Behind the curtain of Australasian Psychiatry: The practice of a medical journal and a call for reviewers.

The process of medical scientific journal publishing merits further explanation for authors and readers. Prospective authors need to understand the scope of the journal and the article types that are published. We give an overview of the editorial process, including selection of reviewers, peer review and decisions regarding revision, acceptance and rejection of papers for Australasian Psychiatry. We encourage authors and readers to submit papers, and volunteer as peer reviewers, working together with the journal editorial team.

Development of a harmonized sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire for mental health research: A Delphi-method-based consensus recommendation.

OBJECTIVE: Harmonized tools are essential for reliable data sharing and accurate identification of relevant factors in mental health research. The primary objective of this study was to create a harmonized questionnaire to collect demographic, clinical and behavioral data in diverse clinical trials in adult psychiatry. METHODS: We conducted a literature review and examined 24 questionnaires used in previously published randomized controlled trials in psychiatry, identifying a total of 27 domains previously explored. Using a Delphi-method process, a task force team comprising experts in psychiatry, epidemiology and statistics selected 15 essential domains for inclusion in the final questionnaire. RESULTS: The final selection resulted in a concise set of 22 questions. These questions cover factors such as age, sex, gender, ancestry, education, living arrangement, employment status, home location, relationship status, and history of medical and mental illness. Behavioral factors like physical activity, diet, smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use were also included, along with one question addressing family history of mental illness. Income was excluded due to high confounding and redundancy, while language was included as a measure of migration status. CONCLUSION: The recommendation and adoption of this harmonized tool for the assessment of demographic, clinical and behavioral data in mental health research can enhance data consistency and enable comparability across clinical trials.

Comparing the World Psychiatric Association and European Psychiatric Association Codes of Ethics: Discrepancies and shared grounds.

BACKGROUND: Codes of ethics provide guidance to address ethical challenges encountered in clinical practice. The harmonization of global, regional, and national codes of ethics is important to avoid gaps and discrepancies. METHODS: We compare the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) and the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) Codes of Ethics, addressing main key points, similarities, and divergences. RESULTS: The WPA and EPA codes are inspired by similar fundamental values but do show a few differences. The two codes have a different structure. The WPA code includes 4 sections and lists 5 overarching principles as the basis of psychiatrists' clinical practice; the EPA code is articulated in 8 sections, lists 4 ethical principles, and several fundamental values. The EPA code does not include a section on psychiatrists' education and does not contain specific references to domestic violence and death penalty. Differences can be found in how the two codes address the principle of equity: the EPA code explicitly refers to the principle of universal health care, while the WPA code mentions the principle of equity as reflected in the promotion of distributive justice. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that both WPA and EPA periodically update their ethical codes to minimize differences, eliminate gaps, and help member societies to develop or revise national codes in line with the principles of the associations they belong to.Minimizing differences between national and international codes and fostering a continuous dialogue on ethical issues will provide guidance for psychiatrists and will raise awareness of the importance of ethics in our profession.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists professional practice guidelines for the administration of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the optimal administration of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, based on scientific evidence and supplemented by expert clinical consensus. METHODS: Articles and information were sourced from existing guidelines and published literature. The findings were then formulated into consensus-based recommendations and guidance by the authors. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous successive consultation within the RANZCP, involving the Section of ECT and Neurostimulation (SEN) Committee, its broader membership and expert committees. RESULTS: The RANZCP professional practice guidelines (PPG) for the administration of rTMS provide up-to-date advice regarding the use of rTMS in clinical practice. The guidelines are intended for use by psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists engaged in the administration of rTMS to facilitate best practice to optimise outcomes for patients. The guidelines strive to find the appropriate balance between promoting best evidence-based practice and acknowledging that evidence for rTMS use is a continually evolving. CONCLUSION: The guidelines provide up-to-date advice for psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists to promote optimal standards of rTMS practice.

Determining the future role of clinical practice guidelines: The experience of Australia and New Zealand.

There has been recent discussion in Australia and New Zealand concerning the utility of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and the role of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) in their development. The College Board therefore established a Steering Group (SG) to oversee an exploration of options and produce recommendations about contemporary approaches to the development of high-quality evidence-based clinical practice guidance for psychiatry. This paper outlines the SG's conclusions and recommendations, as well as the underlying methods and reasoning. In particular, we discuss best practice and recent developments in the synthesis of research evidence. Account has been taken of the opportunities offered by digital technologies, the proliferation of clinical evidence and awareness of the gains to be made by increased inclusion of lived-experience perspectives. It is recommended that the broader concept of best practice resources (BPRs) as now emphasised in so many fields of service is the most appropriate starting point for the College's role in this area especially as the expertise of the College and its fellows lends itself to the development of a range of BPRs. In conclusion, contemporary guidance needs to be tailored to the requirements of the practitioners seeking it, to articulate the real-world needs and experiences of patients, and to be delivered in a contemporary format that is responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. The experience in Australia and New Zealand may have implications elsewhere for the development of CPGs and BPRs more broadly.

