Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"University of Cambridge Professor of Psychiatry Edward Bullmore [examines] the ... science on the link between depression and inflammation of the body and brain. He explains how and why we now know that mental disorders can have their root cause in the immune system, and outlines a future revolution in which treatments could be specifically targeted to break the vicious cycle of stress, inflammation, and depression\"-- Provided by publisher.

The importance of George Brown's sustained contribution to medical sociology through his longitudinal studies of psychiatric disorder and its relationship to social context is widely recognised. This collection of seventeen chapters exemplifies a particular way of working as a medical sociologist which focuses on the understanding of the meaning of social experiences as the key to an individual's health status. It combines the biographical richness of qualitative analysis and thus reach conclusions on the basis of statistical significance. The contributors mainly focus on conditions of depression and anxiety, relating these to the meanings including both demographic aspects such as gender, parity, lifestyle, employment, refugee/immigration status, humiliation, entrapment, loss and also more interpersonal stresses such as neglect, abuse and critical or unsupportive relationships. This is a book which offers a rich treasury of information for all researchers interested in understanding the complex relationship between our inner and outer worlds; it captures the essence of George Brown's unique way of working.

\"Depression affects many people, and it can be confusing and sometimes scary for a young person to see a family member or friend suffering from it--or to find themselves struggling with symptoms of depression. However, knowing the facts about this mental illness can empower them to provide support for others and to take charge of their own health. They discover these facts through age-appropriate text and sidebars that provide scientific information, relatable examples, and advice. Graphic organizers, diagrams, and full-color photographs work with the text to give readers an empathetic and educational overview of this important mental health topic.\"-- Provided by publisher.

Background Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. Results Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review ( n  = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis ( n  = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15–0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07–1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. Conclusions This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Background Stress, anxiety, and depression are some of the most important research and practice challenges for psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral scientists. Due to the importance of issue and the lack of general statistics on these disorders among the Hospital staff treating the COVID-19 patients, this study aims to systematically review and determine the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. Methods In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I 2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2–31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5–31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3–67.5%) among the hospitals’ Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant ( P  < 0.05), however, the prevalence of stress increased with increasing the sample size, yet this was not statistically significant ( P  = 0.829). Conclusion The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and quarantine measures have raised concerns regarding their psychological effects on populations. Among the general population, university students appear to be particularly susceptible to experiencing mental health problems. To measure the prevalence of self-reported mental health symptoms, to identify associated factors, and to assess care seeking among university students who experienced the COVID-19 quarantine in France. This survey study collected data from April 17 to May 4, 2020, from 69 054 students living in France during the COVID-19 quarantine. All French universities were asked to send an email to their students asking them to complete an online questionnaire. The targeted population was approximately 1 600 000 students. Living in France during the COVID-19 quarantine. The rates of self-reported suicidal thoughts, severe distress, stress, anxiety, and depression were assessed using the 22-item Impact of Events Scale-Revised, the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale, the 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (State subscale), and the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory, respectively. Covariates were sociodemographic characteristics, precariousness indicators (ie, loss of income or poor quality housing), health-related data, information on the social environment, and media consumption. Data pertaining to care seeking were also collected. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors. A total of 69 054 students completed the survey (response rate, 4.3%). The median (interquartile range) age was 20 (18-22) years. The sample was mainly composed of women (50 251 [72.8%]) and first-year students (32 424 [47.0%]). The prevalence of suicidal thoughts, severe distress, high level of perceived stress, severe depression, and high level of anxiety were 11.4% (7891 students), 22.4% (15 463 students), 24.7% (17 093 students), 16.1% (11 133 students), and 27.5% (18 970 students), respectively, with 29 564 students (42.8%) reporting at least 1 outcome, among whom 3675 (12.4%) reported seeing a health professional. Among risk factors identified, reporting at least 1 mental health outcome was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.10; 95% CI, 2.02-2.19; P < .001) or nonbinary gender (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 2.99-4.27; P < .001), precariousness (loss of income: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.33; P < .001; low-quality housing: OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.06-2.57; P < .001), history of psychiatric follow-up (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 3.09-3.48; P < .001), symptoms compatible with COVID-19 (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.49-1.61; P < .001), social isolation (weak sense of integration: OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 3.35-3.92; P < .001; low quality of social relations: OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.49-2.75; P < .001), and low quality of the information received (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64; P < .001). The results of this survey study suggest a high prevalence of mental health issues among students who experienced quarantine, underlining the need to reinforce prevention, surveillance, and access to care.

