One-third of the cancer patients in acute care hospitals is suffering from mental health disorders and need appropriate treatment.

The symptoms described by "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

The data support the pathological significance of MADD in its negative impact upon population health. Dimensional approaches to classification may provide a more parsimonious description of anxiety and depressive disorders compared with categorical approaches.

Objectives To determine if living in areas where higher proportions of people of the same ethnicity reside is protective for common mental disorders, and associated with a reduced exposure to discrimination and improved social support. Finally, to determine if any protective ethnic density effects are mediated by reduced exposure to racism and improved social support.Design Multi-level logistic regression analysis of national survey data, with area-level, own-group ethnic density modelled as the main exposure.Participants and setting 4281 participants of Irish, black Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and white British ethnicity, aged 16–74 years, randomly sampled from 892 “middle layer super output areas” in England.Main outcome measures Common mental disorders (assessed via structured interviews); discrimination (assessed via structured questionnaire); and social support and social networks (assessed via structured questionnaire).Results Although the most ethnically dense areas were also the poorest, for each 10 percentage point increase in own-group ethnic density, there was evidence of a decreased risk of common mental disorders, for the full ethnic minority sample (odds ratio 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 0.99); P=0.02, trend), for the Irish group (odds ratio 0.21 (0.06 to 0.74); P=0.01, trend), and for the Bangladeshi group (odds ratio 0.75 (0.62 to 0.91); P=0.005, trend), after adjusting for a priori confounders. For some groups, living in areas of higher own-group density was associated with a reduction in the reporting of discrimination and with improved social support and improved social networks. However, none of these factors mediated ethnic density effects.Conclusions A protective effect of living in areas of higher own-group ethnic density was present for common mental disorders for some minority groups. People living in areas of higher own-group density may report improved social support and less discrimination, but these associations did not fully account for density effects.

People with diabetes are more likely to suffer from common mental disorders, a finding which is highly relevant, given that psychiatric comorbidity in people with diabetes is also associated with higher levels of functional impairment, impaired quality of life, and difficulties with diabetes self-care.

BackgroundAetiological mechanisms underlying ethnic density associations with psychosis remain unclear.AimsTo assess potential mechanisms underlying the observation that minority ethnic groups experience an increased risk of psychosis when living in neighbourhoods of lower own-group density.MethodMultilevel analysis of nationally representative community-level data (from the Ethnic Minorities Psychiatric Illness Rates in the Community survey), which included the main minority ethnic groups living in England, and a White British group. Structured instruments assessed discrimination, chronic strains and social support. The Psychosis Screening Questionnaire ascertained psychotic experiences.ResultsFor every ten percentage point reduction in own-group density, the relative odds of reporting psychotic experiences increased 1.07 times (95% CI 1.01–1.14, P = 0.03 (trend)) for the total minority ethnic sample. In general, people living in areas of lower own-group density experienced greater social adversity that was in turn associated with reporting psychotic experiences.ConclusionsPeople resident in neighbourhoods of higher own-group density experience ‘buffering’ effects from the social risk factors for psychosis.

BackgroundRates of psychotic disorder are raised for many migrant groups. Understanding the role played by the social context in which they live may help explain why. This study investigates the effect of both neighbourhood ethnic density and urbanicity on the incidence of non-affective psychosis for migrant groups.MethodPopulation based cohort of all those born 1965 or later followed from their 15th birthday (2,224,464 people) to 1st July 2013 (37,335,812 person years). Neighbourhood exposures were measured at age 15.ResultsFor all groups incidence of non-affective psychosis was greater in lower ethnic density neighbourhoods. For migrants of African origin there was a 1.94-fold increase (95% CI, 1.17–3.23) comparing lowest and highest density quintiles; with similar effects for migrants from Europe (excluding Scandinavia): incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.99 (95% CI, 1.56–2.54); Asia: IRR 1.63 (95% CI, 1.02–2.59); and the Middle East: IRR 1.68 (95% CI, 1.19–2.38). This initial analysis found no evidence for an urbanicity effect for migrant groups. Adjusting for ethnic density revealed a positive association between level of urbanicity and psychosis for two groups, with a statistically significant linear trend (average effect of a one quintile increase) for migrants from Europe: IRR 1.09 (95% CI, 1.02–1.16) and the Middle East: IRR 1.12 (95% CI, 1.01–1.23).ConclusionsIn this first nationwide population-based study of ethnic density, urbanicity and psychosis we show that lower ethnic density is associated with increased incidence of non-affective psychosis for different migrant groups; masking urban/rural differences in psychosis for some groups.

The findings support consistent protective ethnic density associations across countries and racial/ethnic minority populations as well as mental health outcomes. This may suggest the importance of the social environment in patterning detrimental mental health outcomes in marginalized and excluded population groups.