The clinical utility and relevance in clinical practice of DSM-5 specifiers for major depressive disorder: A Delphi expert consensus study.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous syndrome, associated with different levels of severity and impairment on the personal functioning for each patient. Classification systems in psychiatry, including ICD-11 and DSM-5, are used by clinicians in order to simplify the complexity of clinical manifestations. In particular, the DSM-5 introduced specifiers, subtypes, severity ratings, and cross-cutting symptom assessments allowing clinicians to better describe the specific clinical features of each patient. However, the use of DSM-5 specifiers for major depressive disorder in ordinary clinical practice is quite heterogeneous. The present study, using a Delphi method, aims to evaluate the consensus of a representative group of expert psychiatrists on a series of statements regarding the clinical utility and relevance of DSM-5 specifiers for major depressive disorder in ordinary clinical practice. Experts reached an almost perfect agreement on statements related to the use and clinical utility of DSM-5 specifiers in ordinary clinical practice. In particular, a complete consensus was found regarding the clinical utility for ordinary clinical practice of using DSM-5 specifiers. The use of specifiers is considered a first step toward a "dimensional" approach to the diagnosis of mental disorders.

Clozapine Proficiency as a Milestone in Psychiatric Training.

This Viewpoint advocates for the addition of clozapine prescribing as a milestone in psychiatric education.

The gender-affirming model of care is incompatible with competent, ethical medical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the compatibility of gender-affirming care with the principles and practices of psychiatry. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption that there is no pathology involved in the development of gender diversity is a necessary precondition for the unquestioning affirmation of self-reported gender identity. Cases where psychosis is the undeniable cause of gender diversity demonstrate this assumption is categorically false. To protect this false assumption, gender-affirming guidelines forbid the application of the core psychiatric competencies of phenomenology and psychopathology to the assessment of gender diversity. They substitute the political goal of expanding personal liberty for the evidence-based medicine processes of clinical reasoning, rendering them incompatible with competent, ethical medical practice.

ChatGPT in private practice: The opportunities and pitfalls of novel technology.

OBJECTIVE: This article explores the transformative impact of OpenAI and ChatGPT on Australian medical practitioners, particularly psychiatrists in the private practice setting. It delves into the extensive benefits and limitations associated with integrating ChatGPT into medical practice, summarising current policies and scrutinising medicolegal implications. CONCLUSION: A careful assessment is imperative to determine whether the benefits of AI integration outweigh the associated risks. Practitioners are urged to review AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy, recognising that liability likely resides with them rather than with AI platforms, despite the lack of case law specific to negligence and AI in the Australian context at present. It is important to employ measures that ensure patient confidentiality is not breached and practitioners are encouraged to seek counsel from their professional indemnity insurer. There is considerable potential for future development of specialised AI software tailored specifically for the medical profession, making the use of AI more suitable for the medical field in the Australian legal landscape. Moving forward, it is essential to embrace technology and actively address its challenges rather than dismissing AI integration into medical practice. It is becoming increasingly essential that both the psychiatric community, medical community at large and policy makers develop comprehensive guidelines to fill existing policy gaps and adapt to the evolving landscape of AI technologies in healthcare.

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks. CONCLUSION: The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.

[How Successful is the Participation of People with Mental Illness and Family Members in the Development of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines? Results of a Survey in Psychiatry]. / Wie gelingt die Einbindung von Betroffenen- und Angehörigenvertreter:innen in die Entwicklung von evidenz- und konsensbasierten Behandlungsleitlinien? Ergebnisse einer Umfrage im Fachbereich Psychiatrie.

OBJECTIVE: The study examines how successful the participation of people with mental illness and family members is currently in the development of psychiatric guidelines. METHODS: Survey results of N=561 (Response 37%) guideline developers are analyzed. RESULTS: Involvement of affected individuals succeeds more often than that of family members (61% vs. 55%). 68% felt that this participation was central to successful guideline development. 51% perceived discrepancies between empirical evidence and experience perspective. 33-36% perceived a lack of appreciation of experience expertise, 37% an insufficient representation and 46% an inequality in consensus building. 45% did not see barriers effectively removed. CONCLUSION: There remain challenges in the participation of people with mental illness and family members. There is an increasing awareness that their participation is central.