The mental health of sexual minority (SM) individuals remains overlooked and understudied in Czechia. We aimed to estimate (1) the prevalence rate and (2) the relative risk of common mental disorders and (3) the mental distress severity among the Czech SM people compared with the heterosexual population. In addition, we aimed to investigate help-seeking for mental disorders in SM people.

We used data from a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of Czech community-dwelling adults, consisting of 3063 respondents (response rate = 58.62%). We used the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview to assess the presence of mental disorders. In individuals scoring positively, we established help-seeking in the past 12 months. We assessed symptom severity using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. We computed the prevalence of mental disorders and the treatment gap with 95% confidence intervals. To assess the risk of having a mental disorder, we used binary logistic regression.

We demonstrated that the prevalence of current mental disorders was 18.85% (17.43–20.28), 52.27% (36.91–67.63), 33.33% (19.5–47.17) and 25.93% (13.85–38) in heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual and more sexually diverse individuals, respectively. Suicidal thoughts and behaviours were present in 5.73% (4.88–6.57), 25.00% (11.68–38.32), 22.92% (10.58–35.25) and 11.11% (2.45–19.77) of heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual and more sexually diverse individuals, respectively. After confounder adjustment, gay or lesbian individuals were more likely to have at least one current mental disorder compared with heterosexual counterparts (odds ratio = 3.51; 1.83–6.76). For bisexual and sexually more diverse individuals, the results were consistent with a null effect (1.85; 0.96–3.45 and 0.89; 0.42–1.73). The mean depression symptom severity was 2.96 (2.81–3.11) in heterosexual people and 4.68 (2.95–6.42), 7.12 (5.07–9.18) and 5.17 (3.38–6.95) in gay or lesbian, bisexual and more sexually diverse individuals, respectively. The mean anxiety symptom severity was 1.97 (1.85–2.08) in heterosexual people and 3.5 (1.98–5.02), 4.63 (3.05–6.2) and 3.7 (2.29–5.11) in gay or lesbian, bisexual and more sexually diverse individuals, respectively. We demonstrated broadly consistent levels of treatment gap in heterosexual and SM individuals scoring positively for at least one current mental disorder (82.91%; 79.5–85.96 vs. 81.13%; 68.03–90.56).

We provide evidence that SM people in Czechia have substantially worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. Systemic changes are imperative to provide not only better and more sensitive care to SM individuals but also to address structural stigma contributing to these health disparities.

The number of mental hospital beds per population varies widely across countries, and the reasons for this variation are not fully understood. Given that differences in disease prevalence do not explain variation in inpatient mental health care availability, we examined the relationship between mental hospital beds and national income, education and longevity as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI).

We used an international dataset of social, economic and structural measures to conduct a mixed-effects longitudinal regression of predictors of the number of mental hospital beds per 100 000 in the overall population for 86 countries for years 2005–2015.

Our initial dataset contained 1881 observations consisting of 11 years of potential measurements across 171 countries. After eliminations based on missing data and subsequent imputation, the dataset for the final regression model included 946 observations over 86 countries. The primary predictors of a country's number of mental hospital beds were year, HDI and GINI coefficient, the latter being a measure of income disparity. Holding all other factors constant, the number of beds decreased 8% per year, reflecting the ongoing international trend of deinstitutionalisation. As hypothesised, higher HDI predicted more mental hospital beds. Every 0.1 increase in HDI (0–1.0) was associated with a 126% increase in the number of hospital beds at the sample's mean GINI index score of 38 (0–100). However, a strong interaction between HDI and the GINI coefficient indicated that a high level of income disparity attenuated the positive association between HDI and mental hospital beds. At a GINI index score of 48, every 0.1 increase in HDI was associated with a 71% increase in the number of hospital beds.

As countries reduce the number of hospital beds over time, higher levels of economic disparity are associated with a reduction in the strength of the association between national prosperity and investment in mental hospitals. As power becomes increasingly concentrated, perhaps those with the least are more easily forgotten.

In March 2020, the UK government ordered mental health services to free up bed space to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant service users detained under the Mental Health Act were discharged at a higher rate than normal. We analysed whether this decision compromised the safety of this vulnerable group of service users.

We utilised a cohort study design and allocated service users to either the pre-rapid discharge, rapid discharge or post-rapid discharge group. We conducted a recurrent event analysis to assess group differences in the risk of experiencing negative outcomes during the 61 days post-discharge. We defined negative outcomes as crisis service use, re-admission to a psychiatric ward, community incidents of violence or self-harm and death by suicide.

The pre-rapid discharge cohort included 258 service users, the rapid discharge cohort 127 and the post-rapid discharge cohort 76. We found no statistical association between being in the rapid discharge cohort and the risk of experiencing negative outcomes (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.72–1.8, p = 0.58) but a trend towards statistical significance for service users in the post-rapid discharge cohort (HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.91–2.83, p = 0.1).

We did not find evidence that service users rapidly discharged from section experienced poorer outcomes. This raises the possibility that the Mental Health Act is applied in an overly restrictive manner, meaning that sections for some formally detained service users could be ended earlier without compromising safety.

Problem Management Plus (PM+) has been effective in reducing mental health problems among refugees at three-month follow-up, but there is a lack of research on its long-term effectiveness. This study examined the effectiveness of PM+ in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders at 12-month follow-up among Syrian refugees in the Netherlands.

