Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental disorders, but no overarching quantitative synthesis of this research has analyzed evidence across mental disorders. We carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) for mental disorders. We explored whether placebo effect size differs across distinct disorders, and the correlates of increased placebo effects. Based on a pre-registered protocol, we searched Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge up to 23.10.2022 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses reporting placebo effect sizes in psychopharmacological or neurostimulation RCTs. Twenty meta-analyses, summarising 1,691 RCTs involving 261,730 patients, were included. Placebo effect size varied, and was large in alcohol use disorder ( g  = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]), depression ( g  = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), restless legs syndrome ( g  = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), and generalized anxiety disorder ( d  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]). Placebo effect size was small-to-medium in obsessive-compulsive disorder ( d  = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), primary insomnia ( g  = 0.35, 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (standardized mean change = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]). Correlates of larger placebo response in multiple mental disorders included later publication year (opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, more trial sites, larger sample size, increased baseline severity, and larger active treatment effect size. Most (18 of 20) meta-analyses were judged ‘low’ quality as per AMSTAR-2. Placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. Future research should explore the sources of this variation. We identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses of placebo response in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania.

Root cause analysis (RCA), imported from high-reliability industries into health two decades ago, is the mandated methodology to investigate adverse events in most health systems. In this analysis, we argue that the validity of RCA in health and in psychiatry must be established, given the impact of these investigations on mental health policy and practice.

Background Patients who have self-harmed have increased morbidity across a wide range of health outcomes, but there is no evidence on their pattern of health and social service use, and its relationship with repetition of self-harm. Previous studies have shown that resource use and costs in the short-term hospital management of self-harm is associated with certain patient and service characteristics but their impact in the longer term has not been demonstrated. The aim of this study is to test the association between changing levels of costs of health and social care with further episodes of self-harm and to identify the clinical and social factors associated with this. Method This was a cost-analysis incidence study of a sample of patients from a cohort of self-harm patients who remained within one region over the course of their follow-up. Resource use was retrospectively observed from their first episode of self-harm (dating back on some occasions to the 1970’s), and costs applied. Panel data analyses were used to identify factors associated with observed costs over time. Results Patients with five or more episodes of self-harm had the highest levels of resource costs. Health and social care costs reduced with time from last episode of self-harm. In the year following the first episode of self-harm, psychiatric care accounted for 69% and psychotropic drug prescriptions 1% of the mean resource costs. Conclusions The management of self-harm occurs within a complex system of health and social care. Major self-harm repeaters place the greatest cost burden on the system. Better understanding of the impact of risk assessment models and consequent service provision on clinical outcome may help in the design of effective services for this patient group.

Sustained funding is needed for screening and care, but industry must also shoulder costs

Autistic people are more likely to report problematic alcohol and other substance use when compared to the general population. Evidence suggests that up to one in three autistic adults may have an alcohol or other substance use disorder (AUD/SUD), although the evidence base for behavioural addictions is less clear. Autistic people may use substances or engage in potentially addictive behaviours as a means of coping with social anxiety, challenging life problems, or camouflaging in social contexts. Despite the prevalence and detrimental effects of AUD, SUD and behavioural addictions in community samples, literature focusing on the intersection between autism and these conditions is scarce, hindering health policy, research, and clinical practice. We aimed to identify the top 10 priorities to build the evidence for research, policy, and clinical practice at this intersection. A priority-setting partnership was used to address this aim, comprising an international steering committee and stakeholders from various backgrounds, including people with declared lived experience of autism and/or addiction. First, an online survey was used to identify what people considered key questions about Substance use, alcohol use, or behavioural addictions in autistic people (SABA-A). These initial questions were reviewed and amended by stakeholders, and then classified and refined to form the final list of top priorities via an online consensus process. The top ten priorities were identified: three research, three policy, and four practice questions. Future research suggestions are discussed. •Little is known about the overlap between autism and addiction, yet both are common.•This priority-setting partnership identified the top research, policy and clinical practice questions regarding this overlap•Identification of these priorities will assist researchers and experts, and policy makers to address key knowledge gaps.

