No abstract

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.

No abstract

No abstract

This study shows that most of the patients suffering from mental illness prefer to approach faith healers first, which may delay entry to psychiatric care and thereby negatively impact the prognosis of BAD. This highlights the importance of mental health education and developing a positive collaborative relationship with traditional healers.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome does not differ in schizophrenia whether patients are receiving polypharmacy and monotherapy nor do they differ for individual metabolic parameters. Most antipsychotic-related characteristics did not predict for metabolic syndrome.

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.

Most of the existing data on real-life management of bipolar disorder are from studies conducted in western countries (mostly United States and Europe). This multinational, observational cohort study aimed to describe the management and clinical outcomes of bipolar patients in real-life conditions across various intercontinental countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Tunisia, and Ukraine). Data on socio-demographic and disease characteristics, current symptomatology, and pharmacological treatment were collected. Comparisons between groups were performed using standard statistical tests. Overall, 1180 patients were included. The median time from initial diagnosis was 80 months. Major depressive disorder was the most common initial diagnosis. Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics were the most common drugs being prescribed at the time of the study. Antidepressants (mainly selective serotonin uptake inhibitors [SSRIs]) were administered to 36.1% of patients. Patients with bipolar I disorder received higher number of antipsychotics and anxiolytics than those with bipolar II disorder (p < 0.001). Presence of depressive symptoms was associated with an increase in antidepressant use (p < 0.001). Bipolar disorder real-life management practice, irrespective of region, shows a delay in diagnosis and an overuse of antidepressants. Clinical decision-making appears to be based on a multidimensional approach related to current symptomatology and type of bipolar disorder.Bipolar disorder (BD) is a recurrent and chronic disease characterized by the occurrence of manic (or hypomanic), depressive, or mixed episodes. According to the World Health Organization, BD is one of the world's ten most disabling conditions 1 . Several studies have shown that a considerable proportion of BD patients (30-60%) in clinical remission live with significant functional impairment [2][3][4][5][6] . In the general population, the estimated lifetime prevalence of BD is approximately 0.2-5% and increases to 6% for a broad range of bipolar spectrum disorders [7][8][9][10]