Although at present, none of the putative biomarkers is sufficient and specific as a diagnostic tool, an abundance of high quality research has accumulated that should improve our understanding of the neurobiological causes of anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD.

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.

Although at present, none of the putative biomarkers is sufficient and specific as a diagnostic tool, an abundance of high-quality research has accumulated that will improve our understanding of the neurobiological causes of anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD.

Although much has been done against the stigmatization and discrimination of the mentally ill, fighting stigma remains an essential task for mental health programs and for society. The descriptions summarized in this volume might serve as an inspiration for anti-stigma work and as an indication of potential collaborators in anti-stigma programs.

No abstract

The neurophysiological components that have been proposed as biomarkers or as endophenotypes for schizophrenia can be measured through electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), polysomnography (PSG), registration of event-related potentials (ERPs), assessment of smooth pursuit eye movements (SPEM) and antisaccade paradigms. Most of them demonstrate deficits in schizophrenia, show at least moderate stability over time and do not depend on clinical status, which means that they fulfil the criteria as valid endophenotypes for genetic studies. Deficits in cortical inhibition and plasticity measured using non-invasive brain stimulation techniques seem promising markers of outcome and prognosis. However the utility of these markers as biomarkers for predicting conversion to psychosis, response to treatments, or for tracking disease progression needs to be further studied.

Stigma and discrimination because of mental illness change in the course of the mental diseases. Future research may take a longitudinal perspective to better understand the beginnings of stigmatisation and its trajectory through the life course and to identify critical periods at which anti-stigma interventions can most effectively be applied.

The stigma of mental illness affects psychiatry as a medical profession and psychiatrists. The present study aimed to compare the extent and correlation patterns of perceived stigma in psychiatrists and general practitioners. An international multicenter survey was conducted in psychiatrists and general practitioners from twelve countries. Responses were received from N = 1,893 psychiatrists and N = 1,238 general practitioners. Aspects of stigma assessed in the questionnaire included perceived stigma, self-stigma (stereotype agreement), attitudes toward the other profession, and experiences of discrimination. Psychiatrists reported significantly higher perceived stigma and discrimination experiences than general practitioners. Separate multiple regression analyses showed different predictor patterns of perceived stigma in the two groups. Hence, in the psychiatrists group, perceived stigma correlated best with discrimination experiences and self-stigma, while in the general practitioners group it correlated best with self-stigma. About 17% of the psychiatrists perceive stigma as a serious problem, with a higher rate in younger respondents. Against this background, psychiatry as a medical profession should set a high priority on improving the training of young graduates. Despite the number of existing antistigma interventions targeting mental health professionals and medical students, further measures to improve the image of psychiatry and psychiatrists are warranted, in particular improving the training of young graduates with respect to raising awareness of own stigmatizing attitudes and to develop a better profession-related self-assertiveness.