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.

Cognitive Impairment after Post-Acute COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The present study aims to provide a critical overview of the literature on the relationships between post-acute COVID-19 infection and cognitive impairment, highlighting the limitations and confounding factors. A systematic search of articles published from 1 January 2020 to 1 July 2022 was performed in PubMed/Medline. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies using validated instruments for the assessment of cognitive impairment were included. Out of 5515 screened records, 72 studies met the inclusion criteria. The available evidence revealed the presence of impairment in executive functions, speed of processing, attention and memory in subjects recovered from COVID-19. However, several limitations of the literature reviewed should be highlighted: most studies were performed on small samples, not stratified by severity of disease and age, used as a cross-sectional or a short-term longitudinal design and provided a limited assessment of the different cognitive domains. Few studies investigated the neurobiological correlates of cognitive deficits in individuals recovered from COVID-19. Further studies with an adequate methodological design are needed for an in-depth characterization of cognitive impairment in individuals recovered from COVID-19.