Population-wide restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may create barriers to mental health diagnosis. This study aims to examine changes in the number of incident cases and the incidence rates of mental health diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By using electronic health records from France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and the UK and claims data from the US, this study conducted interrupted time-series analyses to compare the monthly incident cases and the incidence of depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol misuse or dependence, substance misuse or dependence, bipolar disorders, personality disorders and psychoses diagnoses before (January 2017 to February 2020) and after (April 2020 to the latest available date of each database [up to November 2021]) the introduction of COVID-related restrictions.

A total of 629,712,954 individuals were enrolled across nine databases. Following the introduction of restrictions, an immediate decline was observed in the number of incident cases of all mental health diagnoses in the US (rate ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.005 to 0.677) and in the incidence of all conditions in France, Germany, Italy and the US (RRs ranged from 0.002 to 0.422). In the UK, significant reductions were only observed in common mental illnesses. The number of incident cases and the incidence began to return to or exceed pre-pandemic levels in most countries from mid-2020 through 2021.

Healthcare providers should be prepared to deliver service adaptations to mitigate burdens directly or indirectly caused by delays in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions.

To determine whether probiotic prophylaxes reduce the odds of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults and children.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), adjusting for risk factors.

We searched 6 databases and 11 grey literature sources from inception to April 2016. We identified 32 RCTs (n=8,713); among them, 18 RCTs provided IPD (n=6,851 participants) comparing probiotic prophylaxis to placebo or no treatment (standard care). One reviewer prepared the IPD, and 2 reviewers extracted data, rated study quality, and graded evidence quality.

Probiotics reduced CDI odds in the unadjusted model (n=6,645; odds ratio [OR] 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.55) and the adjusted model (n=5,074; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23–0.55). Using 2 or more antibiotics increased the odds of CDI (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.11–4.37), whereas age, sex, hospitalization status, and high-risk antibiotic exposure did not. Adjusted subgroup analyses suggested that, compared to no probiotics, multispecies probiotics were more beneficial than single-species probiotics, as was using probiotics in clinical settings where the CDI risk is ≥5%. Of 18 studies, 14 reported adverse events. In 11 of these 14 studies, the adverse events were retained in the adjusted model. Odds for serious adverse events were similar for both groups in the unadjusted analyses (n=4,990; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.26) and adjusted analyses (n=4,718; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89–1.28). Missing outcome data for CDI ranged from 0% to 25.8%. Our analyses were robust to a sensitivity analysis for missingness.

Moderate quality (ie, certainty) evidence suggests that probiotic prophylaxis may be a useful and safe CDI prevention strategy, particularly among participants taking 2 or more antibiotics and in hospital settings where the risk of CDI is ≥5%.

PROSPERO 2015 identifier: CRD42015015701

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;771–781

A risk-reduction treatment programme complemented by a focused assessment, both guided by the risk–need–responsivity principles, is suggested as the preferred treatment for violence-prone individuals with personality disorder.

Violence Reduction Programme (VRP) and Violence Risk Scale (VRS) were used to illustrate the design and implementation of such an approach. Participants from a similarly designed Aggressive Behaviour Control Programme were used to illustrate the principles discussed and to test programme efficacy.

The VRS was used to assess risk/need and treatment readiness, and DSM–III/IV psychiatric diagnoses of 203 federal offenders.

Participants had a high probability of violent recidivism and many violence-linked criminogenic needs, similar to offenders with high PCL–R scores. Most had antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders; in terms of treatment-readiness, most were in the contemplation stage of change. Outcome evaluation results support the objectives of the VRP.

Integrating risk–need–responsivity principles in assessment and treatment can provide useful guidelines for intervention with violence-prone forensic clients with personality disorder.