Stigma of mental illness is a significant barrier to receiving mental health care. However, measurement tools evaluating stigma of mental illness have not been systematically assessed for their quality. We conducted a systematic review to critically appraise the methodological quality of studies assessing psychometrics of stigma measurement tools and determined the level of evidence of overall quality of psychometric properties of included tools.

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and ERIC databases for eligible studies. We conducted risk-of-bias analysis with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist, rating studies as excellent, good, fair or poor. We further rated the level of evidence of the overall quality of psychometric properties, combining the study quality and quality of each psychometric property, as: strong, moderate, limited, conflicting or unknown.

We identified 117 studies evaluating psychometric properties of 101 tools. The quality of specific studies varied, with ratings of: excellent (n = 5); good (mostly on internal consistency (n = 67)); fair (mostly on structural validity, n = 89 and construct validity, n = 85); and poor (mostly on internal consistency, n = 36). The overall quality of psychometric properties also varied from: strong (mostly content validity, n = 3), moderate (mostly internal consistency, n = 55), limited (mostly structural validity, n = 55 and construct validity, n = 46), conflicting (mostly test–retest reliability, n = 9) and unknown (mostly internal consistency, n = 36).

We identified 12 tools demonstrating limited evidence or above for (+, ++, +++) all their properties, 69 tools reaching these levels of evidence for some of their properties, and 20 tools that did not meet the minimum level of evidence for all of their properties. We note that further research on stigma tool development is needed to ensure appropriate application.

A substantial proportion of persons with mental disorders seek treatment from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) professionals. However, data on how CAM contacts vary across countries, mental disorders and their severity, and health care settings is largely lacking. The aim was therefore to investigate the prevalence of contacts with CAM providers in a large cross-national sample of persons with 12-month mental disorders.

In the World Mental Health Surveys, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to determine the presence of past 12 month mental disorders in 138 801 participants aged 18–100 derived from representative general population samples. Participants were recruited between 2001 and 2012. Rates of self-reported CAM contacts for each of the 28 surveys across 25 countries and 12 mental disorder groups were calculated for all persons with past 12-month mental disorders. Mental disorders were grouped into mood disorders, anxiety disorders or behavioural disorders, and further divided by severity levels. Satisfaction with conventional care was also compared with CAM contact satisfaction.

An estimated 3.6% (standard error 0.2%) of persons with a past 12-month mental disorder reported a CAM contact, which was two times higher in high-income countries (4.6%; standard error 0.3%) than in low- and middle-income countries (2.3%; standard error 0.2%). CAM contacts were largely comparable for different disorder types, but particularly high in persons receiving conventional care (8.6–17.8%). CAM contacts increased with increasing mental disorder severity. Among persons receiving specialist mental health care, CAM contacts were reported by 14.0% for severe mood disorders, 16.2% for severe anxiety disorders and 22.5% for severe behavioural disorders. Satisfaction with care was comparable with respect to CAM contacts (78.3%) and conventional care (75.6%) in persons that received both.

CAM contacts are common in persons with severe mental disorders, in high-income countries, and in persons receiving conventional care. Our findings support the notion of CAM as largely complementary but are in contrast to suggestions that this concerns person with only mild, transient complaints. There was no indication that persons were less satisfied by CAM visits than by receiving conventional care. We encourage health care professionals in conventional settings to openly discuss the care patients are receiving, whether conventional or not, and their reasons for doing so.

The aims of this paper are to: (i) explore the experiences of involvement of mental health service users, their caregivers, mental health centre heads and policy makers in mental health system strengthening in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Ethiopia, Nepal and Nigeria); (ii) analyse the potential benefits and barriers of such involvement; and (iii) identify strategies required to achieve greater service user and caregiver participation.

A cross-country qualitative study was conducted, interviewing 83 stakeholders of mental health services.

Our analysis showed that service user and caregiver involvement in the health system strengthening process was an alien concept for most participants. They reported very limited access to direct participation. Stigma and poverty were described as the main barriers for involvement. Several strategies were identified by participants to overcome existing hurdles to facilitate service user and caregiver involvement in the mental health system strengthening process, such as support to access treatment, mental health promotion and empowerment of service users. This study suggests that capacity building for service users, and strengthening of user groups would equip them to contribute meaningfully to policy development from informed perspectives.

Involvement of service users and their caregivers in mental health decision-making is still in its infancy in LMICs. Effective strategies are required to overcome existing barriers, for example making funding more widely available for Ph.D. studies in participatory research with service users and caregivers to develop, implement and evaluate approaches to involvement that are locally and culturally acceptable in LMICs.

