Although behavioral mechanisms in the association among depression, anxiety, and cancer are plausible, few studies have empirically studied mediation by health behaviors. We aimed to examine the mediating role of several health behaviors in the associations among depression, anxiety, and the incidence of various cancer types (overall, breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, smoking-related, and alcohol-related cancers).

Two-stage individual participant data meta-analyses were performed based on 18 cohorts within the Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence consortium that had a measure of depression or anxiety (N = 319 613, cancer incidence = 25 803). Health behaviors included smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), sedentary behavior, and sleep duration and quality. In stage one, path-specific regression estimates were obtained in each cohort. In stage two, cohort-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects multivariate meta-analysis, and natural indirect effects (i.e. mediating effects) were calculated as hazard ratios (HRs).

Smoking (HRs range 1.04–1.10) and physical inactivity (HRs range 1.01–1.02) significantly mediated the associations among depression, anxiety, and lung cancer. Smoking was also a mediator for smoking-related cancers (HRs range 1.03–1.06). There was mediation by health behaviors, especially smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and a higher BMI, in the associations among depression, anxiety, and overall cancer or other types of cancer, but effects were small (HRs generally below 1.01).

Smoking constitutes a mediating pathway linking depression and anxiety to lung cancer and smoking-related cancers. Our findings underline the importance of smoking cessation interventions for persons with depression or anxiety.

Day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) is a promising treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD) but its evidence base is still limited. This multi-site randomized trial compared the efficacy of MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service v. specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) tailored to the individual needs of patients, and offered by a well-established treatment service.

Two mental healthcare institutes in The Netherlands participated in the study. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and had a score of ⩾20 on the borderline personality disorder severity index (BPDSI) were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (N = 54) or S-TAU (N = 41). The primary outcome variable was the total score on the BPDSI. Secondary outcome variables included symptom severity, quality of life, and interpersonal functioning. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months until 18-month follow-up, and were analyzed using multilevel analyses based on intention-to-treat principles.

Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in all outcome variables. MBT-DH was not superior to S-TAU on any outcome variable. MBT-DH was associated with higher acceptability in BPD patients compared v. S-TAU, reflected in significantly higher early drop-out rates in S-TAU (34%) v. MBT-DH (9%).

MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service is as effective as specialist TAU in The Netherlands in the treatment of BPD at 18-month follow-up. Further research is needed to investigate treatment outcomes in the longer term and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.

Patients with a severe mental illness (SMI) are more likely to experience victimisation than the general population.

To examine the prevalence of victimisation in people with SMI, and the relationship between symptoms, treatment facility and indices of substance use/misuse and perpetration, in comparison with the general population.

Victimisation was assessed among both randomly selected patients with SMI (n = 216) and the general population (n=10 865).

Compared with the general population, a high prevalence of violent victimisation was found among the SMI group (22.7% v. 8.5%). Compared with out-patients and patients in a sheltered housing facility, in-patients were most often victimised (violent crimes: 35.3%; property crimes: 47.1%). Risk factors among the SMI group for violent victimisation included young age and disorganisation, and risk factors for property crimes included being an in-patient, disorganisation and cannabis use. The SMI group were most often assaulted by someone they knew.

Caregivers should be aware that patients with SMI are at risk of violent victimisation. Interventions need to be developed to reduce this vulnerability.