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.

Our goal was to identify the demographic profile of the people living homeless with mental illness in Lisboa, Portugal, and their relationship with the national healthcare system. We also tried to understand which factors contribute to the number and duration of psychiatric admissions among these homeless people.

We used a cross-sectional design, collecting data for 4 years among homeless people, in Lisboa, Portugal, that were referred as possible psychiatric patients to Centro Hospitalar Psiquiátrico de Lisboa (CHPL). In total, we collected data from 500 homeless people, then cross-checked these people in our CHPL hospital electronic database and obtained 467 patient matches.

The most common psychiatric diagnosis in our sample was drug abuse (34%), followed by alcohol abuse (33%), personality disorder (24%), and acute stress reaction (23%). Sixty-two percent of our patients had multiple diagnoses, a subgroup with longer follow-ups, more psychiatric hospitalizations, and longer psychiatric hospitalizations. The prevalence of psychotic disorders was high: organic psychosis (17%), schizophrenia (15%), psychosis not otherwise specified (14%), and schizoaffective disorder (11%), that combined altogether were present in more than half (57%) of our homeless patients.

The people living homeless with multiple diagnoses have higher mental health needs and worse determinants of general health. An ongoing effort is needed to identify and address this subgroup of homeless people with mental illness to improve their treatment and outcomes.

In this article we aim at conceptual reconstruction of the historical background behind RDoC project. It incorporates some elements that have not heretofore been included in frameworks for psychopathology research. At the same time, however, RDoC – like any approach to mental illness – must grapple with longstanding challenges in addressing issues about the roles and relationships of mind, brain, and patients’ reports in considering the nature of disorder. In this respect, the historical roots of psychopathology remain as relevant as ever.