Clinician treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder: ambassadors survey of psychiatrists in 39 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Considering the recently growing number of potentially traumatic events in Europe, the European Psychiatric Association undertook a study to investigate clinicians' treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: The case-based analysis included 611 participants, who correctly classified the vignette as a case of PTSD, from Central/ Eastern Europe (CEE) (n = 279), Southern Europe (SE) (n = 92), Northern Europe (NE) (n = 92), and Western Europe (WE) (N = 148). RESULTS: About 82% woulduse antidepressants (sertraline being the most preferred one). Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics were significantly more frequently recommended by participants from CEE (33 and 4%, respectively), compared to participants from NE (11 and 0%) and SE (9% and 3%). About 52% of clinicians recommended trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy and 35% psychoeducation, irrespective of their origin. In the latent class analysis, we identified four distinct "profiles" of clinicians. In Class 1 (N = 367), psychiatrists would less often recommend any antidepressants. In Class 2 (N = 51), clinicians would recommend trazodone and prolonged exposure therapy. In Class 3 (N = 65), they propose mirtazapine and eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy. In Class 4 (N = 128), clinicians propose different types of medications and cognitive processing therapy. About 50.1% of participants in each region stated they do not adhere to recognized treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' decisions for PTSD are broadly similar among European psychiatrists, but regional differences suggest the need for more dialogue and education to harmonize practice across Europe and promote the use of guidelines.

Stigma towards mental illness in Asian nations and low-and-middle-income countries, and comparison with high-income countries: A literature review and practice implications.

Background: Stigma related to mental illness (and its treatment) is prevalent worldwide. This stigma could be at the structural or organizational level, societal level (interpersonal stigma), and the individual level (internalized stigma). Vulnerable populations, for example, gender minorities, children, adolescents, and geriatric populations, are more prone to stigma. The magnitude of stigma and its negative influence is determined by socio-cultural factors and macro (mental health policies, programs) or micro-level factors (societal views, health sectors, or individuals' attitudes towards mentally ill persons). Mental health stigma is associated with more serious psychological problems among the victims, reduced access to mental health care, poor adherence to treatment, and unfavorable outcomes. Although various nationwide and well-established anti-stigma interventions/campaigns exist in high-income countries (HICs) with favorable outcomes, a comprehensive synthesis of literature from the Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), more so from the Asian continent is lacking. The lack of such literature impedes growth in stigma-related research, including developing anti-stigma interventions. Aim: To synthesize the available mental health stigma literature from Asia and LMICs and compare them on the mental health stigma, anti-stigma interventions, and the effectiveness of such interventions from HICs. Materials and Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were screened using the following search terms: stigma, prejudice, discrimination, stereotype, perceived stigma, associate stigma (for Stigma), mental health, mental illness, mental disorder psychiatric* (for mental health), and low-and-middle-income countries, LMICs, High-income countries, and Asia, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation/SAARC (for countries of interest). Bibliographic and grey literature were also performed to obtain the relevant records. Results: The anti-stigma interventions in Asia nations and LMICs are generalized (vs. disorder specific), population-based (vs. specific groups, such as patients, caregivers, and health professionals), mostly educative (vs. contact-based or attitude and behavioral-based programs), and lacking in long-term effectiveness data. Government, international/national bodies, professional organizations, and mental health professionals can play a crucial in addressing mental health stigma. Conclusion: There is a need for a multi-modal intervention and multi-sectoral coordination to mitigate the mental health stigma. Greater research (nationwide surveys, cultural determinants of stigma, culture-specific anti-stigma interventions) in this area is required.

