Childhood neglect, the neglected trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis of its prevalence in psychiatric disorders.

Traumatic events increase risk of mental illnesses, but childhood neglect prevalence in psychiatric disorders is understudied. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed neglect prevalence, including emotional neglect (EN) and physical neglect (PN), among adults with psychiatric disorders. We conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis in 122 studies assessing different psychiatric disorders. Prevalence was 46.6% (95%CI[34.5-59.0]) for unspecified neglect (Ne), 43.1% (95%CI[39.0-47.4]) for EN, and 34.8% (95%CI[30.6-39.2]) for PN. Although a moderating effect of the psychiatric diagnostic category was not confirmed, some clinical diagnoses had significantly lower prevalence rates than others. Patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder showed lower prevalence rates of EN and PN, whereas lower prevalence was found in psychotic disorders and eating disorders for PN only. Neglect assessment was a significant moderator for Ne and PN. No moderating effect of age and sex on neglect prevalence was found. Heterogeneity levels within and between psychiatric diagnostic categories remained high. This is the first meta-analysis examining diverse types of neglect prevalence considering different psychiatric diagnoses. Our results explore the prevalence of childhood neglect and its subtypes among adults with psychiatric disorders, contributing to understanding the nuanced interplay between neglect and specific psychiatric conditions, and guiding interventions for affected individuals.

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.

COVID-19 related mental health issues: a narrative review of psychometric properties of scales and methodological concerns in scale development.

OBJECTIVES: The global crisis of COVID-19 and its consequential strict public health measures placed around the world have impacted mental health. New scales and tools have been developed to measure these mental health effects. This narrative review assesses the psychometric properties of these scales and tools and methodological aspects of their development. METHODS: PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from 15 May 2020 to 15 August 2020. This search used three groups of terms ("tool" OR "scale" AND "mental" OR "psychological"; AND "COVID-19" OR "coronavirus"). The identified scales were further evaluated for their psychometric properties and methodological aspects of their development. RESULTS: Though the studies developing these scales (n = 12) have demonstrated their robust psychometric properties, some methodological concerns are noteworthy. Most of the scales were validated using internet-based surveys, and detailed descriptions of the mode of administration, sampling process, response rates, and augmentation strategies were missing. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous and inadequate reporting of methods adopted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the identified scales can limit their utility in clinical and research settings. We suggest developing guidelines and checklists to improve the design and testing, and result in reporting of online-administered scales to assess the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.