Search

Introduction: Schizotypal disorder is associated with a high level of disability at an individual level and high societal costs. However, clinical recommendations for the treatment of schizotypal disorder are scarce and based on limited evidence. This review aims to synthesise the current evidence on treatment for schizotypal disorder making recommendations for clinical practice., Methods and Analysis: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search will be performed in PsychArticles, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we will search for relevant articles manually. Inclusion criteria are published studies including individuals diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria, or schizotypal disorder according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria. We will include interventional studies comprising any pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment trials for patients with schizotypal disorder, and all relevant outcome measures will be reported. Risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Data will be synthesised using narrative or thematic analysis and, if suitable, through meta-analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: No original data will be collected as part of this study and ethics approval is, therefore, not applicable. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at international scientific meetings. We will aim at submitting the final paper for publication within 4 months of completion of analyses. Furthermore, this systematic review will inform clinicians and researchers on the current state of evidence on treatment for schizotypal disorder. Findings may guide proposals for further research and potentially guide recommendations for clinical practice using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022375001., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BHE has received lecture fees and/or is part of Advisory Boards of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen-Cilag, Otsuka Pharma Scandinavia AB, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lundbeck Pharma A/S., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The environment at a psychiatric inpatient ward can lead to emotional distress and behavioural deviations in vulnerable individuals potentially resulting in conflicts, increased use of need-based medication and coercive actions, along with low satisfaction with treatment. To accommodate these challenges, recreational and entertaining interventions are recommended. The tested interventions have, however, shown varying effects and demand a high degree of planning and staff involvement while being difficult to adapt to individual needs. Virtual reality (VR) may help overcome these challenges., Methods and Analysis: The study is a mixed-methods clinical trial with a target sample of 124 patients hospitalised at a closed psychiatric ward in the capital region of Denmark. Outcomes (eg, coercion, need-based medication and perceived stress) for a 12-month period where all patients are offered VR-based recreational experiences during their hospitalisation will be compared with outcomes for a 12-month period where VR is not offered. Feasibility and acceptability will be explored with qualitative interviews supplemented with non-participant observations and focus groups. The study began on 1 January 2023, and we expect to complete data collection by 31 December 2024., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is registered at Danish Data Protection Agency (j.no P-2022-466) and is approved by the Committee on Health Research Ethics of the capital region of Denmark (j.no 22013313). All patients will be required to provide informed consent. Results from this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and congress/consortium presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT05654740., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SB is president and part owner of In Virtuo, a company that distributes virtual environments (although not those used in the current study), and conflict of interests are managed under UQO’s conflict of interest policy. No other authors declare competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-2005 (21 studies), 2006-2010 (40), 2011-2015 (88), and 2016-2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA)., (© 2021 The Ecological Society of America.)

Most of the world's crops depend on pollinators, so declines in both managed and wild bees raise concerns about food security. However, the degree to which insect pollination is actually limiting current crop production is poorly understood, as is the role of wild species (as opposed to managed honeybees) in pollinating crops, particularly in intensive production areas. We established a nationwide study to assess the extent of pollinator limitation in seven crops at 131 locations situated across major crop-producing areas of the USA. We found that five out of seven crops showed evidence of pollinator limitation. Wild bees and honeybees provided comparable amounts of pollination for most crops, even in agriculturally intensive regions. We estimated the nationwide annual production value of wild pollinators to the seven crops we studied at over $1.5 billion; the value of wild bee pollination of all pollinator-dependent crops would be much greater. Our findings show that pollinator declines could translate directly into decreased yields or production for most of the crops studied, and that wild species contribute substantially to pollination of most study crops in major crop-producing regions.