IntroductionSchizophrenia and bipolar disorder account for a large proportion of the global burden of disease. Despite their enormous impact, little is known about their pathophysiology. Given the high heritability of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, unbiased genetic studies offer the opportunity to gain insight into their neurobiology. However, advances in understanding the genetic architecture of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been based almost exclusively on subjects of Northern European ancestry. The Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations-Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis) project aims to expand our understanding of the causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through large-scale sample collection and analyses in understudied African populations.Methods and analysisNeuroGAP-Psychosis is a case-control study of 34 000 participants recruited across multiple sites within Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. Participants will include individuals who are at least 18 years old with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (‘psychosis’) or those with no history of psychosis. Research assistants will collect phenotype data and saliva for DNA extraction. Data on mental disorders, history of physical health problems, substance use and history of past traumatic events will be collected from all participants.DNA extraction will take place in-country, with genotyping performed at the Broad Institute. The primary analyses will include identifying major groups of participants with similar ancestry using the computation-efficient programme single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) weights. This will be followed by a GWAS within and across ancestry groups.Ethics and disseminationAll participants will be assessed for capacity to consent using the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent. Those demonstrating capacity to consent will be required to provide informed consent. Ethical clearances to conduct this study have been obtained from all participating sites. Findings from this study will be disseminated in publications and shared with controlled access public databases, such as the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes, dbGaP.

Background The term ‘global mental health’ came to the fore in 2007, when the Lancet published a series by that name. Aims To review all peer-reviewed articles using the term ‘global mental health’ and determine the implicit priorities of scientific literature that self-identifies with this term. Method We conducted a systematic review to quantify all peer-reviewed articles using the English term ‘global mental health’ in their text published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, including by geographic regions and by mental health conditions. Results A total of 467 articles met criteria. Use of the term ‘global mental health’ increased from 12 articles in 2007 to 114 articles in 2016. For the 111 empirical studies (23.8% of articles), the majority (78.4%) took place in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the most in Sub-Saharan Africa (28.4%) and South Asia (25.5%) and none from Central Asia. The most commonly studied mental health conditions were depression (29.7%), psychoses (12.6%) and conditions specifically related to stress (12.6%), with fewer studies on epilepsy (2.7%), self-harm and suicide (1.8%) and dementia (0.9%). The majority of studies lacked contextual information, including specific region(s) within countries where studies took place (20.7% missing), specific language(s) in which studies were conducted (36.9% missing), and details on ethnic identities such as ethnicity, caste and/or tribe (79.6% missing) and on socioeconomic status (85.4% missing). Conclusions Research identifying itself as ‘global mental health’ has focused predominantly on depression in LMICs and lacked contextual and sociodemographic data that limit interpretation and application of findings. Declaration of interest None.

Background: Limited evidence about mental health finances in low and middle-income countries is a key challenge to mental health care policy initiatives. This study aimed to map mental health finances in Ghana, Uganda, India (Kerala state), Sri Lanka and Lao PDR focusing on how much money is available for mental health, how it is spent, and how this impacts mental health services. Methods:A researcher in each region reviewed public mental health-related budgets and interviewed key informants on government mental health financing. A total of 43 key informant interviews were conducted. Quantitative data was analyzed in an excel matrix using descriptive statistics. Key informant interviews were coded a priori against research questions.Results: National ring-fenced budgets for mental health as a percentage of national health spending for 2007-08 is 1.7% in Sri Lanka, 3.7% in Ghana, 2.0% in Kerala (India) and 6.6% in Uganda. Budgets were not available in Lao PDR. The majority of ring-fenced budgets (76% to 100%) is spent on psychiatric hospitals. Mental health spending could not be tracked beyond the psychiatric hospital level due to limited information at the health centre and community levels. Conclusions:Mental health budget information should be tracked and made publically accessible. Governments can adapt WHO AIMS indicators for reviewing national mental health finances. Funding allocations work more effectively through decentralization. Mental health financing should reflect new ideas emerging from community based practice in LMICs.

Authors' contributions: SR, CL, JK, MW, SKW and SM designed the study; VdM, MK, and DM proposed the framework for economic analysis; VdM conducted the analysis and drafted the article; all authors revised the article and approved the final version. Funding:The intervention was funded by the European Commission's Non-State Actor funding stream (DCI-NSAPVD/2008/156-918) and the UK Department for International Development's Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF 450).Competing Interests: Shoba Raja, Joyce Kingori, Milka Waruguru and Saju Mannarath are employees of BasicNeeds. Abstract (164 words)Background. The treatment gap for serious mental disorders across low-income countries is estimated to be 89%. The model for Mental Health and Development (MHD) offers community-based care for people with mental disorders in eleven low-and middle-income countries.