Search

Communication abilities were assessed on a wide range of tests in 56 aphasic stroke patients, 33 classified as "moderate" and 23 as "severe". Thirty-six of the patients had received language treatment. The biographical variables of age, months post-onset and handedness were shown to be differentially correlated with improvements. In particular, there were some significant trends of decreasing improvement with increasing months post-onset on expressive verbal tasks in treated moderate aphasics and on comprehension tasks in treated severe aphasics. Untreated patients did not show the same clear pattern of trends; however, these patients were reassessed after a shorter period and covered a smaller range of months post-onset. The role of treatment deserves further clarification. The results also indicate that language recovery is relatively independent of age and of handedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twenty-four moderately asphasic stroke patients attending a rehabilitation centre were treated for 4 weeks with speech therapy and for 4 weeks with either an operant training procedure, based on that devised by Goodkin (1966), or an attention placebo non-specific treatment. Speech therapy was given first to half the patients, while a quarter received operant training first and a quarter non-specific treatment. Results indicated no significant differences between the treatments. These treated patients were also compared in improvements in language abilities with nine moderately aphasic patients from hospitals with very limited speech therapy services. No significant differences between “treated” and “untreated” groups were found over a 4-week period. All groups of patients, however, showed some significant improvements in language abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Glucocorticoids are understood to represent useful biomarkers of stress and can be measured in saliva, hair, and breastmilk. The collection of such biosamples is increasingly included in biobank and cohort studies. While collection is considered "non-invasive" by biomedical researchers (compared to sampling blood), community perspectives may differ. This cross-sectional, qualitative study utilising eight focus groups aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of collecting ostensibly "non-invasive" biological samples in Malawi. Breastfeeding women, couples, field workers, and healthcare providers were purposively sampled. Data about prior understandings of, barriers to, and feasibility of "non-invasive" biosampling were analysed. Participants described biomaterials intended for "non-invasive" collection as sometimes highly sensitive, with sampling procedures raising community concerns. Sampling methods framed as physically "non-invasive" within biomedicine can consequently be considered socially "invasive" by prospective sample donors. Biomedical and community framings of "invasiveness' can therefore diverge, and the former must respond to and be informed by the perspectives of the latter. Further, considerations of collection procedures are shaped by therapeutic misconceptions about the immediate health-related utility of biomedical and public health research. When researchers engage with communities about biosampling, they must ensure they are not furthering therapeutic misconceptions and actively seek to dispel these., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Diagnosis in psychiatry and its precursors has long attracted debate and dissent. Attempts to discipline professional praxis are associated especially with the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In this article, I explore how social actors with the institutional power to contribute in important ways to shaping psychiatric contexts construct the problems with and purposes of the DSM and of diagnosis in psychiatry. I suggest that despite common assumptions that influential psychiatrists and related stakeholders uncritically adopt the DSM and other tools of categorical diagnosis, their relationship with these is rather more nuanced, ambivalent, and even fraught. However, I will also show that critiques can themselves be folded into particular styles of psychiatric thought in ways that do little to impact wider concerns about biomedicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation-and might even further accelerate these processes. Moreover, since professional critiques of the DSM often underscore its ubiquity and entrenchment, when positioned against implicit or explicit justifications of the ongoing use of this text they might inadvertently contribute to a 'discourse of inevitability'-acting to 'oil' rather than 'stall' what Annemarie Jutel terms the 'engines of diagnosis'., (© 2023 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness.)

