Although widely used, the current evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is limited and conflicting.

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of these medications in people with ASD.

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we hand-searched 11 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random effects model.

We included 15 randomised controlled trials (13 on antidepressants and two on anti-anxiety medications) for a total of 958 people with ASD. Data showed contradictory findings among the studies, with larger studies mostly showing a non-significant difference in outcomes between the treatment and the placebo groups. Meta-analysis of pooled Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale data from nine studies (60%) did not show any statistically significant inter-group difference on either of the outcome measures. The adverse effects reported were mild and, in most studies, their rates did not show any significant inter-group difference.

Given the methodological flaws in the most included studies and contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of either antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust, large-scale, randomised controlled trials are needed to address this issue.

Psychiatry is facing major challenges during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-19 pandemic. These challenges involve its actual and perceived role within the medical system, in particular how psychiatric hospitals can maintain their core mission of attending to people with mental illness while at the same time providing relief to overstretched general medicine services. Although psychiatric disorders comprise the leading cause of the global burden of disease, mental healthcare has been deemphasised in the wake of the onslaught of the pandemic: to make room for emergency care, psychiatric wards have been downsized, clinics closed, psychiatric support systems discontinued and so on. To deal with this pressing issue, we developed a pandemic contingency plan with the aim to contain, decelerate and, preferably, avoid transmission of COVID-19 and to enable and maintain medical healthcare for patients with mental disorders.

To describe our plan as an example of how a psychiatric hospital can share in providing acute care in a healthcare system facing an acute and highly infectious pandemic like COVID-19 and at the same time provide support for people with mental illness, with or without a COVID-19 infection.

This was a descriptive study.

The plan was based on the German national pandemic strategy and several legal recommendations and was implemented step by step on the basis of the local COVID-19 situation. In addition, mid- and long-term plans were developed for coping with the aftermath of the pandemic.

The plan enabled the University Hospital to maintain medical healthcare for patients with mental disorders. It has offered the necessary flexibility to adapt its implementation to the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The plan is designed to serve as an easily adaptable blueprint for psychiatric hospitals around the world.

People with personality disorder experience long waiting times for access to psychological treatments, resulting from a limited availability of long-term psychotherapies and a paucity of evidence-based brief interventions. Mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) is an efficacious therapeutic modality for personality disorder, but little is known about its viability as a short-term treatment.

We aimed to evaluate mental health, client satisfaction and psychological functioning outcomes before and after a 10-week group MBT programme as part of a stepped-care out-patient personality disorder service.

We examined routinely collected pre–post treatment outcomes from 176 individuals (73% female) aged 20–63 years, attending a dedicated out-patient personality disorder service, who completed MBT treatment. Participants completed assessments examining mentalising capacity, client satisfaction, emotional reactivity, psychiatric symptom distress and social functioning.

Post-MBT outcomes suggested increased mentalising capacity (mean difference 5.1, 95% CI 3.4–6.8, P < 0.001) and increased client satisfaction with care (mean difference 4.3, 95% CI 3.3–5.2, P < 0.001). Post-MBT emotional reactivity (mean difference −6.3, 95% CI −8.4 to −4.3, P < 0.001), psychiatric symptom distress (mean difference −5.2, 95% CI −6.8 to −3.7, P < 0.001) and impaired social functioning (mean difference −0.7, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.3, P = 0.002) were significantly lower than pre-treatment. Improved mentalising capacity predicted improvements in emotional reactivity (β = −0.56, P < 0.001) and social functioning (β = −0.35, P < 0.001).

Short-term MBT as a low-intensity treatment for personality disorder was associated with positive pre–post treatment changes in social and psychological functioning. MBT as deployed in this out-patient service expands access to personality disorder treatment.

Annually, 1 in 4 people in the UK will experience a mental health problem. Alongside the approach of increasing awareness of the issue amongst the general population, there is a drive to deliver training and education on the recognition and management of mental health crises. Limited resources exist to aid healthcare professionals in delivering mental health first aid (MHFA), with the vast majority focussing on lengthy training courses. Small group problem-based learning (PBL) is utilised widely in medical education and this modality offers advantages in deliverability, audience participation and experiential learning. Our aim was to deliver and explore the effectiveness of a PBL MHFA workshop to various healthcare professionals.