Compulsory supervision outside hospital has been developed internationally for the treatment of mentally ill people following widespread deinstitutionalisation but its efficacy has not yet been proven. Community treatment orders (CTOs) for psychiatric patients became available in England and Wales in 2008. We tested whether CTOs reduce admissions compared with use of Section 17 leave when patients in both groups receive equivalent levels of clinical contact but different lengths of compulsory supervision. OCTET is a non-blinded, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. We postulated that patients with a diagnosis of psychosis discharged from hospital on CTOs would have a lower rate of readmission over 12 months than those discharged on the pre-existing Section 17 leave of absence. Eligible patients were those involuntarily admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of psychosis, aged 18–65 years, who were deemed suitable for supervised outpatient care by their clinicians. Consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to be discharged from hospital either on CTO or Section 17 leave. Randomisation used random permuted blocks with lengths of two, four, and six, and stratified for sex, schizophrenic diagnosis, and duration of illness. Research assistants, treating clinicians, and patients were aware of assignment to randomisation group. The primary outcome measure was whether or not the patient was admitted to hospital during the 12-month follow-up period, analysed with a log-binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors. We did all analyses by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73110773. Of 442 patients assessed, 336 patients were randomly assigned to be discharged from hospital either on CTO (167 patients) or Section 17 leave (169 patients). One patient withdrew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 in the CTO group and 167 in the Section 17 group). At 12 months, despite the fact that the length of initial compulsory outpatient treatment differed significantly between the two groups (median 183 days CTO group vs 8 days Section 17 group, p<0·001) the number of patients readmitted did not differ between groups (59 [36%] of 166 patients in the CTO group vs 60 [36%] of 167 patients in the Section 17 group; adjusted relative risk 1·0 [95% CI 0·75–1·33]). In well coordinated mental health services the imposition of compulsory supervision does not reduce the rate of readmission of psychotic patients. We found no support in terms of any reduction in overall hospital admission to justify the significant curtailment of patients' personal liberty. National Institute of Health Research.

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but pharmacological treatments for them are underused, despite evidence of efficacy. Acamprosate, naltrexone, nalmefene and disulfiram are all approved in one or more region for the treatment of AUD. Baclofen currently has a temporary indication in France. Safety considerations for using psychopharmacological treatments in this patient group include the impact of concurrent alcohol consumption at high levels; multiple physical comorbidities that may interfere with pharmacological effects, distribution and metabolism; and concomitant medication for the treatment of comorbid physical and psychiatric conditions. The five drugs, including an extended-release injectable suspension of naltrexone, have different safety profiles that need to be balanced with the treatment objective (initiation or continuation of abstinence, or reduction of drinking), individual patient preferences and comorbid conditions. Appropriate treatment will be based on the unique risk–benefit profile in each case.

Alcohol use in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is under-researched. Previous reviews have explored substance use as a whole, but this neglects individual characteristics unique to different substances. Alcohol use in non-clinical samples is associated with diverse responses. To advance practice and policy, an improved understanding of alcohol use among people with ASD is crucial to meet individual needs. This was a narrative systematic review of the current literature on the association between alcohol use and ASD, focusing on aetiology (biological, psychological, social and environmental risk factors) and implications (consequences and protective factors) of alcohol use in autistic populations who utilise clinical services. We sought to identify priority research questions and offer policy and practice recommendations. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023430291. The search was conducted across five databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Global Health. Included studies explored alcohol use and ASD within clinical samples. A total of 22 studies was included in the final review. The pooled prevalence of alcohol use disorder in ASD was 1.6% and 16.1% in large population registers and clinical settings, respectively. Four components were identified as possible aetiological risk factors: age, co-occurring conditions, gender and genetics. We identified ten implications for co-occurring alcohol use disorder in ASD, summarised as a concept map. Emerging trends in the literature suggest direction and principles for research and practice. Future studies should use a standardised methodological approach, including psychometrically validated instruments and representative samples, to inform policy and improve the experience for autistic populations with co-occurring alcohol use.

ObjectivesTo summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors’ well-being and/or performance at work.DesignSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelinesData sourcesEmbase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021.Eligibility criteriaNo restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication.Data extraction and analysisMethodological quality was appraised using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively.ResultsDatabase searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies.DiscussionUsing existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.

IntroductionGiven the high prevalence of mental health disorders and their significant socioeconomic burden, there is a need to develop improved treatments, and to evaluate them through placebo-controlled trials. However, the magnitude of the placebo response in randomised controlled trials to test medications may be substantial, affecting their interpretation. Therefore, improved understanding of the patient, trial and mental disorder factors that influence placebo responses would inform clinical trial design to better detect active treatment effects. There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental health disorders, but no overarching synthesis of this research has been produced to date. We present a protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses in which we aim to understand the effect size and potential predictors of placebo response within, and across, mental health disorders.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search databases (Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE+EMBASE Classic, Web of Knowledge) for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses that report placebo effect size in clinical trials in patients with mental health disorders (initial search date 23 October 2022). Screening of abstracts and full texts will be done in pairs. We will extract data to qualitatively examine how placebo effect size varies across mental health disorders. We also plan to qualitatively summarise predictors of increased placebo response identified either quantitatively (eg, through meta-regression) or qualitatively. Risk of bias will be assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We aim to not only summarise the current literature but also to identify gaps in knowledge and generate further hypotheses.Ethics and disseminationWe do not believe there are any specific ethical considerations relevant to this study. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.