in 4 regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, that facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Patients with mental illness are at an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality, and prioritisation of this group for COVID-19 vaccination programmes has therefore been suggested. Vaccine uptake may, however, be compromised by vaccine hesitancy amongst patients with mental illness, posing a critical public health issue. We conducted two surveys to provide weighted estimates of vaccine willingness amongst patients with mental illness and the general population of Denmark. Vaccine willingness was high in both groups, but slightly lower amongst patients with mental illness (84.8%), compared with the general population (89.5%) (p < .001). Based on these findings, vaccine hesitancy does not appear to be a major barrier for vaccine uptake amongst patients with mental illness in Denmark, but may be so in other countries with lower general vaccine willingness. Replication of the present study in other countries is strongly warranted.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Antipsychotics are key for the treatment of psychotic and several non-psychotic disorders. Unfortunately, antipsychotic medications are associated with side effects, which may reduce quality of life and treatment adherence. Therefore, regular screening of antipsychotic side effects is essential. The Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale is a patient self-report scale developed for this purpose. However, the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale has only been validated against another self-report side effect measure, which is suboptimal. Objective: We aimed to validate the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale using the clinician-rated Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser side-effect rating scale as the gold standard reference. Results: 81 antipsychotic-treated outpatients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (age = 42±13 years; males = 43%, schizophrenia = 77%, illness duration: median = 11 years) completed the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale and were subsequently scored on the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser by trained raters. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for paired Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale and Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser items. Sensitivity of Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale items ranged from 33–96%, with 19 (86%) having >75% sensitivity. Lowest sensitivity emerged for “nocturnal enuresis” (33%), “galactorrhea” (50%) and “hyperkinesia” 14–99%, with 14 items (64%) having >75% specificity, being lowest for “asthenia” (14%), “polyuria/polydipsia” (35%), “sedation” (41%), “akathisia” (53%), “dystonia” (65%), “hyperkinesia” (68%), “hypokinesia” (70%) and “accommodation” (70%). Positive predictive value ranged from 7–85%, with six items (27%) having a positive predictive value >75%. Negative predictive value ranged from 40–98%, with 21 items (95%) having a negative predictive value >75%. The mean time to complete the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale was 4±2 minutes. Conclusion: The Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale demonstrated satisfactory validity as a self-rated tool for antipsychotic side effects and may aid measurement-based care and decision-making.

We found a good level of inter-rater reliability of PANSS-6 ratings obtained using the SNAPSI for seven raters with varying levels of clinical and research experience.

No abstract

Background: The six-item version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6) has shown promise as a brief measure of the severity of core symptoms of schizophrenia. However, since all prior analyses of the PANSS-6 were based on data extracted from studies using the full 30-item PANSS (PANSS-30), it remains unknown whether it is possible to obtain valid information for the PANSS-6 ratings via a brief interview, such as the Simplified Negative and Positive Symptoms Interview (SNAPSI). Aims: We aimed to validate the PANSS-6 ratings obtained via the SNAPSI using the PANSS-6 scores extracted from the PANSS-30 ratings obtained via the comprehensive Structured Clinical Interview for PANSS (SCI-PANSS) as the gold-standard reference. Methods: The PANSS-6 ratings based on the SNAPSI and the PANSS-30 ratings based on the SCI-PANSS were conducted by independent raters with established inter-rater reliability. Results: Seventy-seven inpatients with schizophrenia ( Mage = 35.1 ± 11.7 years; males = 57%; paranoid schizophrenia = 75%) participated in the study. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the PANSS-6 total scores obtained using the SNAPSI and the PANSS-30-derived PANSS-6 total scores via the SCI-PANSS was 0.77 ( p < 0.001). The ICC for the PANSS-6 total score and the PANSS-30-derived PANSS-8 (Andreasen’s remission criteria) was 0.75 ( p < 0.001). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for changes in PANSS-6 total scores via the SNAPSI and changes in PANSS-30-derived PANSS-6 total scores was 0.70 ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Using the SNAPSI to rate the PANSS-6 enables a focused and brief assessment of the severity of core symptoms of schizophrenia, which facilitates measurement-based care and clinical decision making in the treatment of schizophrenia.