This study aimed to describe medical students’ perceptions and experiences with health policy and advocacy training and practice and define motivations and barriers for engagement.

This was a mixed-methods study of medical students from May to October 2022. Students were invited to participate in a web-based survey and optional follow-up phone interview. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Phone interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. Interviews were coded inductively using a coding dictionary. Themes were identified using thematic analysis.

35/580 survey responses (6% response rate) and 15 interviews were completed. 100% rated social factors as related to overall health. 65.7% of participants felt “very confident” or “extremely confident” in identifying social needs but only 11.4% felt “very confident” in addressing these needs. From interviews, six themes were identified: (1) participants recognized that involvement in health policy and/or advocacy is a duty of physicians; (2) participants acknowledged physicians’ voices as well respected; (3) participants were comfortable identifying social determinants of health but felt unprepared to address needs; (4) barriers to future involvement included intimidation, self-doubt, and skepticism of impact; (5) past exposures and awareness of advocacy topics motivated participants to engage in health policy and/or advocacy during medical school; and (6) participants identified areas where the training on these topics excelled and offered recommendations for improvement, including simulation, earlier integration, and teaching on health-related laws and policies.

This study highlights the importance of involvement in health policy and advocacy among medical students and the need for enhanced education and exposure.

The depression, obstructive sleep apnea and cognitive impairment (DOC) screen assesses three post-stroke comorbidities, but additional information may be gained from the time to complete the screen. Cognitive screening completion time is rarely used as an outcome measure.

To assess DOC screen completion time as a predictor of cognitive impairment in stroke/transient ischemic attack clinics.

Consecutive English-speaking stroke prevention clinic patients consented to undergo screening and neuropsychological testing (n = 437). DOC screen scores and times were compared to scores on the NINDS-CSC battery using multiple linear regression (controlling for age, sex, education and stroke severity) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Completion time for the DOC screen was 3.8 ± 1.3 minutes. After accounting for covariates, the completion time was a significant predictor of the speed of processing (p = 0.002, 95% CI: −0.016 to −0.004), verbal fluency (p < 0.001, CI: −0.012 to −0.006) and executive function (p = 0.004, CI: −0.006 to −0.001), but not memory. Completion time above 5.5 minutes was associated with a high likelihood of impairment on executive and speed of processing tasks (likelihood ratios 3.9–5.2).

DOC screen completion time is easy to collect in routine care. People needing over 5.5 minutes to be screened likely have deficits in executive functioning and speed of processing – areas commonly impaired, but challenging to screen for, after stroke. DOC screen time provides a simple, feasible approach to assess these under-identified cognitive impairments.

Secure forensic mental health services treat patients with high rates of treatment-resistant psychoses. High rates of obesity and medical comorbidities are common. Population-based studies have identified high-risk groups in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including those with problems such as obesity, lung disease and immune-compromising conditions. Structured assessment tools exist to ascertain the risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

To assess risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a complete population of forensic psychiatry patients using structured assessment tools.

All patients of a national forensic mental health service (n = 141) were rated for risk of adverse outcome in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection, using two structured tools, the COVID-Age tool and the COVID-Risk tool.

We found high rates of relevant physical comorbidities. Mean chronological age was 45.5 years (s.d. = 11.4, median 44.1), mean score on the COVID-Age tool was 59.1 years (s.d. = 19.4, median 58.0), mean difference was 13.6 years (s.d. = 15.6), paired t = 10.9, d.f. = 140, P < 0.001. Three patients (2.1%) were chronologically over 70 years of age, compared with 43 (30.5%) with a COVID-Age over 70 (χ2 = 6.99, d.f. = 1, P = 0.008, Fisher's exact test P = 0.027).

Patients in secure forensic psychiatric services represent a high-risk group for adverse outcomes in the event of SARS-COV-2 infection. Population-based guidance on self-isolation and other precautions based on chronological age may not be sufficient. There is an urgent need for better physical health research and treatment in this group.

Neuropsychological investigations can help untangle the aetiological and phenomenological heterogeneity of schizophrenia but have scarcely been employed in the context of treatment-resistant (TR) schizophrenia. No population-based study has examined neuropsychological function in the first-episode of TR psychosis.

We report baseline neuropsychological findings from a longitudinal, population-based study of first-episode psychosis, which followed up cases from index admission to 10 years. At the 10-year follow up patients were classified as treatment responsive or TR after reconstructing their entire case histories. Of 145 cases with neuropsychological data at baseline, 113 were classified as treatment responsive, and 32 as TR at the 10-year follow-up.

Compared with 257 community controls, both case groups showed baseline deficits in three composite neuropsychological scores, derived from principal component analysis: verbal intelligence and fluency, visuospatial ability and executive function, and verbal memory and learning (p values⩽0.001). Compared with treatment responders, TR cases showed deficits in verbal intelligence and fluency, both in the extended psychosis sample (t = −2.32; p = 0.022) and in the schizophrenia diagnostic subgroup (t = −2.49; p = 0.017). Similar relative deficits in the TR cases emerged in sub-/sensitivity analyses excluding patients with delayed-onset treatment resistance (p values<0.01–0.001) and those born outside the UK (p values<0.05).

Verbal intelligence and fluency are impaired in patients with TR psychosis compared with those who respond to treatment. This differential is already detectable – at a group level – at the first illness episode, supporting the conceptualisation of TR psychosis as a severe, pathogenically distinct variant, embedded in aberrant neurodevelopmental processes.