Risk Assessment Suicidality Scale (RASS)-Based On-Line Calculator Targeting Early Prevention of Suicides in General Population: from COMET-G Study Results Towards Integration of the Screening Tool into Routine Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a major global health concern, particularly among young people. This study evaluates an online suicide risk calculator based on the Risk Assessment of Suicidality Scale (RASS), which is designed to enhance accessibility and early detection of suicide risk. METHODS: The study involved 444 participants who completed the RASS via an online calculator. Results were compared with data from the COMET-G study's Russian sample (n=7572). Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and two-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 22.71 years (SD=7.94). The mean total RASS standardized score was 837.7 (SD=297.8). There was a significant negative correlation between age and RASS scores (r=-0.463, p<0.0001). The online calculator sample showed significantly higher RASS scores compared to the COMET-G sample, with 71% of online users scoring above the 90th percentile of the COMET-G sample. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the advantage of the on-line suicidality risk calculator based on the RASS scale as a sensitive tool in detecting suicidal behaviours and measuring the severity of suicidality risks, offering a capability for broad reach and immediate assessment during clinical conversation between doctor and patient. Moreover, the RASS on-line psychometric instrument, when being freely distributed among the general population over internet sources, enabled to attract vulnerable groups of respondents with significantly higher suicidality risks. Future research should focus on integrating such tools into comprehensive suicide prevention programs and developing appropriate follow-up monitoring strategies for high risk-cases.

Widespread collapse, glimpses of revival: a scoping review of mental health policy and service development in Central Asia.

PURPOSE: We aimed to map evidence on the development of mental health care in Central Asia after 1991. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review complemented by an expert review. We searched five databases for peer-reviewed journal articles and conducted grey literature searching. The reference lists of included articles were screened for additional relevant publications. RESULTS: We included 53 articles (Kazakhstan: 13, Kyrgyzstan: 14, Tajikistan: 10, Uzbekistan: 9, Turkmenistan: 2, Multinational: 5). Only 9 were published in internationally recognised journals. In the 1990's mental health services collapsed following a sharp decline in funding, and historically popular folk services re-emerged as an alternative. Currently, modernised mental health policies exist but remain largely unimplemented due to lack of investment and low prioritisation by governments. Psychiatric treatment is still concentrated in hospitals, and community-based and psycho-social services are almost entirely unavailable. Stigma is reportedly high throughout the region, psychiatric myths are widespread, and societal awareness of human rights is low. With the exception of Kyrgyzstan, user involvement is virtually absent. After many years of stagnation, however, political interest in mental health is beginning to show, along with some promising service developments. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial knowledge gap in the region. Informed decision-making and collaboration with stakeholders is necessary to facilitate future reform implementation.

Prescription patterns of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in mental hospitals in Tashkent/Uzbekistan and in four German cities.

PURPOSE: Little is known about psychopharmacological prescription practice in low-income countries. The present study aimed for an analysis of pharmacological treatment strategies for inpatients with schizophrenia in Tashkent, the capital city of Uzbekistan, facing a low-income situation as compared with four German cities in a high-income Western situation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative survey of age, gender, diagnoses, and psychotropic medication of 845 urban psychiatric inpatients of the Tashkent psychiatric hospital and of 922 urban psychiatric inpatients in four German cities on 1 day in October 2008. We compared the current treatment strategies for specific diagnostic categories between the two settings. RESULTS: In Tashkent, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were treated with clozapine (66%), haloperidol (62%), or both (44%). More than one-third of the patients treated for schizophrenia were prescribed amitriptyline. The usual treatment strategy for schizophrenia was the combination of two or more antipsychotics (67%). In German cities, the preferred antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia were olanzapine (21%), clozapine (20%), quetiapine (17%), risperidone (17%), and haloperidol (14%); the most common treatment strategy for patients with schizophrenia was the combination of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines; 44% of the patients were treated with two or more antipsychotics at a time. CONCLUSIONS: In both settings, psychotropic combination treatments are common for the treatment of schizophrenia contrasting current guideline recommendations. Its rationale and effectiveness needs to be tested in further studies.

Use of psychiatric inpatient capacities and diagnostic practice in Tashkent/Uzbekistan as compared to Berlin/Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The present study shows a comparison of diagnoses used for the treatment of urban psychiatric inpatients in Tashkent/Uzbekistan and Berlin/Germany. Differential diagnostic practices related to different traditions in psychopathology between the two settings are analysed to explain part of the difference in relative frequencies of the diagnoses. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of diagnoses used for the treatment of 845 inpatients including 17 out of 18 wards of the Tashkent psychiatric hospital and of all 2,260 psychiatric and psychotherapeutic inpatients in Berlin in October 2008. Relative frequencies of diagnostic categories were calculated for each setting and compared between the two settings using the Chi-square test. A descriptive analysis of differential diagnostic practice is used to explain differences in relative frequencies. RESULTS: Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (59.3 vs. 21.0%), with organic mental disorders (20.5 vs. 8.3%), with mental retardation (6.9 vs. 0.2%) and with neurasthenia (1.4 vs. 0.0%) had larger relative frequencies of the psychiatric inpatient population in Tashkent than in Berlin. Patients diagnosed with unipolar depression (24.1 vs. 0.9%), substance use disorder (17.4 vs. 6.4%), adjustment disorder (6.0 vs. 0.4%), schizoaffective disorder (4.9 vs. 0.0%), mania and bipolar disorder (5.3 vs. 0.4%), personality disorder (3.2 vs. 2.0%) and anxiety disorder (3.1 vs. 0.1%) had larger relative frequencies in Berlin than in Tashkent. The diagnostic concept of schizophrenia in Tashkent includes patients with affective psychoses, schizoaffective psychoses and delusional disorders. In Tashkent, mental disorders are more readily associated with organic brain disease such as head trauma or vascular disease than in Berlin. CONCLUSIONS: In Tashkent, most of the psychiatric inpatient capacities are used for the treatment of schizophrenia and organic mental disorders, whereas in Berlin patients with affective disorders, schizophrenia and substance use disorders are most commonly treated as inpatients. The differences can in part be explained by differential diagnostic traditions between the Russian/post-Soviet nosology and the use of the ICD.