In recent years, 'vulnerability' has been getting more traction in theoretical, professional and popular spaces as an alternative or complement to the concept of risk. As a group of science and technology studies scholars with different disciplinary orientations yet a shared concern with biomedicine, self and society, we investigate how vulnerability has become a salient and even dominant idiom for discussing disease and disease risk. We argue that this is at least partly due to an inherent indeterminacy in what 'vulnerability' means and does, both within and across different discourses. Through a review of feminist and disability theory, and a discussion of how vulnerability and disease both get recruited into a binary conceptualisation of normal versus abnormal, we argue that vulnerability's indeterminacy is, in fact, its strength, and that it should be used differently than risk. Using COVID-19 management in the UK as an illustration of the current ambivalence and ambiguity in how vulnerability versus risk is applied, we suggest that instead of being codified or quantified, as it has started to be in some biomedical and public health applications, vulnerability and its remedies should be determined in conjunction with affected communities and in ways that are polyvalent, flexible and nuanced. The concept of vulnerability encapsulates an important precept: we must recognise inequality as undesirable while not attempting to 'solve' it in deterministic ways. Rather than becoming fixed into labels, unidirectional causalities or top-down universalising metrics, vulnerability could be used to insist on relational, context-specific understandings of disease and disease risk-in line with contemporary social justice movements that require non-hierarchical and non-universal approaches to problems and solutions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Maternal mental health (MMH) is recognised as globally significant. The prevalence of depression and factors associated with its onset among perinatal women in Malawi has been previously reported, and the need for further research in this domain is underscored. Yet, there is little published scholarship regarding the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research to women and community representatives. The study reported here sought to address this in Malawi by engaging with communities and healthcare providers in the districts where MMH research was being planned. Qualitative data was collected in Lilongwe and Karonga districts through 20 focus group discussions and 40 in-depth interviews with community representatives and healthcare providers from January through April 2021. All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim (in local languages Chichewa and Tumbuka), translated into English, and examined through thematic content analysis. Participants' accounts suggest that biopsychosocial MMH research could be broadly acceptable within the communities sampled, with acceptability framed in part through prior encounters with biomedical and public health research and care in these regions, alongside broader understandings of the import of MMH. Willingness and consent to participate do not depend on specifically biomedical understandings of MMH, but rather on familiarity with individuals regarded as living with mental ill-health. However, the data further suggest some 'therapeutic misconceptions' about MMH research, with implications for how investigations in this area are presented by researchers when recruiting and working with participants. Further studies are needed to explore whether accounts of the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research shift and change during and following research encounters. Such studies will enhance the production of granular recommendations for further augmenting the ethicality of biomedical and public health research and researchers' responsibilities to participants and communities., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Malawi has a population of around 20 million people and is one of the world's most economically deprived nations. Severe mental illness (largely comprising psychoses and severe mood disorders) is managed by a very small number of staff in four tertiary facilities, aided by clinical officers and nurses in general hospitals and clinics. Given these constraints, psychosis is largely undetected and untreated, with a median duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of around six years. Our aim is to work with people with lived experience (PWLE), caregivers, local communities and health leaders to develop acceptable and sustainable psychosis detection and management systems to increase psychosis awareness, reduce DUP, and to improve the health and lives of people with psychosis in Malawi. We will use the UK Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions, including qualitative work to explore diverse perspectives around psychosis detection, management, and outcomes, augmented by co-design with PWLE, and underpinned by a Theory of Change. Planned deliverables include a readily usable management blueprint encompassing education and community supports, with an integrated care pathway that includes Primary Health Centre clinics and District Mental Health Teams. PWLE and caregivers will be closely involved throughout to ensure that the interventions are shaped by the communities concerned. The effect of the interventions will be assessed with a quasi-experimental sequential implementation in three regions, in terms of DUP reduction, symptom remission, functional recovery and PWLE / caregiver impact, with quality of life as the primary outcome. As the study team is focused on long-term impact, we recognise the importance of having embedded, robust evaluation of the programme as a whole. We will therefore evaluate implementation processes and outcomes, and cost-effectiveness, to demonstrate the value of this approach to the Ministry of Health, and to encourage longer-term adoption across Malawi., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Lawrie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This letter explores the societal aspects and healthcare implications that underlie thinking about mpox (formerly known was monkeypox), in the 2022 outbreak, as a sexually transmitted infection (STI). The authors examine what underlies this question, exploring what is an STI, what is sex, and what is the role of stigma in sexual health promotion. The authors argue that, in this specific outbreak, mpox is an STI among men who have sex with men (MSM). The authors highlight the need of critically thinking about how to communicate effectively, the role of homophobia and other inequalities, and the importance of the social sciences., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Garcia Iglesias J et al.)

Competing Interests: zMP declares funding from the Wellcome Trust (209519/Z/17/Z, 223615/Z/21/Z, WT106612MA), Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2020-295), the Medical Research Council (MRC; MR/S035818/1), and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC; ES/T014164/1) and has received fees for grant reviewing from the Wellcome Trust, the ESRC, the Research Foundation-Flanders, and UK Research and Innovation. LM-T declares funding from the Wellcome Trust (223615/Z/21/Z) and the MRC (MR/S035818/1). NN-M declares funding from the International Development Research Centre and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (109582).