This article explores an alternative understanding of how psychiatric drugs work that is referred to as the drug-centred model of drug action. Unlike the current disease-centred model, which suggests that psychiatric drugs work by correcting an underlying brain abnormality, the drug-centred model emphasises how psychiatric drugs affect mental states and behaviour by modifying normal brain processes. The alterations produced may impact on the emotional and behavioural problems that constitute the symptoms of mental disorders.

Arguments are put forward that justify the consideration of the drug-centred model. The research necessary to support the prescription of drugs according to such a model is explored.

Evidence from neurochemistry and comparative drug trials do not confirm the disease-centred model of drug action. Since psychiatric drugs are recognised to have mind- and behaviour-altering properties, the drug-centred model constitutes a plausible alternative. The drug-centred model suggests that research is needed to identify all the alterations produced by various sorts of drugs, both acute and long term, and how these might interact with the symptoms and problems associated with different mental disorders. This requires detailed animal and volunteer studies and data from patients prescribed drug treatment long term, along with placebo-controlled and comparative trials that look at the overall impact of drug-induced alterations on well-being and functioning as well as symptoms. Research is also needed on alternative ways of fulfilling the function of drug treatment. The moral aspect of using drugs to modify behaviour rather than treat disease needs honest and transparent consideration.

It is hoped this discussion will encourage the psychiatric and pharmaceutical research community to provide more of the information that is required to use psychiatric drugs safely and effectively.

Leucht et al. in 2012 described an overview of meta-analyses of the efficacy of medication in psychiatry and general medicine, concluding that psychiatric drugs were not less efficacious than other drugs. Our goal was to explore the dissemination of this highly cited paper, which combined a thought provoking message with a series of caveats.

We conducted a prospectively registered citation content analysis. All papers published before June 1st citing the target paper were independently rated by two investigators. The primary outcome coded dichotomously was whether the citation was used to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given treatment. Secondary outcomes regarded mentioning any caveats when citing the target paper, the point the citation was making (treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine, others), the type of condition (psychiatric, medical or both), specific disease, treatment category and specific type. We also extracted information about the type of citing paper, financial conflict of interest (COI) declared and any industry support. The primary analysis was descriptive by tabulating the extracted variables, with numbers and percentages where appropriate. Co-authorship networks were constructed to identify possible clusters of citing authors. An exploratory univariate logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between each of a subset of pre-specified secondary outcomes and the primary outcome.

We identified 135 records and retrieved and analysed 120. Sixty-three (53%) quoted Leucht et al.’s paper to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given therapy, and 113 (94%) did not mention any caveats. Seventy-two (60%) used the citation to claim that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine; 110 (91%) paper were about psychiatric conditions. Forty-one (34%) papers quoted it without pointing towards any specific treatment category, 28 (23%) were about antidepressants, 18 (15%) about antipsychotics. Forty (33%) of the citing papers included data. COIs were reported in 55 papers (46%). Univariate and multivariate regressions showed an association between a quote justifying small or modest effects and the point that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine.

Our evaluation revealed an overwhelmingly uncritical reception and seemed to indicate that beyond defending psychiatry as a discipline, the paper by Leucht et al. served to lend support and credibility to a therapeutic myth: trivial effects of mental health interventions, most often drugs, are to be expected and therefore accepted.

Protocol registration: https://osf.io/9dqat/

Italy pioneered deinstitutionalisation over the past 60 years and enforced a famous mental health (MH) reform law in 1978. Deinstitutionalisation has been completed with the very closure of all psychiatric hospitals over two decades.

After 40 years of implementation, this article presents the main achievements and challenges of the Italian MH reform law, including its long-term effect and impact in Italy and abroad.

The Legislation of 1978 was based on the discovery of rights as a key tool in mental healthcare. At the climax of crisis of psychiatric hospitals as total institutions in this country, through the new community-based system of care, it has fostered the lowest rate of involuntary care and gave back the full citizenship to people with MH disorders. This act was also part of a social movement for expanding civil and social rights, and a promise of a true paradigm shift not only in psychiatry, but also in the way of providing an adequate welfare community for all citizens. According to the WHO, the Italian city of Trieste, together with its region, is a practical example of how the Italian movement achieved deinstitutionalisation, intended as a complex process resulting in the gradual relocation of the economic and human resources and subsequent creation of 24 h services together with the development of social inclusion programmes.