As part of an Emergency Medicine Mental Health Education day, we delivered four 30-minute PBL MHFA workshops. These involved an introduction to MHFA, followed by an interactive discussion of 4 mental health simulated cases, whereby participants anonymously answered a range of questions using the web-based platform Mentimeter. We devised a simple MHFA A,B,C,D,E acronym to bring structure to problem solving. Pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were used to assess outcomes using Likert scales to measure various aspects of MHFA (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Statistical significance was calculated using T-Test with P < 0.05 defining statistical significance.

A total of 28 professionals attended the workshops, 20 (72%) completed both the pre and post workshop questionnaire. 19 (76%) were nurses (5 Registered Mental Health Nurses and 14 Registered General Nurses), 3 (12%) were doctors, 2 (8%) were HCA's and 1 was a policeman. 15 (75%) of the participants reported historically having had the need to deliver MHFA but only 3 (15%) had previously received training. After the workshop, participants reported significantly increased understanding [3.0 to 4.3 (p < 0.05)] and confidence in delivering MHFA [3.05 to 4.30 (p < 0.05)]. There was significantly improved confidence in assessing risk [3.03 to 4.05], calling for appropriate help [3.45 to 4.35] and de-escalation techniques [3.05 to 4.15].

To our knowledge this is the first mini PBL-based MHFA workshop. We have demonstrated that the PBL workshop setup is an effective means to deliver training on MHFA. We recognise the importance of MHFA training reaching a larger audience and its potential value if incorporated into national healthcare training programmes and made available to the general public.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic causes healthcare professionals to suffer mental health problems such as psychological distress, anxiety, depression, denial and fear. However, studies are lacking related to Ethiopia and to Africa in general.

To study the mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia.

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted at Jimma University Medical Center among 249 healthcare professionals. The data were collected using self-administered questionnaires between 22 and 28 March 2020. The psychological impact was assessed using the Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R) and symptoms of insomnia were measured using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Social support was evaluated using the three-item Oslo Social Support Scale. Data were analysed using logistic regression to examine mutually adjusted associations, expressed as adjusted odds ratios. The psychosocial status of the healthcare professionals was predicted using a classification tree model supported by the genetic search method.

The prevalence of psychological distress among healthcare professionals was 78.3%. The mean IES-R score was 34.2 (s.d. = 19.4). The ISI score indicated that the prevalence of insomnia was 50.2%. Higher psychological distress was associated with younger age, having insomnia, not having a daily update on COVID-19, and feeling stigmatised and rejected in the neighbourhood because of hospital work.

This study indicates that, in Ethiopia, the prevalence of psychological distress among healthcare professionals is high and associated with specific sociodemographic risks.

Community treatment orders (CTOs) enable patients to be treated in the community rather than under detention in hospital. Population-based studies of suicide among patients subject to a CTO are scarce.

To compare suicide rates among patients subject to a CTO with all discharged psychiatric patients and those detained for treatment but not subject to a CTO at discharge (‘CTO-eligible’ patients).

From a national case series of patients who died by suicide within 12 months of contact with mental health services in England during 2009–2018, we estimated average annual suicide rates for all discharged patients, those on a CTO at the time of suicide, those ever treated under a CTO and CTO-eligible patients.

Suicide rates for patients on a CTO at the time of suicide (191.3 per 100 000 patients) were lower than all discharged patients (482.3 per 100 000 discharges). Suicide rates were similar in those ever treated under a CTO (350.1 per 100 000 CTOs issued) and in CTO-eligible patients (382.9 per 100 000 discharges). Suicide rates within 12 months of discharge were higher in persons ever under a CTO (205.1 per 100 000 CTOs issued) than CTO-eligible patients (161.5 per 100 000 discharges), but this difference was reversed for rates after 12 months of discharge (153.2 per 100 000 CTOs issued v. 223.4 per 100 000 discharges).

CTOs may be effective in reducing suicide risk. The relative benefits of CTOs and intensive aftercare may be time-dependent, with the benefit of a CTO being less before 12 months after discharge but greater thereafter. CTO utilisation requires a careful balancing of patient safety versus autonomy.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic caused mental health services to be downscaled to abide by the public health restrictions issued.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the pandemic and resultant restrictions had an impact on Malta's admissions to hospital for mental health issues by assessing the number and nature of psychiatric admissions to our only national mental health hospital.

Data collection was carried out retrospectively for the 13-week period between 7 March 2020 and 4 June 2020, compared with the equivalent in 2019. Demographic data was obtained and descriptive statistical analysis through the use of the χ²-test, z-test and logistic regression model were used to compare both data-sets, using a P-value of 0.05.

