Severe mental disorders – such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and substance use disorders – exert a negative impact not only on affected people but also on their carers. To support carers of people with severe mental disorders, several psychosocial interventions have been developed.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether psychosocial interventions for carers of persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or substance use disorders produce benefit/harm with respect to a series of outcomes – including subjective and objective burden, depressive symptoms, well-being/quality of life, sleep, skills/knowledge, self-efficacy, physical health – as compared to standard support/support as usual or other control conditions.

In carers of persons with schizophrenia, psychoeducational interventions were associated with significant improvement in personal burden, well-being, and knowledge about the illness; and a supportive-educational intervention with an improvement in personal burden. In carers of persons with bipolar disorder, psychoeducational interventions were associated with significant improvement in personal burden and depressive symptoms; family-led supportive interventions with an improvement in family burden; family-focused intervention and online “mi.spot” intervention with a significant reduction in depressive symptoms. Psychosocial interventions used for carers of persons with substance use disorders were found to be overall effective on the level of well-being, but the low number of trials did not allow detection of differences between the various psychosocial interventions.

The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting the need for further better-quality research.

Symptoms of depression are transdiagnostic heterogenous features frequently assessed in psychiatric disorders, that impact the response to first-line treatment and are associated with higher suicide risk. This study assessed whether severe mental pain could characterize a specific phenotype of severely depressed high-risk psychiatric patients. We also aimed to analyze differences in treatments administered.

2,297 adult patients (1,404 females and 893 males; mean age = 43.25 years, SD = 15.15) treated in several Italian psychiatric departments. Patients were assessed for psychiatric diagnoses, mental pain, symptoms of depression, hopelessness, and suicide risk.

More than 23% of the patients reported high depression symptomatology and high mental pain (HI DEP/HI PAIN). Compared to patients with lower symptoms of depression, HI DEP/HI PAIN is more frequent among females admitted to an inpatient department and is associated with higher hopelessness and suicide risk. In addition, HI DEP/HI PAIN (compared to both patients with lower symptoms of depression and patients with higher symptoms of depression but lower mental pain) were more frequently diagnosed in patients with personality disorders and had different treatments.

Patients reporting severe symptoms of depression and high mental pain presented a mixture of particular dangerousness (high trait hopelessness and the presence of suicide ideation with more frequency and less controllability and previous suicide behaviors). The presence of severe mental pain may act synergically in expressing a clinical phenotype that is likewise treated with a more complex therapeutic regime than that administered to those experiencing symptoms of depression without mental pain.

The Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC) is a patient-reported outcome measure which assesses experiences of discrimination among persons with a mental illness globally.

This study evaluated whether the psychometric properties of a short-form version, DISC-Ultra Short (DISCUS) (11-item), could be replicated in a sample of people with a wide range of mental disorders from 21 sites in 15 countries/territories, across six global regions. The frequency of experienced discrimination was reported. Scaling assumptions (confirmatory factor analysis, inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency) and validity (convergent validity, known groups method) were investigated in each region, and by diagnosis group.

1195 people participated. The most frequently reported experiences of discrimination were being shunned or avoided at work (48.7%) and discrimination in making or keeping friends (47.2%). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional model across all six regions and five diagnosis groups. Convergent validity was confirmed in the total sample and within all regions [ Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI-10): 0.28–0.67, stopping self: 0.54–0.72, stigma consciousness: −0.32–0.57], as was internal consistency reliability (α = 0.74–0.84). Known groups validity was established in the global sample with levels of experienced discrimination significantly higher for those experiencing higher depression [Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-2: p < 0.001], lower mental wellbeing [Warwick-Edinburgh Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): p < 0.001], higher suicidal ideation [Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS)-4: p < 0.001] and higher risk of suicidal behaviour [Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale (SIDAS): p < 0.001].

The DISCUS is a reliable and valid unidimensional measure of experienced discrimination for use in global settings with similar properties to the longer DISC. It offers a brief assessment of experienced discrimination for use in clinical and research settings.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is recognized to be at high risk for developing negative psychopathological sequelae to potentially traumatic events. Nevertheless, scant data are still available about the effects of the COVID-19 emergency on the clinical course of BD. The present study examined prospectively the development and trajectories of post-traumatic stress, depressive, and anxiety symptoms among subjects with BD that were followed in an outpatient psychiatric clinic at the time of pandemic onset.