Even if the great principles of the Italian reform law were anticipatory (e.g., the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – CRPD), the law application has been poorly provided with resources and did not follow those avant-garde experiences as models. Limitations are evident today especially at the organisational levels, such as services capable to take up the challenge and transforming the field, left free from the imprint of total institutions. These endemic critical aspects concerning to implementation policies, together with the financial crisis of the Italian healthcare system, must be taken into consideration for a re-launch of this historical law. The rights-based approach opened by the Law 180 should now take into consideration the new legal situation caused by the CRPD worldwide in the area of individuals’ human rights, especially about the issue of legal capacity and related involuntary care.

The study aimed to examine variations in the use of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) diagnostic categories for mental and behavioural disorders across countries, regions and income levels using data from the online World Psychiatric Association (WPA)-World Health Organization (WHO) Global Survey that examined the attitudes of psychiatrists towards the classification of mental disorders.

A survey was sent to 46 psychiatric societies which are members of WPA. A total of 4887 psychiatrists participated in the survey, which asked about their use of classification, their preferred system and the categories that were used most frequently.

The majority (70.1%) of participating psychiatrists (out of 4887 psychiatrists) reported using the ICD-10 the most and using at least one diagnostic category once a week. Nine out of 44 diagnostic categories were considerably variable in terms of frequency of use across countries. These were: emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type; dissociative (conversion) disorder; somatoform disorders; obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol; adjustment disorder; mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids; dementia in Alzheimer's disease; and acute and transient psychotic disorder. The frequency of use for these nine categories was examined across WHO regions and income levels. The most striking differences across WHO regions were found for five out of these nine categories. For dissociative (conversion) disorder, use was highest for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) and non-existent for the WHO African Region. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol, use was lowest for EMRO. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids, use was lowest for the WHO European Region and the WHO Western Pacific Region. For OCD and somatoform disorders, use was lowest for EMRO and the WHO Southeast Asian Region. Differences in the frequency of use across income levels were statistically significant for all categories except for mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol. The most striking variations were found for acute and transient psychotic disorder, which was reported to be more commonly used among psychiatrists from countries with lower income levels.

The differences in frequency of use reported in the current study show that cross-cultural variations in psychiatric practice exist. However, whether these differences are due to the variations in prevalence, treatment-seeking behaviour and other factors, such as psychiatrist and patient characteristics as a result of culture, cannot be determined based on the findings of the study. Further research is needed to examine whether these variations are culturally determined and how that would affect the cross-cultural applicability of ICD-10 diagnostic categories.

The aim of the current study was to carry out a national population-based survey to assess the proportion of people disclosing mental health problems in a variety of settings. A further aim was to explore respondent characteristics associated with disclosure.

In 2014, telephone interviews were carried out with 5220 Australians aged 18+, 1381 of whom reported a mental health problem or scored highly on a symptom screening questionnaire. Questions covered disclosure of mental health problems to friends, intimate partners, other family members, supervisors or other colleagues in the workplace, teachers, lecturers or other students in the educational institution, health professionals and others in the community. Other than for intimate partners or supervisors, participants were asked whether or not they told everybody, some people or no one. Multinomial logistic regression was used to model the correlates of disclosure in each setting.

For friends and family, respondents were more likely to disclose to some people than to everyone or to no one. In most other domains, non-disclosure was most common, including in the workplace, where non-disclosure to supervisors was more likely than disclosure. Disclosure was associated with having received treatment or with support in all settings except healthcare, while it was only associated with discrimination in two settings (healthcare and education).

Disclosure of mental health problems does not appear to be linked to discrimination in most settings, and is typically associated with receiving support. Selective or non-disclosure may be particularly critical in workplaces, education and healthcare settings.

Treatment gap refers to the percentage of individuals who require treatment in a country or a defined community but do not receive it due to various reasons. There is widespread acceptance of ‘treatment gap’ as a measure of unmet needs in mental health. However, the term ‘treatment’ carries a medical connotation and implies biomedical treatment (or lack of it) of mental illness and is often interpreted by policymakers, planners and researchers, as well as by non-professional stakeholders as exclusively referring to curative clinical psychiatric interventions. This common interpretation results in the exclusion of a range of effective psychosocial interventions available today. Treatment gap also does not include physical health services for persons with mental illness, a major concern due to the relative frequent yet highly unattended physical comorbidity and early mortality of persons with severe mental illness.

We, therefore, propose a more comprehensive measure of unmet needs.