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure 'test-trace-isolate-support' becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust., Competing Interests: TC was supported by the EU Commission, grant agreement No 101016233 (PERISCOPE). SB was supported by Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin, project egePan (01KX2021). ACV's institution was supported by Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia. EGl was supported by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) with Public funding support with payments to the host institute as part of the COVID-19 Fast-Track grant research project CovScreen (COVID-19/20201/14715687). EGr has received payments for a manuscript on the history of pandemics. JK is employed by a project funded by the European Research Council, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 724460). CL received grants from the University of Oxford, National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, UK, Horizon 2020, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, and Pfizer Inc, royalties from Olvos Science, payment for expert testimony from Word Health Organization and European Commission, has a patent for Cretan Iama Olvos Science, and is on the advisory board for Pfizer Helas and Vianex SA. GNP received grants and royalties from Novartis, FNIH, Gilead Grants, managed through NIH, and is the chair of the Nemitsas Prize Award Committee. MPi was supported by Wellcome Trust [grant numbers: 209519/Z/17/Z; WT106612MA], MRC [grant number: MR/S035818/1], ESRC [grant numbers: ES/T014164/1; ES/S013873/1], and British Academy [EN160164]. ESz's lab receives funding for other projects from Merck Healthcare. ST's institution received grants due to his role as Co-investigator-PI in study under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Grant Agreement, No 883441, under the agreement and control of the Special Committee for Research Grants of the University of Athens, Athens, Greece. PWilmes’ institution received grants from the European Commission's Horizon 2020 programme including the European Research Council (CoG 863664), the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the University of Luxembourg, and owns patents. PWilmes received honoraria for being on two PhD juries at the University of Copenhagen and for the Maud Menten lecture at the University of Western Ontario, and for membership of the scientific steering committee for a clinical trial by 4D Pharma plc. and he is Co-speaker of the Research Luxembourg COVID-19 Task Force. Vice-president of the Luxembourg Society for Microbiology. All these were unrelated to this article. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 The Authors.)

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: ENI, VP, SB, and SBM were supported by the Max Planck Society. VP received honoraria for lectures and presentations on COVID-19 mitigation strategies. PB was supported by the Epipose project from the European Union's SC1-PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme (grant agreement number 101003688), and consulting fees were paid to his institution by Pfizer and Pfizer Belgium. ACV was supported by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. TC was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme project PERISCOPE (grant agreement number 101016233). EGl was supported by the Luxembourg National Research Fund. EGr received fees from the German Board of Pharmacists for educational events on COVID-19 and is the president of the German Society for Epidemiology. MK was supported by ZonMw grants number 10430022010001 and number 91216062, and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme project CORESMA (grant agreement number 101003480). NL was supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme project EpiPose (grant agreement number 101003688), and the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number 176233). MM is a member of UK Independent SAGE. SBM was supported by egePan 01KX7021. MPi was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/S013873/1; ES/T014164/1], the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/S035818/1], FWO, and Wellcome Trust [209519/Z/17/Z; 106612/Z/14/Z]. BP is a member of the Austrian National Bioethics Commission, and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, advising the Austrian Government and the EU Commission respectively. Other research projects in the lab of ESz are partly funded by Merck Healthcare KGaA. All other authors have no competing interests to declare., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

This article employs the notion of 'sociotechnical imaginaries' from the discipline of science and technology studies in order to consider the role that constructions of Japan play within UK policy discourse on science, technology, and innovation. The analysis is parsed in relation to the three dominant constructions that emerged from within the discourse under study: Japan as collaborator, as comparator, and as competitor. The mentioning of Japan within policy texts seems often aimed at evoking an imaginary of an economically successful and technoscientifically inventive nation, geared up for investment and innovation. Japan was present in the texts analyzed as a country that was simultaneously the same and other to the UK: similar enough for meaningful comparisons to be made, while sufficiently different to motivate the UK to 'do better' and to galvanize symbolic and material resource to become 'more like' Japan. Thus, a sociotechnical imaginary emerged that was at once familiar to and yet also distinct from that of the UK. Sociotechnical imaginaries of other/Other nations can govern through enabling and shaping political and policy conversations, which can ultimately inflect and indeed help to determine different forms of legal and regulatory tools, processes, and discourses., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School.)