An expert review of clozapine in Eastern European countries: Use, regulations and pharmacovigilance.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence, regulations, and pharmacovigilance practices of clozapine use in Eastern European countries (except Russia). METHODS: Questionnaires and data from administrative databases (2016 and 2021), package inserts and national guidelines were collected from 21 co-authors from 21 countries. Reports of clozapine adverse drug reactions (ADRs) sent to the global pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase™) were analyzed from introduction to December 31, 2022. RESULTS: Clozapine prescription among antipsychotics in 2021 varied six-fold across countries, from 2.8 % in the Czech Republic to 15.8 % in Montenegro. The utilization of antipsychotics in both 2016 and 2021 was highest in Croatia, and lowest in Serbia in 2016, and Montenegro in 2021, which had half the defined daily dose (DDD)/1000/day compared to the Croatian data. From 2016 to 2021, the prevalence of antipsychotic use increased in almost all countries; the proportion of clozapine use mainly remained unchanged. Differences were detected in hematological monitoring requirements and clozapine approved indications. Only a few national schizophrenia guidelines mention clozapine-induced myocarditis or individual titration schemes. The VigiBase search indicated major underreporting regarding clozapine and its fatal outcomes. By comparison, the United Kingdom had less than half the population of these Eastern European countries but reported to VigiBase more clozapine ADRs by 89-fold and clozapine fatal outcomes by almost 300-fold. CONCLUSION: Clozapine is under-utilized in Eastern European countries. Introducing individualized clozapine treatment schedules may help to maximize clozapine benefits and safety. Major improvement is needed in reporting clozapine ADRs and fatal outcomes in Eastern European countries.

Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries.

BACKGROUND: While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. RESULTS: SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. CONCLUSIONS: The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.

Mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: Results from the EPA Ambassadors Survey and implications for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented worldwide crisis affecting several sectors, including health, social care, economy and society at large. The World Health Organisation has emphasized that mental health care should be considered as one of the core sectors within the overall COVID-19 health response. By March 2020, recommendations for the organization of mental health services across Europe have been developed by several national and international mental health professional associations. METHODS: The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) surveyed a large European sample of psychiatrists, namely the "EPA Ambassadors", on their clinical experience of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of psychiatric patients during the month of April 2020 in order to: a) identify and report the views and experiences of European psychiatrists; and b) represent and share these results with mental health policy makers at European level. Based on the recommendations issued by national psychiatric associations and on the results of our survey, we identified important organisational aspects of mental health care during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19. RESULTS: While most of the recommendations followed the same principles, significant differences between countries emerged in service delivery, mainly relating to referrals to outpatients and for inpatient admission, assessments and treatment for people with mental disorders. Compared to previous months, the mean number of patients treated by psychiatrists in outpatient settings halved in April 2020. In the same period, the number of mentally ill patients tested for, or developing, COVID-19 was low. In most of countries, traditional face-to-face visits were replaced by online remote consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings we recommend: 1) to implement professional guidelines into practice and harmonize psychiatric clinical practice across Europe; 2) to monitor the treatment outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing mental disorders; 3) to keep psychiatric services active by using all available options (for example telepsychiatry); 4) to increase communication and cooperation between different health care providers.

Excellent reliability and validity of the Addiction Medicine Training Need Assessment Scale across four countries.

BACKGROUND: Addiction is a context specific but common and devastating condition. Though several evidence-based treatments are available, many of them remain under-utilized, among others due to the lack of adequate training in addiction medicine (AM). AM Training needs may differ across countries because of difference in discipline and level of prior AM training or contextual factors like epidemiology and availability of treatment. For appropriate testing of training needs, reliability and validity are key issues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the AM-TNA Scale: an instrument specifically designed to develop the competence-based curriculum of the Indonesian AM course. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study in Indonesia, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands the AM-TNA was distributed among a convenience sample of health professionals working in addiction care in The Netherlands, Lithuania, Indonesia and General Practitioners in-training in Ireland. 428 respondents completed the AM-TNA scale. To assess the factor structure, we used explorative factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach's Alpha, ANOVA determined the discriminative validity. RESULTS: Validity: factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure: One on providing direct patient treatment and care (Factor 1: clinical) and one factor on facilitating/supporting direct patient treatment and care (Factor 2: non-clinical) AM competencies and a cumulative 76% explained variance. Reliability: Factor 1 α = 0.983 and Factor 2: α = 0.956, while overall reliability was (α = 0.986). The AM-TNA was able to differentiate training needs across groups of AM professionals on all 30 addiction medicine competencies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study the AM-TNA scale had a strong two-factor structure and proofed to be a reliable and valid instrument. The next step should be the testing external validity, strengthening discriminant validity and assessing the re-test effect and measuring changes over time.