 7.6% in other front-line services, while the remaining staff worked in hospital units not directly engaged with COVID-19 patients. Overall, 63.2% of participants reported COVID-related traumatic experiences at work and 53.8% (95% CI 51.0%–56.6%) showed symptoms of post-traumatic distress; moreover, 50.1% (95% CI 47.9%–52.3%) showed symptoms of clinically relevant anxiety and 26.6% (95% CI 24.7%–28.5%) symptoms of at least moderate depression. Multivariable logistic regressions showed that women, nurses, healthcare workers directly engaged with COVID-19 patients and those with pre-existing psychological problems were at increased risk of psychopathological consequences of the pandemic. Conclusions The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare staff working in a highly burdened geographical of north-east Italy is relevant and to some extent greater than that reported in China. The study provides solid grounds to elaborate and implement interventions pertaining to psychology and occupational health.