Drawing on insights from sociology, anthropology, and the history of science and medicine, this paper considers some of the social dimensions and implications for neuroimaging research undertaken within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It highlights three key inter-connected issues: (1) technologies for enhancing understandings of ill-health are theory-laden; (2) such technologies are theory-generating; and (3) studies of mental ill-health can also introduce new idioms for understanding subjective distress. The paper unpacks and explores these issues. It argues that the use of neuroimaging technologies in population research has the potential to contribute to solidifying - or even introducing - a biological (and specifically brain-based) understanding of mental ill-health within the communities under study. Examples from studies of neuroscience and society in various high-income countries (HICs) where neuroimaging is popular within public discourse illustrates how this can happen, and with what effects. The social dimensions and implications of neuroimaging are issues that all researchers using these technologies need to not only anticipate, but also explicitly plan for (and potentially seek to mitigate). Without adequate consideration, neuroimaging research carries with it particular risks in relation to extending the epistemological coloniality associated with HIC-sponsored studies conducted within LMIC settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To use a qualitative research approach to determine children's understandings of epilepsy and their epilepsy treatment., Methods: Children aged 7-16 years with physician-confirmed active epilepsy (i.e., having had an epileptic seizure in the past year and or currently taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and not known to have an intellectual disability, were invited to participate. Children had semi-structured interviews separately on two occasions. Between the first and second interviews, an observation of a routine epilepsy clinic appointment of individual children was conducted, and was then discussed during the second interview. Participatory research tools were used in both child interviews to facilitate discussions. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, pseudonymized and entered into NVivo (version 12, QSR International). Data were analyzed using a thematic approach., Results: Twenty-three children of mean age 10.1 years (range 8-14), mean duration of epilepsy of 4.6 years (range 2-10) were enrolled. Twelve were 12 female; 7 had focal, 14 had generalized, and 2 had combined epilepsy; 20 were on monotherapy; and 16 had tried previous AEDs. All had an initial (first) interview; 20 were observed during a clinic appointment and had a second interview. Five broad themes emerged: understanding of epilepsy; understanding of seizures; understanding of medication; understanding of children's role in clinical appointments; influences on children's understanding. Children spoke about what epilepsy meant by describing the physical sensations of having a seizure or through the act of taking medication. Children described the role they had, or felt they should have, but reported challenges in being meaningfully involved in clinical appointments. While healthcare professionals were initial information nodes, epilepsy information from parents appeared to be more significant for children., Conclusions: The perspectives of children with epilepsy are valuable for clinicians to understand; assumptions should not be made that children's views can be accessed via parents. Clinicians need to be constantly aware of children's views and ways of understanding and communicating about their epilepsy. To support this, the research - drawing on children's words, meanings, and stories - was used to inform an easily accessible, gender-neutral, animation about epilepsy that provides information about the condition, seizures, and medication (https://youtu.be/MO7xXL2ZXP8)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Interest in maternal mental health research is growing around the world. Maternal mental health research studies in Malawi have, for instance, sought to determine and establish the incidence and prevalence of depression and anxiety in pregnant people and the factors that contribute to experiences of these states. This article reports stakeholder perspectives on potential community concerns with biopsychosocial mental health research (which might include collecting blood samples) in Malawi. These perspectives were generated through a town hall event that featured five focus group discussions with various participants. In this article, we reflect on key themes from these discussions, demonstrating the endurance of long-standing concerns and practices around autonomy, consent, and the drawing of blood. We conclude by arguing that, while maternal mental health research conducted in Malawi could benefit Malawian women and children, consultation with community stakeholders is necessary to inform whether and how such research should be conducted., (© 2021 The Authors. Ethics & Human Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Hastings Center.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: MP acknowledges the following funding: British Academy [EN160164], ESRC [ES/T014164/1; ES/S013873/1], MRC [MR/S035818/1], Wellcome Trust [209519/Z/17/Z; WT106612MA]. MS acknowledges the following funding: AHRC [AH/L009641/1]. The authors have completed the ICMJE Conflicts of Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no further conflicts of interest.

Epigenetics is regarded by many as a compelling domain of biomedicine. The purported novelty of epigenetics has begun to have various societal ramifications, particularly in relation to processes of responsibilisation. Within sociology, it has stimulated hopeful debate about conceptual rapprochements between the biomedical and social sciences. This article is concerned with how novelty is socially produced and negotiated. The article engages directly with scientists' talk and writings about epigenetics (as process and field of study). I aim to advance an explicitly sociological analysis about the novelty of epigenetics that underscores its social production rather than an account which participates in its reification. I attend to definitional skirmishes, comparisons with genetics, excitement and intrigue, and considerations of the ethical dimensions of epigenetics. Any assertions that epigenetics is exciting or important should not inadvertently elide reflexive consideration of how such characterisations might be part of the machinery by which they become real., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