A cohort of 89 subjects with BD was enrolled during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed at baseline (T0), 2-months (T1), and 6-months (T2) follow-up. A K-means cluster analysis was used to identify distinct trajectories of depressive, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms during the three time points.

We identified three trajectories: the Acute reaction (13.5%); the Increasing severity (23.6%); and the Low symptoms (62.9%) groups, respectively. In the Acute reaction group a significant prevalence of female gender was reported with respect to the Low symptoms one. Subjects in the Increasing severity group reported significantly lower employment rate, and higher rate of relatives at risk for COVID-19 medical complications. Subjects in the Increasing Severity group reported higher rates of previous hospitalization and manic symptoms at baseline than those included in the Low symptoms one.

Our results describe three distinct symptom trajectories during the COVID-19 emergency in a cohort of subjects suffering from BD, suggesting the need of a long-term follow-up for detecting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in this vulnerable population.

When facing a traumatic event, some people may experience positive changes, defined as posttraumatic growth (PTG).

Understanding the possible positive consequences of the pandemic on the individual level is crucial for the development of supportive psychosocial interventions. The present paper aims to: 1) evaluate the levels of PTG in the general population; 2) to identify predictors of each dimension of post-traumatic growth.

The majority of the sample (67%, N = 13,889) did not report any significant improvement in any domain of PTG. Participants reported the highest levels of growth in the dimension of “appreciation of life” (2.3 ± 1.4), while the lowest level was found in the “spiritual change” (1.2 ± 1.2). Female participants reported a slightly higher level of PTG in areas of personal strength (p < .002) and appreciation for life (p < .007) compared to male participants, while no significant association was found with age. At the multivariate regression models, weighted for the propensity score, only the initial week of lockdown (between 9-15 April) had a negative impact on the dimension of “relating to others” (B = −.107, 95% CI = −.181 to −.032, p < .005), while over time no other effects were found. The duration of exposure to lockdown measures did not influence the other dimensions of PTG.

The assessment of the levels of PTG is of great importance for the development of ad hoc supportive psychosocial interventions. From a public health perspective, the identification of protective factors is crucial for developing ad-hoc tailored interventions and for preventing the development of full-blown mental disorders in large scale.

People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) have a mortality rate two times higher compared to the general population, with a decade of years of life lost. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we assessed in a sample of people with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, the efficacy of an innovative psychosocial group intervention compared to a brief psychoeducational group intervention on patients’ body mass index (BMI), body weight, waist circumference, Framingham and HOMA-IR indexes.

This is a multicentric RCT with blinded outcome assessments carried out in six Italian university centers. After recruitment patients were randomized to receive a 6-month psychosocial intervention to improve patients’ physical health or a brief psychoeducational intervention. All recruited patients were assessed with standardized assessment instruments at baseline and after 6 months. Anthropometric parameters and blood samples have also been collected.

Four-hundred and two patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (43.3%), schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder (29.9%), or major depression (26.9%) were randomly allocated to the experimental (N = 206) or the control group (N = 195). After 6 months, patients from the experimental group reported a significant reduction in BMI (odds ratio [OR]: 1.93, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31–2.84; p < 0.001), body weight (OR = 4.78, 95% CI: 0.80–28.27, p < 0.05), and waist circumference (OR = 5.43, 95% CI: 1.45–20.30, p < 0.05). Participants with impaired cognitive and psychosocial functioning had a worse response to the intervention.

The experimental group intervention was effective in improving the physical health in SMI patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility of this intervention in real-world settings.

Responses to anticipateddiscrimination are common among mental health service users and can have adetrimental impact on their recovery. Since 2009, the Time to Change (TTC)anti-stigma program in England has aimed to improve service users’ empowerment,reducing public stigma and discrimination. In this paper, we aim to evaluatewhether service users’ awareness of TTC is associated with fewer responses toanticipated discrimination.

We used data collected for the evaluation of TTC from samples of mental health service users interviewed by telephone in annual surveys 2009-2014.

