Attitudes of psychiatrists towards people with mental illness: a cross-sectional, multicentre study of stigma in 32 European countries.

Background: Mental health-related stigma occurs among the public and professionals alike. The lived experience of mental illness has been linked to less stigmatising attitudes. However, data on psychiatrists and the relationship between stigmatising attitudes and psychotherapeutic activity or case discussion groups remains scarce. Methods: A cross-sectional multicentre study was performed in 32 European countries to investigate the lived experiences and attitudes of psychiatrists toward patients with mental illness as well as the relationship between stigma, psychosocial and professional factors. The self-reported, anonymous, internet-based Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers was used to measure the stigmatising attitudes. The survey was translated into the local language of each participating country. All participants were practising specialists and trainees in general adult or child and adolescent psychiatry. The study took place between 2nd October, 2019 and 9th July, 2021 and was preregistered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04644978). Findings: A total of 4245 psychiatrists completed the survey. The majority, 2797 (66%), had completed training in psychiatry, and 3320 (78%) worked in adult psychiatry. The final regression model showed that across European countries more favourable attitudes toward people with mental illness were statistically significantly associated with the lived experience of participants (including seeking help for their own mental health conditions (d = -0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.68 to -0.15, p = 0.019), receiving medical treatment for a mental illness (d = -0.88, 95% CI = -1.71 to -0.04, p = 0.040), as well as having a friend or a family member similarly affected (d = -0.68, 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.22, p = 0.004)), being surrounded by colleagues who are less stigmatising (d = -0.98, 95% CI = -1.26 to -0.70, p < 0.001), providing psychotherapy to patients (d = -1.14, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.65 p < 0.001), and being open to (d = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.53 to -0.85, p < 0.001) and actively participating in (d = -0.94, 95% CI = -1.45 to -0.42, p < 0.001) case discussion, supervision, or Balint groups. Interpretation: Our study highlights the importance of psychotherapy training, supervision, case discussions and Balint groups in reducing the stigmatising attitudes of psychiatrists toward patients. As the findings represent cross-national predictors, Europe-wide policy interventions, national psychiatric education systems and the management of psychiatric institutions should take these findings into consideration. Funding: National Youth Talent Award (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary, (NTP-NFTÖ-20-B-0134). All authors received no funding for their contribution.

Psychometric properties of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers in 32 European countries - A bifactor ESEM representation.

Aims: To measure the stigma of healthcare providers toward people suffering from mental illness, the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a commonly applied instrument. However, this scale has not been thoroughly validated in many European countries, its psychometric properties are still unknown and data on practicing psychiatrists is lacking. Therefore, this multicenter study aimed to assess the psychometric characteristics of the 15-item OMS-HC in trainees and specialists in adult and child psychiatry in 32 countries across Europe. Materials and methods: The OMS-HC was conducted as an anonymous online survey and sent via Email to European adult and child psychiatrists. Parallel analysis was used to estimate the number of OMS-HC dimensions. Separate for each country, the bifactor ESEM, a bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach, was applied to investigate the factor structure of the scale. Cross-cultural validation was done based on multigroup confirmatory factor analyses and reliability measures. Results: A total of 4,245 practitioners were included, 2,826 (67%) female, 1,389 (33%) male. The majority (66%) of participants were specialists, with 78% working in adult psychiatry. When country data were analyzed separately, the bifactor model (higher-order factor solution with a general factor and three specific factors) showed the best model fit (for the total sample χ2/df = 9.760, RMSEA = 0.045 (0.042-0.049), CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.960, WRMR = 1.200). The average proportion of variance explained by the general factor was high (ECV = 0.682). This suggests that the aspects of 'attitude,' 'disclosure and help-seeking,' and 'social distance' could be treated as a single dimension of stigma. Among the specific factors, the 'disclosure and help-seeking' factor explained a considerable unique proportion of variance in the observed scores. Conclusion: This international study has led to cross-cultural analysis of the OMS-HC on a large sample of practicing psychiatrists. The bifactor structure displayed the best overall model fit in each country. Rather than using the subscales, we recommend the total score to quantify the overall stigmatizing attitudes. Further studies are required to strengthen our findings in countries where the proposed model was found to be weak.

Preliminary Assessment of Pre-Electroconvulsive Therapy Evaluation Practices in European Countries: The Need for Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) evaluation is an essential part of ECT preparation, a standard treatment in the psychiatric field. However, no routine pre-ECT evaluation has been published so far. This preliminary study aimed to explore different practices in pre-ECT evaluation across European countries. METHODS: The data were collected as a snowball sample approach using an online survey from September 2019 to April 2020. The final analysis included data from 18 clinics placed in 16 European countries. RESULTS: Regulations on the pre-ECT evaluation were found in 9 countries. All clinics reported doing complete blood count, serum electrolytes, and renal function analysis as a part of regular laboratory testing, alongside with a cardiovascular assessment. Ten clinics reported using psychiatric scales. Six clinics reported doing a cognitive assessment, of which all had regulations on the pre-ECT evaluation. Not one evaluation had the same sets of procedures and diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in assessment approaches mirror high variability of the pre-ECT evaluation practice across Europe. Cognitive assessment and objectification of psychiatric symptoms should be a regular part of the pre-ECT evaluation because of the monitoring of the most common adverse effect and observing the clinical response to ECT. Standardization of the pre-ECT evaluation and ECT in general would remove criticisms and opposition to the treatment, make it based on the best of our knowledge, and provide a method respectful of patients' best interests and rights.