Search

Background: Nonattendance is common among patients suffering from delusional infestation (DI) with a risk factor for poorer patient outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence rate and predictors of nonattendance among patients presenting to a psychodermatology department with DI and the subsequent effect on the success of prescribing new antipsychotics. Methods: Data of 265 patients were reviewed of the Amsterdam UMC, the Erasmus University Medical Center, the Royal London Hospital, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine between January 2008 and October 2019. Results: We observed that among the patients who attended the first consultation, 57% (n = 144) did not attend their second visit. Recreational drug use was significantly higher in the nonattendance group compared to the attendance group (25% against 18%). Patients who had a history of previously prescribed antipsychotics at the time of the first consultation were less likely to get prescribed antipsychotics from the psychodermatology departments for DI; however, prescribing antipsychotic drugs by the psychodermatology department did not influence nonattendance significantly. Conclusions: People suffering from DI are at high risk of nonattendance, even in specialist settings. Patients with current illicit drug use and younger patients are particularly at risk of this.

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3% and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3% and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3% and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3% and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3% and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of people with mental-health problems are diverse across countries. International studies comparing satisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the national mental-health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in 11 countries: Ireland, Iceland, England and Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and India. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental Health Legislation Attitudes Scale (MHLAS). This brief nine-item questionnaire was distributed via email to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental-health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert scale. Data were analysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS ‘approval’ score computed as a sum of the nine questions. We found that respondents in England and Wales and Denmark expressed the highest approval for their national legislation (76% and 74%, respectively), with those in India and Ireland expressing the lowest approval (65% and 64%, respectively). Almost all countries had a more positive attitude in comparison to Ireland on the admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people are transferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variations across Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the national mental-health law framework operates in each country.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of people with mental-health problems are diverse across countries. International studies comparing satisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the national mental-health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in 11 countries: Ireland, Iceland, England and Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and India. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental Health Legislation Attitudes Scale (MHLAS). This brief nine-item questionnaire was distributed via email to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental-health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert scale. Data were analysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS ‘approval’ score computed as a sum of the nine questions. We found that respondents in England and Wales and Denmark expressed the highest approval for their national legislation (76% and 74%, respectively), with those in India and Ireland expressing the lowest approval (65% and 64%, respectively). Almost all countries had a more positive attitude in comparison to Ireland on the admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people are transferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variations across Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the national mental-health law framework operates in each country.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntaryplacement and treatment of persons with mental health problems arevery diverse across countries. International studies comparingsatisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinionsof professionals and family members about the operation of the nationalmental health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment ofpsychiatric patients in eleven countries: Ireland, Iceland, England &Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway andIndia. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental HealthLegislation Attitude Scale (MHLAS). This brief 9-item questionnaire wasdistributed via e-mail to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute andcommunity mental health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels ofagreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert- scale. Data wereanalysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS ‘approval’score computed as a sum of the 9 questions. We found that respondentsin England & Wales and Denmark expressing strongest approval for theirnational legislation (76 and 74% respectively), with those in India andIreland expressing the least approval (65 and 64% respectively). Almostall countries had a more positive attitude in comparison with Ireland onthe admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people aretransferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variationsacross Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the nationalmental health law framework operates in each country.

Maximilian Gahr1,*, Markus A Kölle1,*, Carlos Schönfeldt-Lecuona1, Peter Lepping2, Roland W Freudenmann11Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany; 2Department of Psychiatry, Glyndwr University, Wales, UK *Both authors contributed equally and their order was determined by coin toss.Abstract: Paliperidone (9-hydroxy-risperidone), the active metabolite of risperidone, was approved for treating schizophrenia worldwide in 2006 as paliperidone extended-release (PER), and became the first second-generation antipsychotic specifically licensed for treating schizoaffective disorder in 2009. However, at the same time, its comparatively high cost gave rise to concerns about the cost-effectiveness of PER as compared with its precursor, risperidone. This paper reviews the existing knowledge of the pharmacology, kinetics, efficacy, tolerability, and fields of application of PER, and compares PER with risperidone in order to determine whether it has a place in antipsychotic therapy. An independent assessment of all relevant publications on PER published until July 2010 was undertaken. PER has a unique pharmacological profile, including single dosing, predominantly renal excretion, low drug–drug interaction risk, and differs from risperidone in terms of mode of action and pharmacokinetics. High-level evidence suggests that PER is efficacious and safe in schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and acute manic episodes. There is a striking lack of published head-to-head comparisons between PER and risperidone, irrespective of indication. Low-level evidence shows a lower risk for hyperprolactinemia and higher patient satisfaction with PER than with risperidone. PER adds to the still limited arsenal of second-generation antipsychotics. In the absence of direct comparisons with risperidone, it remains difficult to come to a final verdict on the potential additional therapeutic benefits of PER which would justify its substant