Introduction: There has long been an interest in the effects of diet on mental health, and the interaction of the two with stress; however, the nature of these relationships is not well understood. Although associations between diet, obesity and the related metabolic syndrome (MetS), stress, and mental disorders exist, causal pathways have not been established. Methods: We reviewed the literature on the relationship between diet, stress, obesity and psychiatric disorders related to stress. Results: Diet and obesity can affect mood through direct effects, or stress-related mental disorders could lead to changes in diet habits that affect weight. Alternatively, common factors such as stress or predisposition could lead to both obesity and stress-related mental disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Specific aspects of diet can lead to acute changes in mood as well as stimulate inflammation, which has led to efforts to assess polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) as a treatment for depression. Bidirectional relationships between these different factors are also likely. Finally, there has been increased attention recently on the relationship between the gut and the brain, with the realization that the gut microbiome has an influence on brain function and probably also mood and behavior, introducing another way diet can influence mental health and disorders. Brain areas and neurotransmitters and neuropeptides that are involved in both mood and appetite likely play a role in mediating this relationship. Conclusions: Understanding the relationship between diet, stress and mood and behavior could have important implications for the treatment of both stress-related mental disorders and obesity.

Smoking prevalence is higher amongst individuals with schizophrenia and depression compared with the general population. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can examine whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We conducted two-sample MR to explore the bi-directional effects of smoking on schizophrenia and depression. For smoking behaviour, we used (1) smoking initiation GWAS from the GSCAN consortium and (2) we conducted our own GWAS of lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness and cessation) in a sample of 462690 individuals from the UK Biobank. We validated this instrument using positive control outcomes (e.g. lung cancer). For schizophrenia and depression we used GWAS from the PGC consortium. There was strong evidence to suggest smoking is a risk factor for both schizophrenia (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67-3.08, p < 0.001) and depression (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.71-2.32, p < 0.001). Results were consistent across both lifetime smoking and smoking initiation. We found some evidence that genetic liability to depression increases smoking (β = 0.091, 95% CI 0.027-0.155, p = 0.005) but evidence was mixed for schizophrenia (β = 0.022, 95% CI 0.005-0.038, p = 0.009) with very weak evidence for an effect on smoking initiation. These findings suggest that the association between smoking, schizophrenia and depression is due, at least in part, to a causal effect of smoking, providing further evidence for the detrimental consequences of smoking on mental health.

Background Mental health problems and mental health related mortality have increased among adolescents, particularly girls. These trends have implications for etiology and prevention and suggest new and emerging risk factors in need of attention. The present study estimated age, period, and cohort effects in depressive symptoms among US nationally representative samples of school attending adolescents from 1991 to 2018. Methods Data are drawn from 1991 to 2018 Monitoring the Future yearly cross-sectional surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students ( N  = 1,260,159). Depressive symptoms measured with four questions that had consistent wording and data collection procedures across all 28 years. Age–period–cohort effects estimated using the hierarchical age–period–cohort models. Results Among girls, depressive symptoms decreased from 1991 to 2011, then reversed course, peaking in 2018; these increases reflected primarily period effects, which compared to the mean of all periods showed a gradual increase starting in 2012 and peaked in 2018 (estimate = 1.15, p  < 0.01). Cohort effects were minimal, indicating that increases are observed across all age groups. Among boys, trends were similar although the extent of the increase is less marked compared to girls; there was a declining cohort effect among recently born cohorts, suggesting that increases in depressive symptoms among boys are slower for younger boys compared to older boys in recent years. Trends were generally similar by race/ethnicity and parental education, with a positive cohort effect for Hispanic girls born 1999–2004. Conclusions Depressive symptoms are increasing among teens, especially among girls, consistent with increases in depression and suicide. Population variation in psychiatric disorder symptoms highlight the importance of current environmental determinants of psychiatric disorder risk, and provide evidence of emerging risk factors that may be shaping a new and concerning trend in adolescent mental health.