The development of guidelines is time-consuming and cost-intensive. The heterogeneity of clinical practice, evidence, and patients’ needs is an issue across Europe. An European core guidance for a specific psychiatric disorder may help to overcome this issue. Here, we present a progress report on the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) proof-of-concept approach to develop a European consensus guidance on the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia.

All national psychiatric associations in Europe were contacted to provide their schizophrenia guidelines. Six guidelines were rated by three experts, experienced in the development of national and international guidelines, from three different countries (Italy, Hungary, and Germany), and the German schizophrenia guideline published in 2019 was found to have the highest quality. For this proof-of-concept approach, 45 recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia from the German guideline were evaluated in a two-step Delphi process to determine their acceptability throughout the European continent.

44 experts participated in the first round and 40 experts in the second round of the Delphi process. Agreement among the involved experts was reached for 75% of the presented recommendations from the German schizophrenia guidelines. 11 out of 45 recommendations (24.4%) did not reach this level of agreement.

This progress report highlights the possibility of developing a pan-European core guidance on the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia by adapting national guidelines and reconciling their recommendations. However, several barriers in this adaptation process, such as non-agreement in recommendations with strong scientific evidence in the reconciling process, were identified and must be considered when developing the final guidance.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to health that societies face and can adversely affect mental health. Given the current lack of a European consensus paper on the interplay between climate change and mental health, we signal a need for a pan-European position paper about this topic, written by stakeholders working in mental health care.

On behalf of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), we give recommendations to make mental health care, research, and education more sustainable based on a narrative review of the literature.

Examples of sustainable mental healthcare comprise preventive strategies, interdisciplinary collaborations, evidence-based patient care, addressing social determinants of mental health, maintaining health services during extreme weather events, optimising use of resources, and sustainable facility management. In mental health research, sustainable strategies include investigating the impact of climate change on mental health, promoting research on climate change interventions, strengthening the evidence base for mental health-care recommendations, evaluating the allocation of research funding, and establishing evidence-based definitions and clinical approaches for emerging issues such as ‘eco-distress’. Regarding mental health education, planetary health, which refers to human health and how it is intertwined with ecosystems, may be integrated into educational courses.

The EPA is committed to combat climate change as the latter poses a threat to the future of mental health care. The current EPA position paper on climate change and mental health may be of interest to a diverse readership of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, educators, patients, and policymakers.

Considering the recently growing number of potentially traumatic events in Europe, the European Psychiatric Association undertook a study to investigate clinicians’ treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The case-based analysis included 611 participants, who correctly classified the vignette as a case of PTSD, from Central/ Eastern Europe (CEE) (n = 279), Southern Europe (SE) (n = 92), Northern Europe (NE) (n = 92), and Western Europe (WE) (N = 148).

About 82% woulduse antidepressants (sertraline being the most preferred one). Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics were significantly more frequently recommended by participants from CEE (33 and 4%, respectively), compared to participants from NE (11 and 0%) and SE (9% and 3%). About 52% of clinicians recommended trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy and 35% psychoeducation, irrespective of their origin. In the latent class analysis, we identified four distinct “profiles” of clinicians. In Class 1 (N = 367), psychiatrists would less often recommend any antidepressants. In Class 2 (N = 51), clinicians would recommend trazodone and prolonged exposure therapy. In Class 3 (N = 65), they propose mirtazapine and eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy. In Class 4 (N = 128), clinicians propose different types of medications and cognitive processing therapy. About 50.1% of participants in each region stated they do not adhere to recognized treatment guidelines.

Clinicians’ decisions for PTSD are broadly similar among European psychiatrists, but regional differences suggest the need for more dialogue and education to harmonize practice across Europe and promote the use of guidelines.

The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) is an organization that speaks on behalf of its individual members and members of National Psychiatric Associations (NPAs). The aim of this study to identify and investigate current contents of ethical codes and practices in the countries belonging to EPA.

The study is an expert survey sent out to 44 representatives of 30 NPAs covering the following topics: the existence of national bodies dealing with ethical issues in psychiatry, the availability of documents relevant to ethical issues, the types of ethical issues addressed at the national level, and the current and envisaged ethical debates.

Out of 44 experts invited to participate in the study, 31 NPAs from 30 countries responded (response rate 70.45%). In the majority of countries, the general mission statement serves as the main document covering ethical issues in psychiatry. Most frequently, internal documents were reported to address medical malpractice, workplace bullying, plagiarism, academic fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination/racism. Furthermore, internal documents cover the ethical assessment of potentially controversial procedures, including psychosurgery, euthanasia, and pregnancy termination. The most important topics for debate at the level of NPAs/EPA were associated with violations of clinical practice standards and human rights.

NPAs are active in the field of professional ethics, defining ethical standards related to interactions among professionals and services provided by mental health care professionals. Future collaboration of NPAs, under the umbrella of the EPA, could allow to develop a database of local ethical documents that would be translated into English and accessible to all EPA members.

While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.

SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.

The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.

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.

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.

Radicalization is a process, by which individuals adopt extreme political, social and religious ideation that leads to mass violence acts. It has been hypothesized that mental health characteristics might be associated with a risk of radicalization. However, a qualitative synthesis of studies investigating the relationship between mental health and radicalization has not been performed so far. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review of studies examining the association between mental health characteristics and the risk of radicalization. Two reviewers performed an independent search of online databases from their inception until 8th April 2018 and 12 publications met eligibility criteria. There were several methodological limitations across the majority of eligible publications, including doubtful sample representativeness, use of diagnostic procedures without personal assessment of mental health status or lack of standardized tools for assessment of mental health. Representative cross-sectional studies revealed that depressive symptoms might be associated with radicalization proneness. However, it remains unknown whether depressive symptoms are associated with resilience or vulnerability to radicalization. Another finding from our systematic review is that several personality traits might predispose to develop extreme ideation. Finally, there is some evidence that lone-actors might represent a specific subgroup of subjects with extreme beliefs which can be characterized by high prevalence of psychotic and/or mood disorders. In conclusion, this systematic review indicates that caution should be taken on how the association between ‘mental health’ and ‘radicalization’ is being claimed, because of limited evidence so far, and a number of methodological limitations of studies addressing this issue.