While parents have long received guidance on how to raise children, a relatively new element of this involves explicit references to infant brain development, drawing on brain scans and neuroscientific knowledge. Sometimes called 'brain-based parenting', this has been criticised from within sociological and policy circles alike. However, the engagement of parents themselves with neuroscientific concepts is far less researched. Drawing on 22 interviews with parents/carers of children (mostly aged 0-7) living in Scotland, this article examines how they account for their (non-)use of concepts and understandings relating to neuroscience. Three normative tropes were salient: information about children's processing speed, evidence about deprived Romanian orphans in the 1990s, and ideas relating to whether or not children should 'self-settle' when falling asleep. We interrogate how parents reflexively weigh and judge such understandings and ideas. In some cases, neuroscientific knowledge was enrolled by parents in ways that supported biologically reductionist models of childhood agency. This reductionism commonly had generative effects, enjoining new care practices and producing particular parent and infant subjectivities. Notably, parents do not uncritically adopt or accept (sometimes reductionist) neurobiological and/or psychological knowledge; rather, they reflect on whether and when it is applicable to and relevant for raising their children. Thus, our respondents draw on everyday epistemologies of parenting to negotiate brain-based understandings of infant development and behaviour, and invest meaning in these in ways that cannot be fully anticipated (or appreciated) within straightforward celebrations or critiques of the content of parenting programmes drawing on neuropsychological ideas., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Across the UK, wide-ranging efforts have been made to enhance citizen access to psychological therapy. Clinical psychologists are key providers of and gatekeepers for therapy. This article is concerned with how clinical psychologists foster access (or not) to psychological care. More specifically, it interrogates how psychologists manage, and make decisions around, patient referrals. Following a referral, psychologists must resolve an uncertain situation: should they accept a referral and continue with an assessment? Thereafter, they must decide whether a patient is suitable for their service - and for therapy more generally. Certainty is synthesised against a backdrop of sometimes powerful pressures to meet service targets. Taking cues from medical sociology and science and technology studies (STS), this article interrogates some of the uncertainties around access to psychological therapy, and how decisions made by clinical psychologists involve negotiations of patient, service and professional ontologies. To do so, it draws on interviews with 40 psychologists across England and Scotland. The paper spotlights a professional group that is often absent from or only dimly lit within sociological observation and analysis: clinical psychology. Through attending to the discourses of psychologists, I extend conversations about uncertainty through a distinctive case study., (© 2019 The Author. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL.)

We argue that predictions of a 'tsunami' of mental health problems as a consequence of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the lockdown are overstated; feelings of anxiety and sadness are entirely normal reactions to difficult circumstances, not symptoms of poor mental health.  Some people will need specialised mental health support, especially those already leading tough lives; we need immediate reversal of years of underfunding of community mental health services.  However, the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on the most disadvantaged, especially BAME people placed at risk by their social and economic conditions, were entirely predictable. Mental health is best ensured by urgently rebuilding the social and economic supports stripped away over the last decade. Governments must pump funds into local authorities to rebuild community services, peer support, mutual aid and local community and voluntary sector organisations.  Health care organisations must tackle racism and discrimination to ensure genuine equal access to universal health care.  Government must replace highly conditional benefit systems by something like a universal basic income. All economic and social policies must be subjected to a legally binding mental health audit. This may sound unfeasibly expensive, but the social and economic costs, not to mention the costs in personal and community suffering, though often invisible, are far greater., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Rose N et al.)

Although addiction neuroscience hopes to uncover the neural basis of addiction and deliver a wide range of novel neuro-interventions to improve the treatment of addiction, the translation of addiction neuroscience to practice has been widely viewed as a 'bench to bedside' failure. Importantly, though, this linear 'bench to bedside' conceptualisation of knowledge translation has not been attentive to the role addiction treatment providers play in reproducing, translating, or resisting neuroscientific knowledge. This study explores how, to what extent, and for what purpose addiction treatment providers deploy neuroscientific representations and discuss the brain in practice. It draws upon interviews with 20 Australian treatment providers, ranging from addiction psychiatrists in clinics to case-workers in therapeutic communities. Our findings elucidate how different treatment providers: (1) invoke the authority and make use of neuroscience in practice (2) make reference to neuroscientific concepts (e.g., neuroplasticity); and sometimes represent the brain using vivid neurobiological language, metaphors, and stories; and, (3) question the therapeutic benefits of discussing neuroscience and the use of neuroimages with clients. We argue that neurological ontologies of addiction, whilst shown to be selectively and strategically invoked in certain circumstances, may also at times be positioned as lacking centrality and salience within clinical work. In doing so, we render problematic any straightforward assumption about the universal import of neuroscience to practice that underpins narratives of 'bench to bedside' translation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In 1990, the sociologist Phil Strong wrote about "epidemic psychology" as part of his research on the recent history of AIDS. Strong described vividly how epidemics of fear, of explanation and moralization, and of (proposed) action accompanied the epidemic of the AIDS virus per se. In this essay, I draw on these formulations to think through the current COVID-19 crisis, illustrating too a pandemic of inequality. In so doing, I provide a sketch of a pandemic sociology.