The co-occurrence of stroke and psychosis is a serious neuropsychiatric condition but little is known about the course of this comorbidity. We aimed to estimate longitudinal associations between stroke and psychosis over 10 years.

A 10-year population-based study using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. A structured health assessment recorded (i) first-occurrence stroke and (ii) psychosis, at each wave. Each were considered exposures and outcomes in separate analyses. Logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan–Meier methods were used. Models were adjusted for demographic and health behaviour covariates, with missing covariates imputed using random forest multiple imputation.

Of 19 808 participants, 24 reported both stroke and psychosis (median Wave 1 age 63, 71% female, 50% lowest quintile of net financial wealth) at any point during follow-up. By 10 years, the probability of an incident first stroke in participants with psychosis was 21.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1–29.6] compared to 8.3% (95% CI 7.8–8.8) in those without psychosis (absolute difference: 13.1%; 95% CI 20.8–4.3, log rank p < 0.001; fully-adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.57; 95% CI 2.18–5.84). The probability of reporting incident psychosis in participants with stroke was 2.3% (95% CI 1.4–3.2) compared to 0.9% (95% CI 0.7–1.1) in those without (absolute difference: 1.4%; 95% CI 0.7–2.1, log rank p < 0.001; fully-adjusted HR: 4.98; 95% CI 2.55–9.72).

Stroke is an independent predictor of psychosis (and vice versa), after adjustment for potential confounders.

Both stroke and psychosis are independently associated with high levels of disability. However, psychosis in the context of stroke has been under-researched. To date, there are no general population studies on their joint prevalence and association.

To estimate the joint prevalence of stroke and psychosis and their statistical association using nationally representative psychiatric epidemiology studies from two high-income countries (the UK and the USA) and two middle-income countries (Chile and Colombia) and, subsequently, in a combined-countries data-set.

Prevalences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical associations between stroke and psychosis and between stroke and psychotic symptoms were tested using regression models. Overall estimates were calculated using an individual participant level meta-analysis on the combined-countries data-set. The analysis is available online as a computational notebook.

The overall prevalence of probable psychosis in stroke was 3.81% (95% CI 2.34–5.82) and that of stroke in probable psychosis was 3.15% (95% CI 1.94–4.83). The odds ratio of the adjusted association between stroke and probable psychosis was 3.32 (95% CI 2.05–5.38). On the individual symptom level, paranoia, hallucinated voices and thought passivity delusion were associated with stroke in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

Rates of association between psychosis and stroke suggest there is likely to be a high clinical need group who are under-researched and may be poorly served by existing services.

Poor research integrity is increasingly recognised as a serious problem in science. We outline some evidence for this claim and introduce the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) journals’ Research Integrity Group, which has been created to address this problem.

The editor of the BJPsych Bulletin reflects on the extraordinary recent events triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health professionals are at the front line of managing the pandemic and emergency changes should lead to a much needed refocus on what is really vital. In these unsettling times we ought to review how we manage the crisis, and its aftermath, both personally and professionally.

After reading this article you will be able to:

• • describe clinical features of FCD and how it differs from neurodegenerative causes of cognitive impairment

• • be able to subclassify cases of FCD using the proposed nosology

• • understand how to discuss the diagnosis with the patient and explain how the symptoms arise.

Depression is a common, serious, but under-recognised problem in multiple sclerosis (MS). The primary objective of this study was to assess whether a rapid visual analogue screening tool for depression could operate as a quick and reliable screening method for depression, in patients with MS.

Patients attending a regional MS outpatient clinic completed the Emotional Thermometer 7 tool (ET7), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression Subscale (HADS-D) and the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) to establish a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of Major Depression. Full ET7, briefer subset ET4 version and depression and distress thermometers alone were compared with HADS-D and MDI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated to compare the performance of all the screening tools.

In total, 190 patients were included. ET4 performed well as a ‘rule-out’ screening step (sensitivity 0.91, specificity 0.72, NPV 0.98, PPV 0.32). ET4 performance was comparable to HADS-D (sensitivity 0.96, specificity 0.77, NPV 0.99, PPV 0.37) without need for clinician scoring. The briefer ET4 performed as well as the full ET7.

ET are quick, sensitive and useful screening tools for depression in this MS population, to be complemented by further questioning or more detailed psychiatric assessment where indicated. Given that ET4 and ET7 perform equally well, we recommend the use of ET4 as it is briefer. It has the potential to be widely implemented across busy neurology clinics to assist in depression screening in this under diagnosed group.

None.

Dr Poole is editor of the BJPsych Bulletin.

This paper presents a debate in which the authors participated at the World Psychiatric Association conference in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2016. Professor van Staden acted as chair and here, as at the debate, provides a rationale for debating a topic that many of those involved in mental health believe to be decided. The discussion that ensued demonstrated, however, that while the arguments have moved on they have not ceased. Who won? Well that depends how you look at it. A few in the audience shifted position towards the motion but the majority remained opposed. What do you think?

None.