An overall reduction in admissions to hospital was noted in 2020 when compared with 2019, recorded to be lowest in March 2020 with a steady acceleration of admissions up until May 2020 (χ2(3) = 22.573, P < 0.001). This coincided with a decelerated rate of positive COVID-19 cases locally. In 2020, there were significantly higher female admissions (χ2(1) = 10.197, P < 0.001), increased presentations of self-harm/suicidal ideation (P < 0.001) and higher involuntary admissions using the Mental Health Act (χ2(1) = 4.904, P = 0.027). The logistic regression model identified total length of stay in hospital, primary mental health diagnosis, gender and month of admission as variables significantly associated with an admission.

Our first population-wide study confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health restrictions had an impact on the population's hospital admissions for mental health issues.

Individuals attending emergency departments following self-harm have increased risks of future self-harm. Despite the common use of risk scales in self-harm assessment, there is growing evidence that combinations of risk factors do not accurately identify those at greatest risk of further self-harm and suicide.

To evaluate and compare predictive accuracy in prediction of repeat self-harm from clinician and patient ratings of risk, individual risk-scale items and a scale constructed with top-performing items.

We conducted secondary analysis of data from a five-hospital multicentre prospective cohort study of participants referred to psychiatric liaison services following self-harm. We tested predictive utility of items from five risk scales: Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS, Modified SAD PERSONS, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and clinician and patient risk estimates. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were used to evaluate predictive accuracy, with sensitivity analyses using classification-tree regression.

A total of 483 self-harm episodes were included, and 145 (30%) were followed by a repeat presentation within 6 months. AUC of individual items ranged from 0.43–0.65. Combining best performing items resulted in an AUC of 0.56. Some individual items outperformed the scale they originated from; no items were superior to clinician or patient risk estimations.

No individual or combination of items outperformed patients’ or clinicians’ ratings. This suggests there are limitations to combining risk factors to predict risk of self-harm repetition. Risk scales should have little role in the management of people who have self-harmed.

Anorexia nervosa is a serious health problem worldwide. The literature widely recognises the roles of the family and caregivers in modulating the onset, development, maintenance and treatment of this disorder. However, few studies have addressed the problem from the perspective of maternal caregivers.

This study aims to fill this gap by exploring how the meaning given to the term ‘eating disorder’ influences how mothers communicate with each other about a family member's health problems, how they present symptoms and how this problem is managed.

A narrative research project was conducted to capture the mothers’ experiences of living with a daughter diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. In particular, four semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the ways in which they made sense of the disorder, their roles in treatment and their daughters’ treatment experiences.

The results show that the ways in which mothers characterise the disease guide their method of tackling it and the relationship they have with their daughter, as well as how they see their role in the care and treatment process.

Anorexia is experienced as something that is uncontainable, and a dimension of its accommodation characterises the relationship between mothers and daughters receiving treatment for the disorder. Treatment is accompanied by a delegating dimension, and the clinical implications are discussed in this study.

NHS Practitioner Health is the England wide programme providing mental health and addiction healthcare to doctors and dentists. Outcomes are assessed using five measures.

To contribute to a service evaluation of NHS Practitioner Health. To determine responsiveness to change and compare outcome measures.

Measures were completed at baseline and 6 months: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale (WEMWBS), Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS). Responsiveness to change was determined using effect size with improvement threshold ≥0.80. Instruments were compared using Bland–Altman plots.

Our sample, n = 402; with 14 (3.5%) excluded for missing data; final sample, n = 388. All measures showed strong mean effect sizes: PSYCHLOPS 1.86 (95%CI 1.73–1.99), 75.8% ≥0.80; PSS 1.48 (1.34–1.62), 64.4% ≥0.80; WEMWBS 1.24 (1.13–1.35), 58.2% ≥0.80; GAD-7 1.07 (0.96–1.18), 52.8% ≥0.80; PHQ-9 0.86 (0.76–0.96), 52.8% ≥0.80. Findings were largely unchanged after stratification by diagnosis, presenting problem or therapy type. Fifty (12.9%) participants did not reach the threshold for improvement on any instrument. Bland–Altman plots indicated generally strong agreement between measures; combining PSYCHLOPS with WEMWBS maximised capture of improvement with only 3.6% of patients lying outside limits of agreement; GAD-7 was most likely to duplicate recovery scores of other measures.