Five thousand and nine hundredand twenty-three participants completed the survey, mainly suffering from mooddisorders (depression, 28.4%, n = 1,681) and schizophrenia related disorders(15.4%, n = 915).

In 23.2% of cases,participants were aware of any aspects of the TTC program, while participationin TTC was reported by 2.6%. Being aware of the TTC program was notsignificantly associated with responses to anticipated discrimination, exceptfor those participating in the TTC campaign in 2013. Stopping oneself fromapplying for work was significantly associated with experienced discriminationin both finding (p < 0.001) and keeping (p < 0.001) a job.Concealing mental health problems was associated with a general experience ofbeing shunned (p < 0.001).

Awareness of a nationalanti-stigma program may not be sufficient to encourage people to seek work/educationor to be open about their illness in situations in which they currentlyanticipate discrimination. There is the need to identify new multi-levelstrategies for challenging anticipated discrimination, even focusing ondifferent target groups.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented traumatic event influencing the healthcare, economic, and social welfare systems worldwide. In order to slow the infection rates, lockdown has been implemented almost everywhere. Italy, one of the countries most severely affected, entered the “lockdown” on March 8, 2020.

The COvid Mental hEalth Trial (COMET) network includes 10 Italian university sites and the National Institute of Health. The whole study has three different phases. The first phase includes an online survey conducted between March and May 2020 in the Italian population. Recruitment took place through email invitation letters, social media, mailing lists of universities, national medical associations, and associations of stakeholders (e.g., associations of users/carers). In order to evaluate the impact of lockdown on depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms, multivariate linear regression models were performed, weighted for the propensity score.

The final sample consisted of 20,720 participants. Among them, 12.4% of respondents (N = 2,555) reported severe or extremely severe levels of depressive symptoms, 17.6% (N = 3,627) of anxiety symptoms and 41.6% (N = 8,619) reported to feel at least moderately stressed by the situation at the DASS-21.

According to the multivariate regression models, the depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms significantly worsened from the week April 9–15 to the week April 30 to May 4 (p < 0.0001). Moreover, female respondents and people with pre-existing mental health problems were at higher risk of developing severe depression and anxiety symptoms (p < 0.0001).

Although physical isolation and lockdown represent essential public health measures for containing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, they are a serious threat for mental health and well-being of the general population. As an integral part of COVID-19 response, mental health needs should be addressed.

Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or compare only one compound with several other compounds. The goal of this study is to compute a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on restoring calmness after a pharmacological intervention, so a more precise recommendation is possible.

A search in Pubmed and Embase was done to isolate RCT’s considering pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. The outcome is reaching calmness within maximum of 2 h, assessed by the psychometric scales of PANSS-EC, CGI or ACES. Also the percentages of adverse effects was assessed.

Fifty-three papers were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Most frequent studied drug is olanzapine. Changes on PANNS-EC and ACES at 2 h showed the strongest changes for haloperidol plus promethazine, risperidon, olanzapine, droperidol and aripiprazole. However, incomplete data showed that the effect of risperidon is overestimated. Adverse effects are most prominent for haloperidol and haloperidol plus lorazepam.

Olanzapine, haloperidol plus promethazine or droperidol are most effective and safe for use as rapid tranquilisation. Midazolam sedates most quickly. But due to increased saturation problems, midazolam is restricted to use within an emergency department of a general hospital.

The decision to adopt forced medication in psychiatric care is particularly relevant from a clinical and ethical viewpoint. The European Commission has funded the EUNOMIA study in order to develop European recommendations for good clinical practice on coercive measures, including forced medication.

The recommendations on forced medication have been developed in 11 countries with the involvement of national clinical leaders, key-professionals and stakeholders’ representatives. The national recommendations have been subsequently summarized into a European shared document.

Several cross-national differences exist in the use of forced medication. These differences are mainly due to legal and policy making aspects, rather than to clinical situations. In fact, countries agreed that forced medication can be allowed only if the following criteria are present: 1) a therapeutic intervention is urgently needed; 2) the voluntary intake of medications is consistently rejected; 3) the patient is not aware of his/her condition. Patients’ dignity, privacy and safety shall be preserved at all times.

The results of our study show the need of developing guidelines on the use of forced medication in psychiatric practice, that should be considered as the last resort and only when other therapeutic option have failed.