Evidence on risk factors for postpartum depression (PPD) are fragmented and inconsistent.

To assess the strength and credibility of evidence on risk factors of PPD, ranking them based on the umbrella review methodology.

Databases were searched until 1 December 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Two reviewers assessed quality, credibility of associations according to umbrella review criteria (URC) and evidence certainty according to Grading of Recommendations-Assessment-Development-Evaluations criteria.

Including 185 observational studies (n = 3 272 093) from 11 systematic reviews, the association between premenstrual syndrome and PPD was the strongest (highly suggestive: odds ratio 2.20, 95%CI 1.81–2.68), followed by violent experiences (highly suggestive: odds ratio (OR) = 2.07, 95%CI 1.70–2.50) and unintended pregnancy (highly suggestive: OR=1.53, 95%CI 1.35–1.75). Following URC, the association was suggestive for Caesarean section (OR = 1.29, 95%CI 1.17–1.43), gestational diabetes (OR = 1.60, 95%CI 1.25–2.06) and 5-HTTPRL polymorphism (OR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.57–0.86); and weak for preterm delivery (OR = 2.12, 95%CI 1.43–3.14), anaemia during pregnancy (OR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.17–1.84), vitamin D deficiency (OR = 3.67, 95%CI 1.72–7.85) and postpartum anaemia (OR = 1.75, 95%CI 1.18–2.60). No significant associations were found for medically assisted conception and intra-labour epidural analgesia. No association was rated as ‘convincing evidence’. According to GRADE, the certainty of the evidence was low for Caesarean section, preterm delivery, 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and anaemia during pregnancy, and ‘very low’ for remaining factors.

The most robust risk factors of PDD were premenstrual syndrome, violent experiences and unintended pregnancy. These results should be integrated in clinical algorithms to assess the risk of PPD.

Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence.

To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258).

We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU.

CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

Coercive treatment comprises a broad range of practices, ranging from implicit or explicit pressure to accept certain treatment to the use of forced practices such as involuntary admission, seclusion and restraint. Coercion is common in mental health services.

To evaluate the strength and credibility of evidence on the efficacy of interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S76T3.

Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration, and Epistemonikos from January 2010 to January 2020 for meta-analyses of randomised studies. Summary effects were recalculated using a common metric and random-effects models. We assessed between-study heterogeneity, predictive intervals, publication bias, small-study effects and whether the results of the observed positive studies were more than expected by chance. On the basis of these calculations, strength of associations was classified using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

A total of 23 primary studies (19 conducted in European countries and 4 in the USA) enrolling 8554 participants were included. The evidence on the efficacy of staff training to reduce use of restraint was supported by the most robust evidence (relative risk RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62–0.87; suggestive association, GRADE: moderate), followed by evidence on the efficacy of shared decision-making interventions to reduce involuntary admissions of adults with severe mental illness (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60–0.92; weak association, GRADE: moderate) and by the evidence on integrated care interventions (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.95; weak association, GRADE: low). By contrast, community treatment orders and adherence therapy had no effect on involuntary admission rates.

Different levels of evidence indicate the benefit of staff training, shared decision-making interventions and integrated care interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. These different levels of evidence should be considered in the development of policy, clinical and implementation initiatives to reduce coercive practices in mental healthcare, and should lead to further studies in both high- and low-income countries to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base.

– This study estimated service and non-service costs in a random sample of patients attending a community psychiatric mental health centre in Italy.

– A randomly selected sample of patients identified during 1 week of routine clinical activity was enrolled. Information was collected using the Italian-language checklist Questionario Economico per l’attività clinica dei Servizi Psichiatrici (QESP). Costs were classified in two categories: service costs (from the provision of services) and non-service costs (loss of productivity and informal care).

– One hundred and twenty patients were included. Patients suffering from schizophrenia and related disorders (n = 50) had a mean age of 44.5 years (S.D. 12.9), and patients with other diagnoses (n = 70) had a mean age of 44.9 years (S.D. 14.8). More patients in the schizophrenia group were single, living alone, had a low educational level and a higher unemployment rate. In patients suffering from schizophrenia, the monthly service cost per patient was nearly double that for patients with other diagnoses. Non-service costs associated with patients’ lack of job opportunities were more than three times higher for patients with schizophrenia. Non-service costs associated with patients’ and care-givers’ time off work were similar in the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, being unemployed was associated with higher service costs. Younger age, length of illness and diagnosis of schizophrenia were determinants of higher non-service costs. The latter three independent variables were also associated with overall (service and non-service) costs.

– The present study estimated service and non-service costs under routine circumstances to provide information on costs that community psychiatric services, patients and care-givers sustain when dealing with psychiatric problems.

Clinical practice guidelines are not easily implemented, leading to a gap between research synthesis and their use in routine care.

To summarise the evidence relating to the impact of guideline implementation on provider performance and patient outcomes in mental healthcare settings, and to explore the performance of different strategies for guideline implementation.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and before-and-after studies comparing guideline implementation strategies v. usual care, and different guideline implementation strategies, in patients with severe mental illness.

In total, 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies did not show a consistent positive effect of guideline implementation on provider performance, but a more consistent small to modest positive effect on patient outcomes.

Guideline implementation does not seem to have an impact on provider performance, nonetheless it may influence patient outcomes positively.

It has been suggested that the efficacy of antidepressants has been overestimated in clinical trials owing to unblinding of drug treatments by adverse events.

To investigate the association between adverse events and the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

The literature was searched to identify randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of SSRIs in the treatment of major depression. Efficacy outcomes were response to treatment and change in depressive symptoms. Reporting of adverse events was used as an indicator of tolerability. Random effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between adverse events and efficacy. Potential mediation was investigated with the Baron & Kenny approach.

A total of 68 trials (n = 17 646) were included in the analyses. In meta-analysis SSRIs were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy (odds ratio, OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.51–1.72). More patients allocated to SSRIs reported adverse events than did patients receiving placebo (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.58–1.89). Meta-regression analyses did not find an association between adverse events and efficacy (P = 0.439). There was no indication of adverse events mediating the effect of SSRI treatment.

Our results do not support, but also do not unequivocally disprove, the hypothesis that adverse events lead to an overestimation of the effect of SSRIs over placebo.