Protecting all human rights of people with mental health conditions is globally important. However, to facilitate practical implementation of rights, it is often necessary to decide which of these rights should be given priority, especially when they conflict with each other.

The aim of the Priorities of Human Rights and Mental Health (PHRAME) project is to develop a replicable approach to establish a proposed set of high-priority human rights of people with mental health conditions, to facilitate practical decision-making and implementation of such rights.

A two-stage Delphi-style study with stakeholders was conducted to generate a list of key rights of people with mental health conditions, and rank priorities among these rights in terms of feasibility, urgency and overall importance.

The stakeholders in this study consistently ranked three rights as top priorities: (a) the right to freedom from torture, cruel inhuman treatment and punishment; (b) the right to health and access to services/treatment; and (c) the right to protection and safety in emergency situations.

Insights from PHRAME can support decision-making about the priority to be given to human rights, to guide practical action. This approach can also be used to assess how human rights are prioritised in different settings and by different stakeholders. This study identifies the clear need for a central voice for people with lived experience in research and implementation of decisions about the priority of human rights, ensuring that action respects the opinion of people whose rights are directly affected.

It is unclear whether the enhancing contact model (ECM) intervention is effective in reducing family caregiving burden and improving hope and quality of life (QOL) among family caregivers of persons with schizophrenia (FCPWS).

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in FCPWS in eight rural townships in Xinjin, Chengdu, China. In total, 253 FCPWS were randomly allocated to the ECM, psychoeducational family intervention (PFI), or treatment as usual (TAU) group. FCPWS in three groups were assessed caregiving burden, QOL and state of hope at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), 3-month (T2), and 9-month (T3) follow-up, respectively.

Compared with participants in the TAU group, participants in the ECM group had statistically significantly lower caregiving burden scores both at T1 and T2 (p = 0.0059 and 0.0257, respectively). Compared with participants in the TAU group, participants in the PFI group had statistically significantly higher QOL scores in T1 (p = 0.0406), while participants in the ECM group had statistically significantly higher QOL scores in T3 (p = 0.0240). Participants in both ECM and PFI groups had statistically significantly higher hope scores than those in the TAU group at T1 (p = 0.0160 and 0.0486, respectively).

This is the first study to explore the effectiveness of ECM on reducing family caregiving burden and improving hope and QOL in rural China. The results indicate the ECM intervention, a comprehensive and multifaceted intervention, is more effective than the PFI in various aspects of mental wellbeing among FCPWS. Future research needs to confirm ECM's effectiveness in various population.

In addition to risking their physical well-being, frontline physicians are enduring significant emotional burden both at work and home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aims to investigate the levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms and to identify associated factors among Bangladeshi physicians during the COVID-19 outbreak.

A cross-sectional study using an online survey following a convenience sampling technique was conducted between April 21 and May 10, 2020. Outcomes assessed included demographic questions, COVID-19 related questions, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

The survey was completed by 412 Bangladeshi physicians. The findings revealed that, in terms of standardized HADS cut-off points, the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among physicians was 67.72% and 48.5% respectively. Risk factors for higher rates of anxiety or depressive symptoms were: being female, physicians who had experienced COVID-19 like symptoms during the pandemic, those who had not received incentives, those who used self-funded personal protective equipment (PPE), not received adequate training, lacking perceived self-efficacy to manage COVID-19 positive patients, greater perceived stress of being infected, fear of getting assaulted/humiliated, being more connected with social media, having lower income levels to support the family, feeling more agitated, less than 2 h of leisure activity per day and short sleep duration. All these factors were found to be positively associated with anxiety and depression in unadjusted and adjusted statistical models.

This study identifies a real concern about the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among Bangladeshi physicians and identifies several associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the vulnerability of the physicians in this extraordinary period whilst they are putting their own lives at risk to help people infected by COVID-19, health authorities should address the psychological needs of medical staff and formulate effective strategies to support vital frontline health workers.

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.

Stigma related to mental disorders is a barrier to quality mental healthcare. This scoping review aimed to synthesise literature on stigma related to mental disorders in Nepal to understand stigma processes. The anthropological concept of ‘what matters most’ to understand culture and stigma was used to frame the literature on explanatory models, manifestations, consequences, structural facilitators and mitigators, and interventions.

We conducted a scoping review with screening guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A structured search was done using three international databases (PsycINFO, Medline and Web of Science), one Nepali database (NepJol) and cross-referencing for publications from 1 January 2000 through 24 June 2020. The search was repeated to include structural stigma-related terms. Quality of quantitative studies was assessed using the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR) tool. The review was registered through the Open Science Framework (OSF) (osf.io/u8jhn).

The searches yielded 57 studies over a 20-year period: 19 quantitative, 19 qualitative, nine mixed methods, five review articles, two ethnographies and three other types of studies. The review identified nine stigma measures used in Nepal, one stigma intervention, and no studies focused on adolescent and child mental health stigma. The findings suggest that ‘what matters most’ in Nepali culture for service users, caregivers, community members and health workers include prestige, productivity, privacy, acceptance, marriage and resources. Cultural values related to ‘what matters most’ are reflected in structural barriers and facilitators including lack of policies, programme planning and resources. Most studies using quantitative tools to assess stigma did not describe cultural adaptation or validation processes, and 15 out of the 18 quantitative studies were ‘low-quality’ on the SAQOR quality rating. The review revealed clear gaps in implementation and evaluation of stigma interventions in Nepal with only one intervention reported, and most stigma measures not culturally adapted for use.

As stigma processes are complex and interlinked in their influence on ‘what matters most’ and structural barriers and facilitators, more studies are required to understand this complexity and establish effective interventions targeting multiple domains. We suggest that stigma researchers should clarify conceptual models to inform study design and interpretations. There is a need to develop procedures for the systematic cultural adaptation of stigma assessment tools. Research should be conducted to understand the forms and drivers of structural stigma and to expand intervention research to evaluate strategies for stigma reduction.

This study aimed to assess among Ukrainian adults: (1) knowledge of mental disorders; (2) attitudes towards people with mental health disorders, and to the delivery of mental health treatment within the community; and (3) behaviours towards people with mental disorders.

A cross-sectional survey of Ukrainian adults aged 18–60 was conducted. Stigma-related mental health knowledge was measured using the mental health knowledge schedule. Attitude towards people with mental health disorders was assessed using the Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness scale. The Reported and Intended Behaviour scale was used to assess past and future intended behaviour towards people with mental health disorders.

Associations between gender, age, and educational level and the knowledge and attitudes measures were identified. There was evidence of a positive association between being male and positive intended behaviours towards people with mental health disorders [mean difference (MD) = 0.509, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.021–0.998]. Older age was negatively associated with positive intended behaviours towards people with mental health disorders (MD = −0.017, 95% CI 0.0733 to −0.001). Higher education was positively associated with stigma-related mental health knowledge (MD = 0.438, 95% CI 0.090–0.786), and negatively associated with authoritarian (MD = 0.755, 95% CI 0.295–1.215) attitudes towards people with mental health problems.

Overall, the findings indicate a degree of awareness of, and compassion towards, people with mental illness among Ukrainian adults, although this differed according to gender, region, and education level. Results indicate a need for the adoption and scaling-up of anti-stigma interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective.