"Otherness", otherism, discrimination, and health inequalities: entrenched challenges for modern psychiatric disciplines.

Identity is a complex concept that can be informed by various factors, involving biological, psychological, experiential, and social influences. Specifically, one's social identity refers to the ways in which individuals can adopt attributes from established collective categories, like cultural identities, ethnic identities, gender identities, and class identities, amongst others. Social identity can encompass unique and diverse interactions at an individual level, known as micro-identities, that may be selectively expressed, hidden, or downplayed, contingent on distinct sociocultural settings. However, the formation of social identity is recurrently defined in opposition to perceptions of the Other, which can entail adverse paradigms of marginalisation, stigma, and discrimination. Although this theory of Otherness has been developed across different fields, particularly sociology, it may be important in psychiatric contexts as it can engender inherent risk factors and mental health inequalities. Consequently, this paper seeks to bring attention towards these issues, exploring the construction of Otherness and its detrimental outcomes for psychiatry, such as systemic discrimination and disparities in therapeutic support, alongside recommended initiatives to mitigate against the effects of Otherness. This may require multifactorial approaches that include cultural competency training, interventions informed by micro-identities and intersectionality, patient advocacy, and structural changes to mental health policy.

Outside/inside: social determinants of mental health.

Individuals' mental health and wellbeing are dependent on many social factors including housing, employment, education and adequate nutrition among others. These factors can influence at personal, family and community levels. The interlinked and cumulative impact of these social determinants needs to be ascertained to aid appropriate patient management, as well as to establish prevention and health education programmes. Some of these determinants also have to be recognised at policy level. It is crucial for clinicians to understand the role social determinants play in the genesis and perpetuation of mental and physical illnesses, so that appropriate social interventions can be set in place. Clinicians have a role to play in their clinical practice, as well as advocates for their patients and policy leaders. In order to ensure that health is joined up with other sectors, such as education, employment, judiciary and housing, policy-makers must avoid silos. Every policy must have an impact assessment on physical health and mental health. Policy-makers need to understand scientific evidence and must work with researchers, clinicians, communities and patients to help develop and implement rights-based policies.

International medical graduates: challenges and solutions in psychiatry.

International medical graduates provide a valuable service to the healthcare of their adopted countries. However, there remain a significant number of challenges in their adjustment and acculturation in the post-migration phase. We believe that the cultural capital these doctors bring with them can act as a support as well as a challenge. They are likely to face subtle and not-so-subtle, covert and overt discrimination at a number of levels. In this brief report, we highlight some of the issues faced by them and some potential solutions.

COVID-19 pandemic, mental health care, and the UK.

The unprecedented SARS-2 COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on individuals, families, and societies worldwide. The impact of the illness does not only directly relate to poor health on infection but also social and political determinants of health. As such, the secondary effects of the pandemic have been profound. Mental health and well-being have been one such area of concern, with the causal links thought to occur in three ways. First: the impact on general population, particularly vulnerable groups such as BAME individuals; Second: the impact on people with pre-existing psychiatric disorders; Third: mental health of COVID patients and those who have recovered and their careers. There are lessons to be learnt from previous pandemics and the impact on mental health. There are high levels of anxiety, depression, substance use (particularly alcohol), posttraumatic stress symptoms, and survivor guilt. Within this context, there is a need to consider the differential impact on underprivileged populations. Vulnerable groups include women, children, elderly, minority racial and ethnic groups, LGBT + individuals and the poor. It is noted that these classifications are met with challenges related to definition, and there is significant heterogeneity within the groups and the focus on race, gender, and poverty must be seen through an intersectional lens.

Implementation evaluation of staff support and wellbeing programmes at an academic health science centre during COVID-19: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from previous pandemics as well as early evidence from COVID-19 suggests risk of adverse mental health and wellbeing outcomes for healthcare workers. In response to these concerns, healthcare systems and organisations rapidly established staff support and wellbeing programmes. While there is emerging literature related to the effectiveness of such interventions, what is less well understood and evaluated is the evidence base regarding how such programmes are implemented; what supports and hinders their implementation; and how or if they are maintained following the initial acute phase of the pandemic. This study addresses this gap by studying the implementation process of COVID-19-related staff wellbeing programmes in the three UK NHS Trusts that make up one of Europe's largest academic health sciences centres, King's Health Partners. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective, cross-sectional descriptive study using qualitative research methods and non-probability purposive sampling to identify a study participant group representative of the population and implementation activity of interest. We will conduct semi-structured interviews of between 30 min and 1 h. We will identify theory-driven elements in the dataset using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (barriers and drivers), Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework (timeline/chronology/evolution of the implementation and different issues at different times) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (implementation strategies). We will then identify indicators of these constructs within the dataset and report them, as well as their inter-relationships. DISCUSSION: Through this study, we hope to better understand what factors hindered and enabled the implementation of three inter-linked staff support and wellbeing programmes and how/to what extent have these programmes been sustained. We will also explore whether implementation science frameworks are applicable and beneficial in conceptualising and understanding crisis driven and rapidly implemented interventions and in what ways, if any, they need to be adjusted when used in unprecedented circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.