We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
No single environmental factor is a necessary or sufficient cause of mental disorder; multifactorial and transdiagnostic approaches are needed to understand the impact of the environment on the development of mental disorders across the life course.
Method
Using linked multi-agency administrative data for 71 932 children from the New South Wales Child Developmental Study, using logistic regression, we examined associations between 16 environmental risk factors in early life (prenatal period to <6 years of age) and later diagnoses of mental disorder recorded in health service data (from age 6 to 13 years), both individually and summed as an environmental risk score (ERS).
Results
The ERS was associated with all types of mental disorder diagnoses in a dose–response fashion, such that 2.8% of children with no exposure to any of the environmental factors (ERS = 0), compared to 18.3% of children with an ERS of 8 or more indicating exposure to 8 or more environmental factors (ERS ⩾ 8), had been diagnosed with any type of mental disorder up to age 13–14 years. Thirteen of the 16 environmental factors measured (including prenatal factors, neighbourhood characteristics and more proximal experiences of trauma or neglect) were positively associated with at least one category of mental disorder.
Conclusion
Exposure to cumulative environmental risk factors in early life is associated with an increased likelihood of presenting to health services in childhood for any kind of mental disorder. In many instances, these factors are preventable or capable of mitigation by appropriate public policy settings.
To describe the incidence of systemic overlap and typical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms in healthcare personnel (HCP) following COVID-19 vaccination and association of reported symptoms with diagnosis of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the context of public health recommendations regarding work exclusion.
Design:
This prospective cohort study was conducted between December 16, 2020, and March 14, 2021, with HCP who had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
Setting:
Large healthcare system in New England.
Interventions:
HCP were prompted to complete a symptom survey for 3 days after each vaccination. Reported symptoms generated automated guidance regarding symptom management, SARS-CoV-2 testing requirements, and work restrictions. Overlap symptoms (ie, fever, fatigue, myalgias, arthralgias, or headache) were categorized as either lower or higher severity. Typical COVID-19 symptoms included sore throat, cough, nasal congestion or rhinorrhea, shortness of breath, ageusia and anosmia.
Results:
Among 64,187 HCP, a postvaccination electronic survey had response rates of 83% after dose 1 and 77% after dose 2. Report of ≥3 lower-severity overlap symptoms, ≥1 higher-severity overlap symptoms, or at least 1 typical COVID-19 symptom after dose 1 was associated with increased likelihood of testing positive. HCP with prior COVID-19 infection were significantly more likely to report severe overlap symptoms after dose 1.
Conclusions:
Reported overlap symptoms were common; however, only report of ≥3 low-severity overlap symptoms, at least 1 higher-severity overlap symptom, or any typical COVID-19 symptom were associated with infection. Work-related restrictions for overlap symptoms should be reconsidered.
The overwhelming majority of those who come into contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) as offenders are male; this is true even when considered across the spectrum of offence types (with specific exceptions), across jurisdictions and across time. Much of the research focused on the mental health of those in contact with the CJS has consequently been about male, rather than female, offenders.
Amongst those with mental illness and a history of contact with the criminal justice system (CJS), “forensic patients,” constitute a small but significant subgroup. They typically have severe mental illnesses and have been charged with serious violent offences. As a group, they characteristically have complex mental health and other needs, and concern about their risk of reoffending is a key consideration for those tasked with oversight of their treatment and detention. As a result, forensic patients often spend long periods in secure mental health facilities and are often subject to high levels of supervision once judged to be safe to return to the community.
Symptoms of mental disorder, particularly schizophrenia, predispose to victimization. Much less is known about the relationship between depressive symptoms and later victimization in the general population, the influence of these symptoms on types of subsequent victimization, or the role of symptom severity. We investigated this in nationally representative data from the United Kingdom.
Methods:
Data were from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Multivariable logistic regressions estimated association between (a) prior depressive symptoms, (b) prior depressive symptoms with suicide attempt, and types of more recent victimization. Gender-specific associations were estimated using multiplicative interactions.
Results:
Prior depressive symptoms were associated with greater odds of any recent intimate partner violence (IPV), emotional IPV, sexual victimization, workplace victimization, any victimization, and cumulative victimization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for increasing types of recent victimization: 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14, 1.89). Prior depressive symptoms with suicide attempt were associated with any recent IPV, emotional IPV, any victimization, and cumulative victimization (aOR for increasing types of recent victimization: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.22, 4.44). Self reported recalled data on previous depressive symptoms may have limited accuracy. Small numbers of outcomes for some comparisons results in imprecision of these estimates.
Conclusions:
Aside from severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, previous depressive symptoms in the general population are associated with greater subsequent victimization. Men and women with prior depressive symptoms may be vulnerable to a range of types of victimization, and may benefit from interventions to reduce this vulnerability.
