The aim was to develop, refine and assess the usefulness of the Go for Green® (G4G) 2.0 Program Fidelity Assessment (PFA) tool. G4G 2.0 is a Department of Defense programme designed to optimise access, availability and knowledge of high-performance nutritious foods in military dining facilities (DFAC).

During a multi-site study to evaluate G4G 2.0 on meal quality and diner satisfaction, subject matter experts developed and refined a PFA tool based on eight programme requirements (PR). They identified tasks critical to programme success and corresponding benchmarks, then proposed expansion of several PR and developed a scoring system to assess adherence. Three PFA were conducted (Site 1, Site 2A and Site B).

Two DFAC in the USA implementing the G4G 2.0 programme.

Military DFAC participating in a G4G 2.0 evaluation study.

After G4G 2.0 implementation, Site 1 conducted a PFA and met benchmarks for eight of fifteen sections. At Site 2, a PFA was conducted after G4G 2.0 implementation (Site 2A) and one 3 months later (Site 2B) with twelve of fifteen and ten of fifteen sections meeting benchmarks, respectively.

Research highlights the need to maximise implementation quality to ensure interventions are effective, achievable and efficient. Using a PFA tool to objectively assess nutrition interventions can inform programme fidelity, successes and opportunities for improvement. Results identify key areas that require additional training and resources to optimise access to nutrient-dense foods that support nutritional fitness. This feedback is critical for assessing potential programme impact on Service Members.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented worldwide crisis affecting several sectors, including health, social care, economy and society at large. The World Health Organisation has emphasized that mental health care should be considered as one of the core sectors within the overall COVID-19 health response. By March 2020, recommendations for the organization of mental health services across Europe have been developed by several national and international mental health professional associations.

The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) surveyed a large European sample of psychiatrists, namely the “EPA Ambassadors”, on their clinical experience of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of psychiatric patients during the month of April 2020 in order to: a) identify and report the views and experiences of European psychiatrists; and b) represent and share these results with mental health policy makers at European level. Based on the recommendations issued by national psychiatric associations and on the results of our survey, we identified important organisational aspects of mental health care during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19.

While most of the recommendations followed the same principles, significant differences between countries emerged in service delivery, mainly relating to referrals to outpatients and for inpatient admission, assessments and treatment for people with mental disorders. Compared to previous months, the mean number of patients treated by psychiatrists in outpatient settings halved in April 2020. In the same period, the number of mentally ill patients tested for, or developing, COVID-19 was low. In most of countries, traditional face-to-face visits were replaced by online remote consultations.

Based on our findings we recommend: 1) to implement professional guidelines into practice and harmonize psychiatric clinical practice across Europe; 2) to monitor the treatment outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing mental disorders; 3) to keep psychiatric services active by using all available options (for example telepsychiatry); 4) to increase communication and cooperation between different health care providers.

Compulsory admission procedures of patients with mental disorders vary between countries in Europe. The Ethics Committee of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) launched a survey on involuntary admission procedures of patients with mental disorders in 40 countries to gather information from all National Psychiatric Associations that are members of the EPA to develop recommendations for improving involuntary admission processes and promote voluntary care.

The survey focused on legislation of involuntary admissions and key actors involved in the admission procedure as well as most common reasons for involuntary admissions.

We analyzed the survey categorical data in themes, which highlight that both medical and legal actors are involved in involuntary admission procedures.

We conclude that legal reasons for compulsory admission should be reworded in order to remove stigmatization of the patient, that raising awareness about involuntary admission procedures and patient rights with both patients and family advocacy groups is paramount, that communication about procedures should be widely available in lay-language for the general population, and that training sessions and guidance should be available for legal and medical practitioners. Finally, people working in the field need to be constantly aware about the ethical challenges surrounding compulsory admissions.

The study focuses on the point prevalence of major depressive episode in the Estonian population in 2006 and assesses the relationship of sociodemographic factors, health status indicators, alcohol use, and previous depressive episodes to major depression.

The present major depressive episode was assessed within the nationally representative, cross-sectional 2006 Estonian Health Survey (EHIS 2006), in which non-institutionalized individuals aged 18–84 years (n = 6105) were interviewed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI).

The point prevalence of major depressive episode in the Estonian population was 5.6%. Depression was higher among females, in the non-Estonian ethnic group, among people older than 40 years, and in the lower-income group.

The point prevalence of major depressive episodes was comparable with the results of other population surveys, being a little higher than the average. Age, income, ethnicity, health status, self-rated health, and previous depressive episode were independent associates of depression.