National policies can be used to reveal structural stigma and discrimination in relation to mental health. This review assesses how structural stigma and discrimination are manifested in the policies and legislations of Government of Nepal.

Scoping review methodology was followed to review policy documents (acts of parliament, legislation, policies, strategies, guidelines and official directives) drafted or amended after 2010.

Eighty-nine policies were identified related to health, social welfare, development and regulations which were relevant to people with psychosocial and mental disabilities or have addressed the mental health agendas. Several critical policy failings and gaps are revealed, such as the use of stigmatizing language (e.g., ‘insane’ or ‘lunatic’), inconsistencies within and between policies, deviation from international protocols defining legal capacity and consent, lack of inclusion of the mental health agenda in larger development policies and lack of cost-effective interventions and identification of financing mechanisms. Provisions for people living with mental health conditions included adequate standard of living; attaining standard mental health; the right to exercise legal capacity, liberty and security; freedom from torture or discrimination; and right to live independently. However, other policies contradicted these rights, such as prohibiting marriage, candidacy for and retention of positions of authority and vulnerability to imprisonment.

Mental health–related structural stigma and discrimination in Nepal can be identified through the use of discriminator language and provisions in the policies. The structural stigma and discrimination may be addressed through revision of the discriminating policies, integrating the mental health agenda into larger national and provincial policies, and streamlining policies to comply with national and international protocols.

Mental health related stigma and discrimination is a universal phenomenon and a contributor to the adversity experienced by people with schizophrenia. Research has produced inconsistent findings on how discrimination differs across settings and the contextual factors that underpin these differences. This study investigates the association between country-level Human Development Index (HDI) and experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with schizophrenia.

This study is a secondary data analysis of a global cross-sectional survey completed by people living with schizophrenia across 29 countries, between 2005 and 2008. Experienced and anticipated discrimination were assessed using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-10). Countries were classified according to their 2006 HDI. Negative binomial and Poisson regression analyses with a robust standard errors approach were conducted to investigate associations between country-level HDI and discrimination.

In the regression analyses, no evidence was found for a linear association between HDI and experienced or anticipated discrimination. Further exploratory analyses showed a significant non-linear association between HDI ratings and experienced discrimination. Participants in “high” and “very high” HDI countries reported more experienced discrimination compared to those in “medium” HDI countries.

HDI does, to some extent, appear to be associated with how far discrimination is experienced across different contexts. More high-quality cross-national research, including research focused on “medium” and “low” countries, is needed to substantiate these findings and identify underlying factors that may explain the pattern observed for experienced discrimination, including generating new datasets that would enable for these analyses to be repeated and contrasted with more recent data. An in-depth understanding of these factors will further aid the adaptation of cross-cultural and context specific anti-stigma interventions in future.

Mental health-related stigma and discrimination are a complex and widespread issue with negative effects on numerous aspects of life of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Research shows that social contact is the best evidence-based intervention to reduce stigma. Within the context of a rapid development of remote technology, and COVID-19-related restrictions for face-to-face contact, the aim of this paper is to categorise, compare and define indirect social contact (ISC) interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination in mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

MEDLINE, Global Health, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched using a strategy including terms related to ‘stigma and discrimination’, ‘intervention’, ‘indirect social contact’, ‘mental health’ and ‘low- and middle-income countries’. Relevant information on ISC interventions was extracted from the included articles, and a quality assessment was conducted. Emerging themes were coded using a thematic synthesis method, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken to present the results.

Nine studies were included in the review overall. One study was ineffective; this was not considered for the categorisation of interventions, and it was considered separately for the comparison of interventions. Of the eight effective studies included in synthesis, interventions were categorised by content, combination of stigma-reducing strategies, medium of delivery, delivery agents, target condition and population, as well as by active or passive interaction and follow-up. Most of the interventions used education and ISC. Recovery and personal experience were important content components as all studies included either one or both. Cultural adaptation and local relevance were also important considerations.

ISC interventions were effective in overall terms for both the general public and healthcare providers, including medical students. A new definition of ISC interventions in LMICs is proposed. More research and better reporting of intervention details are needed to explore the effectiveness of ISC strategies in LMICs, especially in regions where little relevant research has been conducted.

To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials.

Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677).

The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders.

These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

The quality of mental health services is crucial for the effectiveness and efficiency of mental healthcare systems, symptom reduction, and quality of life improvements in persons with mental illness. In recent years, particularly care coordination (i.e., the integration of care across different providers and treatment settings) has received increased attention and has been put into practice. Thus, we focused on care coordination in this update of a previous European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on the quality of mental health services.

We conducted a systematic meta-review of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence-based clinical guidelines focusing on care coordination for persons with mental illness in three literature databases.

We identified 23 relevant documents covering the following topics: case management, integrated care, home treatment, crisis intervention services, transition from inpatient to outpatient care and vice versa, integrating general and mental healthcare, technology in care coordination and self-management, quality indicators, and economic evaluation. Based on the available evidence, we developed 15 recommendations for care coordination in European mental healthcare.