Risk of contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) is greater among those with mental illness, including severe mental illness—an observation that many argue reflects a process of “criminalizing” mental illness. Forensic patients represent a subgroup at one end of a spectrum of such criminalization, typically with histories of serious violence and psychotic illness. Strategies for decriminalizing mental illness in this context should consider a range of approaches, including intervening to prevent CJS contact in those with severe mental illness, particularly in the early or emerging stages of psychosis. However, it may be that even gold standard mental healthcare applied universally is insufficient to address CJS contact risks. While there is now an extensive literature documenting the relatively low rates of repeat CJS contact for forensic patients released from secure care, appropriate comparison groups are lacking and the key ingredients of any benefits of treatment are unknown. The CJS may well have something to learn from forensic mental health systems and services given the abject failure to stem rates of prison-release reoffending internationally. Understanding how to best identify risk and effectively intervene to prevent CJS contact in those with mental illness, whether early in the course of psychosis or following release from secure care, remains a priority for those seeking to address the criminalization of mentally illness in our communities.
The recall of conditionally discharged forensic patients in England is a formal order from the Ministry of Justice under the Mental Health Act (1983) which has the power to revoke conditional release and direct readmission to hospital. Recall has significant implications for the individual and for hospital services, but despite this, little is known about predictors of recall for forensic patients.
Methods
We examined the rate of recall for 101 patients conditionally discharged from medium secure forensic inpatient services between 2007 and 2013. Demographic, clinical, and forensic factors were examined as possible predictors of time to recall using Cox regression survival techniques.
Results
Conditionally discharged patients were followed for an average of 811 days, during which 45 (44.5%) were recalled to hospital. Younger age (HR 1.89; 95% CI 1.02–3.49; p = 0.04), non-white ethnicity (HR 3.44; 95% CI 1.45–8.13), substance abuse history (HR 2.52; 95% CI 1.17–5.43), early violence (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.03–3.50), early childhood maladjustment (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.01–3.68), treatment with a depot medication (HR 2.17; 95% CI 1.14–4.11), being known to mental health services (HR 3.44; 95% CI 1.06–11.16), and a psychiatric admission prior to the index admission (HR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08–5.52) were significantly associated with a shorter time to recall. Treatment with clozapine reduced the risk of recall to hospital (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20–0.79).
Conclusions
Time to recall can be predicted by a range of factors that are readily available to clinical teams. Further research is required to determine if targeted interventions can modify the likelihood or time to recall for conditionally released forensic patients.
Psychosis is more prevalent among people in prison compared with the community. Early detection is important to optimise health and justice outcomes; for some, this may be the first time they have been clinically assessed.
Aims
Determine factors associated with a first diagnosis of psychosis in prison and describe time to diagnosis from entry into prison.
Method
This retrospective cohort study describes individuals identified for the first time with psychosis in New South Wales (NSW) prisons (2006–2012). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a first diagnosis of psychosis. Cox regression was used to describe time to diagnosis from entry into prison.
Results
Of the 38 489 diagnosed with psychosis for the first time, 1.7% (n = 659) occurred in prison. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed in prison (versus community) were: male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.27, 95% CI 1.79–2.89), Aboriginality (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.49–2.19), older age (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.37–2.11 for 25–34 years and OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.29–2.06 for 35–44 years) and disadvantaged socioeconomic area (OR = 4.41, 95% CI 3.42–5.69). Eight out of ten were diagnosed within 3 months of reception.
Conclusions
Among those diagnosed with psychosis for the first time, only a small number were identified during incarceration with most identified in the first 3 months following imprisonment. This suggests good screening processes are in place in NSW prisons for detecting those with serious mental illness. It is important these individuals receive appropriate care in prison, have the opportunity to have matters reheard and possibly diverted into treatment, and are subsequently connected to community mental health services on release.
The intergenerational risk for mental illness is well established within diagnostic categories, but the risk is unlikely to respect diagnostic boundaries and may be reflected more broadly in early life vulnerabilities. We aimed to establish patterns of association between externalising and internalising vulnerabilities in early childhood and parental mental disorder across the full spectrum of diagnoses.
Methods
A cohort of Australian children (n = 69 116) entering the first year of school in 2009 were assessed using the Australian Early Development Census, providing measures of externalising and internalising vulnerability. Parental psychiatric diagnostic status was determined utilising record-linkage to administrative health datasets.
Results
Parental mental illness, across diagnostic categories, was associated with all child externalising and internalising domains of vulnerability. There was little evidence to support interaction by parental or offspring sex.
Conclusions
These findings have important implications for informing early identification and intervention strategies in high-risk offspring and for research into the causes of mental illness. There may be benefits to focusing less on diagnostic categories in both cases.