Patients attending the NHS Practitioner Health service demonstrated high levels of improvement in mental health scores. The patient-generated instrument produced higher change scores than standardised instruments. Combining PSYCHLOPS and WEMWBS captured 96% of patients with above threshold improvement; GAD-7 added little to overall recovery measurement.

We aimed to assess the impact of the current pandemic on the mental well-being of undergraduate medical students of Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Egypt.

We designed a structured anonymous online questionnaire and encourage students to fill it in on social platforms. The questionnaire is composed of seven parts, each one includes multiple choice questions aimed to measure the impact of the pandemic on different aspect of daily activities namely: academic performance, social and family relationship, eating and smoking habits, sleep pattern, physical activity and the Depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21). The last part was an open question where participants can state their comments about the experiences during the quarantine and how they affected their mental health.

A total of 1181 students from the six academic grades responded. Females and students in the third academic year showed the highest prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress. Overall, most respondents reported that the current pandemic had negative impacts on their academic performance (71%) and social relationship (67.5 %). The majority of the students stated that they became less physically active (74.6%) and 52.2% experienced a weight gain. Despite that 60% of the studied population rated their sleeping quality as ‘’very good’’ and ‘’fairly good’’, 45.3% and 39.6% suffered from increased sleeping hours and disturbed sleep respectively. Based on students’ responses of the DASS-21, over half of the participants (62.2%) were experiencing moderate to extremely severe stress and over 33% were consistent with symptoms of extremely severe anxiety. In respect of depression, nearly half of the sample (46.4%) can be described as having extremely severe depression according to the cut-off points of the DASS-21.

The current pandemic has increased the challenges and burdens on undergraduate medical students. These impacts can be more profound in developing countries such as Egypt. The levels of psychiatric symptoms are alarming compared to previous local and international studies. These unprecedented consequences should be addressed promptly through students’ counselling and psychiatric assistance. To date, this is the largest psychiatric and survey-based study conducted on Alexandria Faculty of Medicine.

Financial disclosure: The study was not funded by any organization, the authors did not receive any financial aids.

There is increasing cross-disciplinary research on the relationship between individuals’ social, cultural and community engagement (SCCE) and mental health. SCCE includes engagement in the arts, culture and heritage, libraries and literature, sports and nature activities, volunteering, and community groups. Research has demonstrated the effects of these activities both on the prevention and management of mental illness. However, it remains unclear whether current research is focusing on the research questions that are of most immediate urgency and relevance to policy and practice.

The current project was funded as part of the UK Research and Innovation cross-disciplinary mental health network programme to develop and co-produce a new cross-disciplinary research agenda on SCCE and mental health.

Established processes and principles for developing health research agendas were followed, with a six-phase design including engagement with over 1000 key stakeholders, consultations, integration of findings and collective prioritisation of key questions.

We identified four core themes: the mode of engagement, process of engagement, impact of engagement and infrastructure required to facilitate engagement. There were many points of agreement across all stakeholder groups on the priority questions within these themes, but also some specific questions of relevance to different sectors.

This agenda is particularly timely given the extreme pressure on mental health services predicted to follow the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify how resources from other sectors can be mobilised, and what research questions are going to be most important to fund to support SCCE for mental health.

This poster reflects how the experience of staying with people of diverse nations and cultural background helped the stranded IMGs cope with this agony in a foreign land during an unprecedented tumultuous situation. The aim is to show that despite diversity among people, the hard times made them unite and overcome countless difficulties.

The COVID 19 pandemic has been a period of global health crisis and has exponentially affected mental health issues in the world population. In these difficult times, several International Medical Graduates (IMGs), who had come to the UK to attend their PLAB exams, were left stranded as the exams were postponed, flights cancelled and borders sealed. Faced with huge uncertainty their mental health was of great concern.

At this time the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) came forward to help this cohort of stranded doctors in terms of accommodation, finances, mental health support, preparation for exams to the extent of liaising with General Medical Council (GMC) and Home Office. The virtual support group provided a platform for IMGs from different nations and cultures to get in touch with each other helping overcome mental burden and stress.

The stories presented in the poster show how unity in diversity helped these young doctors deal with mental trauma amidst the Pandemic.

276 doctors from 27 countries were looked after by BAPIO. From those excerpts taken from 26 IMGs, personal narratives was used as a method for qualitative assessment.

The percentage of IMGs clearing their exams and getting jobs in the NHS has been used for quantitative assessment.

Qualitative: The personal narratives of the IMGs show how they were positively impacted by staying together albeit different nationalities and cultural background.

