Twenty-five years have passed since the major socio-political changes in Central and Eastern Europe and our aim was to map and analyze the development of mental health care practice for people with severe mental illnesses in this region since then. A scoping review was complemented by an expert survey in 24 countries. Mental health care practice in the region differs greatly across as well as within individual countries. National policies often exist but reforms remain mostly in the realm of aspiration. Services are predominantly based in psychiatric hospitals. Decision making on resource allocation is non-transparent, and full economic evaluations of complex interventions and rigorous epidemiological studies are lacking. Stigma seems to be high compared to other European countries, but consideration of human rights and user involvement are increasing. The region has seen respectable development, which occurred due to grassroots initiatives supported by international organizations, rather than due to systematic implementation of government policies.(150 words, unstructured)Funding: This study had no specific funding.

Introduction There are few published empirical data on the effects of COVID‐19 on mental health, and until now, there is no large international study. Material and methods During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. Results Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed. Conclusions The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them.

Background: While COVID-19 has rapidly spread around the world, and vaccines are not widely available to the general population, the World Health Organization outlines preventive behavior as the most effective way to limit the rapid spread of the virus. Preventive behavior is associated with a number of factors that both encourage and discourage prevention.Aim: The aim of this research was to study COVID-19 threat appraisal, fear of COVID-19, trust in COVID-19 information sources, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and the relationship of socio-demographic variables (gender, age, level of education, place of residence, and employment status) to COVID-19 preventive behavior.Methods: The data originate from a national cross-sectional online survey (N = 2,608) undertaken in July 2020. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.Results: COVID-19 threat appraisal, trust in COVID-19 information sources, and fear of COVID-19 are all significant predictors of COVID-19 preventive behaviors. Together they explain 26.7% of the variance of this variable. COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs significantly negatively predict COVID-19 threat appraisal (R2 = 0.206) and trust in COVID-19 information sources (R2 = 0.190). COVID-19 threat appraisal contributes significantly and directly to the explanation of the fear of COVID-19 (R2 = 0.134). Directly, as well as mediated by COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, threat appraisal predicts trust in COVID-19 information sources (R2 = 0.190). The relationship between COVID-19 threat appraisal and COVID-19 preventive behaviors is partially mediated by fear of COVID-19 (indirect effect 28.6%) and trust in information sources (15.8%). Socio-demographic variables add very little in prediction of COVID-19 preventive behavior.Conclusions: The study results demonstrate that COVID-19 threat appraisal is the most important factor associated with COVID-19 preventive behavior. Those Latvian residents with higher COVID-19 threat appraisal, experienced higher levels of fear of COVID-19, had more trust in COVID-19 information sources, and were more actively involved in following COVID-19 preventive behaviors. COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs negatively predict COVID-19 threat appraisal and trust in COVID-19 information sources, but not the COVID-19 preventive behaviors. Socio-demographic factors do not play an important role here.

Phenibut is a nootropic drug that exerts anxiolytic and antinociceptive effects by acting on the GABAB receptor and the α2-δ subunit of voltage-dependent calcium channels. An increased number of reports of dependence to and intoxication by phenibut purchased online on the one hand and the wide prescription of phenibut in Eastern Europe for more than half a century on the other hand have resulted in a number of controversies regarding its use. In this review, we have summarized currently available information from case reports of phenibut dependence and intoxication and safety data from clinical trials. We included 14 dependence and intoxication case reports (16 patients) and reviewed 11 phenibut clinical trials (583 patients). The clinical symptoms in the case reports included cardiovascular effects, insomnia, anxiety and agitation, hallucinations, and depressed level of consciousness. In addition, the doses used (0.5–100 g/day) were much higher than the recommended daily dose (0.25–2 g/day). An analysis of phenibut side effects described in the clinical trials showed adverse events in only 5.66% of patients, and the most reported side effect was somnolence (1.89%). There are discrepancies in the reported side effects of phenibut in clinical trials compared to those reported in cases of online-purchased phenibut dependence and intoxication. The current systematic review provides evidence that, at therapeutic doses, phenibut is safe and well tolerated with minor adverse effects, but questions regarding the quality of phenibut obtained online and the contribution of alcohol and other drug abuse to phenibut dependence and intoxication remain open.

Question Recent data suggest that anxiety disorders are as often comorbid with bipolar disorder (BD) as with unipolar depression; however, less attention has been paid to comorbidity of anxiety disorders with BD. Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most prevalent anxiety disorders that is highly comorbid with other mental disorders. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the degree of comorbidity between GAD and BD. Study selection and analysis We searched for all studies, which included primary data concerning the existence of GAD in patients with BD. The literature search strategy, selection of publications and the reporting of results have been conducted with PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analysis calculated prevalence estimates using the variance-stabilising Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. We applied the inverse variance method using both fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate summary effects for all combined studies. Heterogeneity was assessed and measured with Cochran's Q and I 2 statistics, respectively. Findings The current meta-analysis analysed data from 28 independent studies and a total of 2975 patients from point prevalence studies and 4919 patients from lifetime studies. The overall random-effects point prevalence of GAD in patients with BD was 12.2% (95% CI 10.9% to 13.5%) and the overall random-effects lifetime estimate was 15.1% (95% CI 9.7% to 21.5%). Both estimates reported significant heterogeneity (94.0% and 94.7%, respectively). Conclusions Published studies report prevalence rates with high heterogeneity and consistently higher than those typically reported in the general population. It is believed that comorbid GAD might be associated with a more severe BD course and increased suicidality, and it is unknown how best to treat such conditions. The current meta-analysis confirms that GAD is highly prevalent in BD and the rate is higher in comparison to those in the general population.