This single-blind, parallel, controlled trial randomised 206 adult Syrians who screened positive for psychological distress and impaired functioning to either PM+ in addition to care as usual (PM+/CAU) or CAU alone. Assessments were at baseline, 1 week and 3 months after the intervention and 12 months after baseline. Outcomes were psychological distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist [HSCL-25]), depression (HSCL-25 subscale), anxiety (HSCL-25 subscale), posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (PCL-5), functional impairment (WHODAS 2.0) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS).

In March 2019–December 2022, 103 participants were assigned to PM+/CAU and 103 to CAU of which 169 (82.0%) were retained at 12 months. Intention-to-treat analyses showed greater reductions in psychological distress at 12 months for PM+/CAU compared to CAU (adjusted mean difference −0.17, 95% CI −0.310 to −0.027; p = 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.28). Relative to CAU, PM+/CAU participants also showed significant reductions on anxiety (−0.19, 95% CI −0.344 to −0.047; p = 0.01, d = 0.31) but not on any of the other outcomes.

PM+ is effective in reducing psychological distress and symptoms of anxiety over a period up to 1 year. Additional support such as booster sessions or additional (trauma-focused) modules may be required to prolong and consolidate benefits gained through PM+ on other mental health and psychosocial outcomes.

Accumulating studies have assessed mortality risk associated with mood-stabilizers, the mainstay treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). However, existing data were mostly restricted to suicide risk, focused on lithium and valproate and rarely adequately adjusted for potential confounders. This study aimed to assess comparative mortality risk with all, natural and unnatural causes between lithium, valproate and three frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), with adjustment for important confounders.

This population-based cohort study identified 8137 patients with first-diagnosed BD, who had exposed to lithium (n = 1028), valproate (n = 3580), olanzapine (n = 797), quetiapine (n = 1975) or risperidone (n = 757) between 2002 and 2018. Data were retrieved from territory-wide medical-record database of public healthcare services in Hong Kong. Propensity-score (PS)-weighting method was applied to optimize control for potential confounders including pre-existing chronic physical diseases, substance/alcohol use disorders and other psychotropic medications. PS-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression was conducted to assess risk of all-, natural- and unnatural-cause mortality related to each mood-stabilizer, compared to lithium. Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting to patients with (i) length of cumulative exposure to specified mood-stabilizer ≥90 days and its medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥90%, (ii) MPR of specified mood-stabilizer ≥80% and MPR of other studied mood-stabilizers <20% and (iii) monotherapy.

Incidence rates of all-cause mortality per 1000 person-years were 5.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5–7.6), 8.4 (7.4–9.5), 11.1 (8.3–14.9), 7.4 (6.0–9.2) and 12.0 (9.3–15.6) for lithium-, valproate-, olanzapine-, quetiapine- and risperidone-treated groups, respectively. BD patients treated with olanzapine (PS-weighted hazard ratio = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.33–3.22]) and risperidone (1.66 [1.08–2.55]) had significantly higher all-cause mortality rate than lithium-treated group. Olanzapine was associated with increased risk of natural-cause mortality (3.04 [1.54–6.00]) and risperidone was related to elevated risk of unnatural-cause mortality (3.33 [1.62–6.86]), relative to lithium. The association between olanzapine and increased natural-cause mortality rate was consistently affirmed in sensitivity analyses. Relationship between risperidone and elevated unnatural-cause mortality became non-significant in sensitivity analyses restricted to low MPR in other mood-stabilizers and monotherapy. Valproate- and lithium-treated groups did not show significant differences in all-, natural- or unnatural-cause mortality risk.

Our data showed that olanzapine and risperidone were associated with higher mortality risk than lithium, and further supported the clinical guidelines recommending lithium as the first-line mood-stabilizer for BD. Future research is required to further clarify comparative mortality risk associated with individual SGA agents to facilitate risk-benefit evaluation of alternative mood-stabilizers to minimize avoidable premature mortality in BD.

Most research exploring the link between traumatic events and psychotic experiences has focused on either Australia, Europe or North America. In this study, we expand the existing knowledge to Thailand and investigate the impact of the type and the number of traumatic events on psychotic experiences in Thailand.

We used data from the nationally representative 2013 Thai National Mental Health Survey (TNMHS), including questions on traumatic events and psychotic experiences. We regressed the lifetime experience of hallucinations or delusions against the following independent variables: the experience of any traumatic event during lifetime (dichotomous; hypothesis 1); the experience of either no traumatic event, one interpersonal, one unintentional or both interpersonal and unintentional traumatic events (categorical; hypothesis 2) and the number of traumatic events experienced during lifetime (categorical; hypothesis 3). We adjusted the regression models for sociodemographic indicators and psychiatric disorders, and considered survey weights.

About 6% (95% confidence interval: 4.9–7.0) of the respondents stated that they had either hallucinatory or delusional experiences during their lifetime. The risk of reporting such experiences was more than doubled as high among respondents who had experienced at least one traumatic event during their lifetime than among those who had not yet experienced one, with higher risks for interpersonal or multiple traumatic events. Our results further indicated an increase in the risk of psychotic experiences as the number of traumatic events increased, with up to an eight-fold higher risk for people exposed to five or more traumatic events in their lifetime, compared to those with no traumatic events.

Individuals reporting interpersonal or multiple traumatic events face much higher risk of psychotic experiences. Effective and widely accessible secondary prevention programmes for people having experienced interpersonal or multiple traumatic events constitute a key intervention option.