Quantitative: A total of 21 IMGs out of the 26 cleared their PLAB 2 exams and got registration under General Medical Council giving a percentage of 81.7%. 20 IMGs have successfully joined the NHS in various posts giving a job success rate of 95.2%.

The experience of living and sharing housings with people from different nationalities, has increased appreciation and also prepared them to work in the NHS which has a diverse work force. This learning experience has been integral for all of us in shaping our life in the UK making everyone more compassionate.

Clozapine is generally considered as the treatment of choice for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). However, its superiority has recently been questioned because olanzapine has been suggested as non-inferior to clozapine in its effectiveness.

We aimed to investigate the current status of clozapine prescriptions to identify any disparity between clinical guidelines and real-world practices.

In this study, we utilised the Health Insurance Review Agency database in the Republic of Korea to investigate the real-world effectiveness of clozapine for patients with TRS. We compared differences in patient variables before and after clozapine administration, and we also performed survival analyses for both psychiatric admissions and emergency room visits among patients who used clozapine or olanzapine.

This study investigated an incident cohort of 64 442 patients, and 2338 patients have been prescribed clozapine. Of these, 998 patients had TRS. In survival analysis, clozapine showed a worse survival rate for psychiatric admissions than olanzapine (hazard ratio 0.615). We also identified that clinicians tended to try a number of antipsychotics, as recommended, before starting patients on clozapine.

In conclusion, we found that olanzapine led to higher survival rates for psychiatric admissions than clozapine. Thus, considering the risk of serious adverse effects, clozapine may be used conservatively. Considering several studies advocating superior efficacy of clozapine, further studies with extensive data are recommended.

Parental well-being during pregnancy and early parenthood is critical for child development. Environmental stressors can significantly challenge parental well-being.

To investigate how COVID-19 and associated restrictions influence mood and parenting confidence of expectant parents and those in early parenthood, identifying barriers and facilitators.

We used a cross-sectional online survey to collect data from 590 expectant parents and parents of infants (564 women) during the most restrictive phase of lockdown in the UK. We included a mixture of forced-choice and open-ended questions pertaining to mood, perceived social support, media use, online interactions and parenting expectations. Quantitative data were analysed with multiple linear regression and proportional odds models; an inductive thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. Quantitative and qualitative data were qualitatively synthesised.

Since COVID-19, expectant parents and parents of new-borns reported a decrease in mood and parenting confidence. Barriers included practical difficulties (finding essentials, reliable health information), social difficulties (loss of physical contact, decreased support) and uncertainty during pregnancy. Facilitators included support from others and, for first-time parents, loss of child care resulting in greater parenting confidence. Although online resources and communication were not preferable to face-to-face interactions, technology was a helpful tool for communicating, getting support, and finding essentials and information during lockdown.

By mid-May 2020, mood and parenting confidence among expectant and parents of new-borns in the UK were significantly reduced. Consideration of barriers and facilitators in healthcare and psychological support provided is likely important for promoting parental mental health and healthy parent–child relationships.

It is important to maintain the psychological well-being of front-line healthcare staff during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

To examine COVID-19-related stress and its immediate psychological impact on healthcare staff.

All healthcare staff working in the fever clinic, from 20 January 2020 to 26 March 2020, of a tertiary general hospital were enrolled. Stress management procedures were in place to alleviate concerns about the respondents’ own health and the health of their families, to help them adjust their work and to provide psychological support via a hotline. Qualitative interviews were undertaken and the Sources of Distress and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) were administered.

Among the 102 participants (25 males; median age 30 years, interquartile range (IQR) = 27–36), the median IES-R total score was 3 (IQR = 0–8), and 6 participants (6.0%) scored above the cut-off on the IES-R (≥20). Safety and security were acceptable or better for 92 (90.2%) participants. The top four sources of distress were worry about the health of one's family/others at 0.88 (IQR = 0.25–1.25), worry about the virus spread at 0.50 (IQR = 0.00–1.00), worry about changes in work at 0.50 (IQR = 0.00–1.00) and worry about one's own health at 0.25 (IQR = 0.25–0.75). There was a moderate correlation between the IES-R score and the Sources of Distress score (rho = 0.501, P = 0.001).

The stress levels of healthcare staff in the fever clinic during the COVID-19 epidemic were not elevated. Physio-psychosocial interventions, including fulfilment of basic needs, activation of self-efficacy and psychological support, are helpful and worth recommending in fighting COVID-19.