Although evidence is limited, some concepts of care coordination seem to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of mental health services and outcomes on patient level. Further evidence is needed to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of different care coordination models.

To advance the quality of mental healthcare in Europe by developing guidance on implementing quality assurance.

We performed a systematic literature search on quality assurance in mental healthcare and the 522 retrieved documents were evaluated by two independent reviewers (B.J. and J.Z.). Based on these evaluations, evidence tables were generated. As it was found that these did not cover all areas of mental healthcare, supplementary hand searches were performed for selected additional areas. Based on these findings, fifteen graded recommendations were developed and consented by the authors. Review by the EPA Guidance Committee and EPA Board led to two additional recommendations (on immigrant mental healthcare and parity of mental and physical healthcare funding).

Although quality assurance (measures to keep a certain degree of quality), quality control and monitoring (applying quality indicators to the current degree of quality), and quality management (coordinated measures and activities with regard to quality) are conceptually distinct, in practice they are frequently used as if identical and hardly separable. There is a dearth of controlled trials addressing ways to optimize quality assurance in mental healthcare. Altogether, seventeen recommendations were developed addressing a range of aspects of quality assurance in mental healthcare, which appear usable across Europe. These were divided into recommendations about structures, processes and outcomes. Each recommendation was assigned to a hierarchical level of analysis (macro-, meso- and micro-level).

There was a lack of evidence retrievable by a systematic literature search about quality assurance of mental healthcare. Therefore, only after further topics and search had been added it was possible to develop recommendations with mostly medium evidence levels.

Evidence-based graded recommendations for quality assurance in mental healthcare were developed which should next be implemented and evaluated for feasibility and validity in some European countries. Due to the small evidence base identified corresponding to the practical obscurity of the concept and methods, a European research initiative is called for by the stakeholders represented in this Guidance to improve the educational, methodological and empirical basis for a future broad implementation of measures for quality assurance in European mental healthcare.

There is an absence of instruments to assess the complex needs of pregnant women and mothers with severe mental illness. We aimed to develop a standardised assessment of need for pregnant women and mothers with severe mental illness.

Staff and service users identified relevant domains of need. Professional experts and service users were then surveyed and asked to rate the importance of the domains of the CAN-M (Camberwell Assessment of Need – Mothers). Reliability was established using 36 service user-staff pairs. Concurrent validity was assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning.

Inter-rater and test-retest reliability coefficients for unmet needs indicated excellent reliability. Relevant CAN-M domains correlated with the Global Assessment of Functioning symptom (p=0.05) and disability (p <0.01) subscales.

The CAN-M is a reliable, valid instrument for assessing the needs of pregnant women and mothers with severe mental illness.

Social contact is one of the most effective strategies for improving inter-group relations and is supported by decades of positive evidence. Several studies specifically support social contact interventions as a way of reducing stigma against people with mental health problems. Despite the effectiveness of this approach, some social groups have few opportunities for social contact in the real world.

Using the England Time to Change anti-stigma campaign as an example, we investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of delivering social contact interventions at the mass population level to reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems.

To investigate: (i) the feasibility of scaling up social contact interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems and (ii) the effectiveness of mass population social contact interventions to: improve intended stigmatising behaviour, increase willingness to disclose mental health problems and to promote engagement in antistigma activities.

Two types of mass participation social contact programmes within England's Time to Change campaign were evaluated via self-report questionnaire. Participants at social contact events were asked about the occurrence and quality of contact, attitudes, readiness to discuss mental health, and intended behaviour towards people with mental health problems.

Findings on feasibility and effectiveness of social contact programmes will be presented.

This study suggests that social contact interventions can be used by anti-stigma campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems. Further investigation is needed regarding the maintenance of these changes

IDEA project is the outcome of Association for the Improvement of Mental Health programme and coordinated at Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

Are to explore experience of people treated in a mental health setting across nations, determine how inpatient experiences can be improved. Experience gained from interviews will be used to propose questionnaire for routine use, develop versions of interview for other services, inform a possible follow-up study.

30 consecutive patients are interviewed on day of discharge in own language. Semi-structured interview covers physical condition in institutions, experiences of treatments like medication, satisfaction with staff, privacy, dignity and whether rights were respected. Responses are summarized on several visual analogue scales and quantitative analysis will be performed. The scale will also be analysed by demographic indices within centres to see whether different groups have different experiences.

Qualitative responses will be analysed thematically, both within and between centres, identifying core themes for each domain and core themes for the protocol as a whole.

10 countries are participating, 577 interviews are completed. It is noticed a large disparity between institutions in regards to the amount of contact patients have with family, access to phone, quality of food, surroundings and view of medication and therapy.

It will be a better understanding of the size, structure and staffing of the institutions included in the study, which will help us with our observations about inpatient experiences by putting them in context and make recommendations to institutions.