Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Substantial mental health disparities between lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals compared with heterosexuals have been identified. The aim was to examine potential sexual orientation-based disparities in mental health treatment in a prospectively analysed population-based sample in Sweden and to explore potential moderators and mediators. Method 30 730 individuals from the Stockholm Public Health Cohort were followed up with questionnaires and registry-based health record data on psychiatric healthcare visits and prescription drug use between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results In adjusted analyses, gay and lesbian individuals were more likely to receive treatment for anxiety disorders (adjusted ORs (AOR)=3.80; 95% Cl 2.54 to 5.69) and to use antidepressant medication (AOR=2.13; 95% Cl 1.62 to 2.79); and bisexuals were more likely to receive treatment for mood disorders (AOR=1.58; 95% Cl 1.00 to 2.48), anxiety disorders (AOR=3.23; 95% Cl 2.22 to 4.72) and substance use disorders (AOR=1.91; 95% Cl 1.12 to 3.25), and to use antidepressant medication (AOR=1.91; 95% Cl 1.12 to 3.25) when compared with heterosexuals. The largest mental health treatment disparities based on sexual orientation were found among bisexual women, gay men and younger lesbian women. More frequent experiences of victimisation/threat of violence and lack of social support could partially explain these disparities. Conclusions This study shows a substantially elevated risk of poor mental health among LGB individuals as compared with heterosexuals. Findings support several factors outlined in the minority stress theory in explaining the mechanisms behind these disparities.

The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants' experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

The past half-century has been marked by major changes in the treatment of mental illness: important advances in understanding mental illnesses, increases in spending on mental health care and support of people with mental illnesses, and the availability of new medications that are easier for the patient to tolerate. Although these changes have made things better for those who have mental illness, they are not quite enough. In Better But Not Well, Richard G. Frank and Sherry A. Glied examine the well-being of people with mental illness in the United States over the past fifty years, addressing issues such as economics, treatment, standards of living, rights, and stigma. Marshaling a range of new empirical evidence, they first argue that people with mental illness—severe and persistent disorders as well as less serious mental health conditions—are faring better today than in the past. Improvements have come about for unheralded and unexpected reasons. Rather than being a result of more effective mental health treatments, progress has come from the growth of private health insurance and of mainstream social programs—such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, housing vouchers, and food stamps—and the development of new treatments that are easier for patients to tolerate and for physicians to manage. The authors remind us that, despite the progress that has been made, this disadvantaged group remains worse off than most others in society. The \"mainstreaming\" of persons with mental illness has left a policy void, where governmental institutions responsible for meeting the needs of mental health patients lack resources and programmatic authority. To fill this void, Frank and Glied suggest that institutional resources be applied systematically and routinely to examine and address how federal and state programs affect the well-being of people with mental illness.

Suicide rates are higher in rural Australia than in major cities, although the factors contributing to this are not well understood. This study highlights trends in suicide and examines the prevalence of mental health problems and service utilisation of non-Indigenous Australians by geographic remoteness in rural Australia. A retrospective study of National Coronial Information System data of intentional self-harm deaths in rural New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania for 2010-2015 from the National Coronial Information System. There were 3163 closed cases of intentional self-harm deaths by non-Indigenous Australians for the period 2010-2015. The suicide rate of 12.7 deaths per 100,000 persons was 11% higher than the national Australian rate and increased with remoteness. Among people who died by suicide, up to 56% had a diagnosed mental illness, and a further 24% had undiagnosed symptoms. Reported diagnoses of mental illness decreased with remoteness, as did treatment for mental illness, particularly in men. The most reported diagnoses were mood disorders (70%), psychotic disorders (9%) and anxiety disorders (8%). In the six weeks before suicide, 22% of cases had visited any type of health service at least once, and 6% had visited two or more services. Medication alone accounted for 76% of all cases treated. Higher suicide rates in rural areas, which increase with remoteness, may be attributable to decreasing diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, particularly in men. Less availability of mental health specialists coupled with socio-demographic factors within more remote areas may contribute to lower mental health diagnoses and treatment. Despite an emphasis on improving health-seeking and service accessibility in rural Australia, research is needed to determine factors related to the under-utilisation of services and treatment by specific groups vulnerable to death by suicide.

Introduction Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) overcome traditional barriers enabling wider access to mental health support and allowing individuals to manage their treatment. How individuals engage with DMHIs impacts the intervention effect. This review determined whether the impact of user engagement was assessed in the intervention effect in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) evaluating DMHIs targeting common mental disorders (CMDs). Methods This systematic review was registered on Prospero (CRD42021249503). RCTs published between 01/01/2016 and 17/09/2021 were included if evaluated DMHIs were delivered by app or website; targeted patients with a CMD without non-CMD comorbidities (e.g., diabetes); and were self-guided. Databases searched: Medline; PsycInfo; Embase; and CENTRAL. All data was double extracted. A meta-analysis compared intervention effect estimates when accounting for engagement and when engagement was ignored. Results We identified 184 articles randomising 43,529 participants. Interventions were delivered predominantly via websites (145, 78.8%) and 140 (76.1%) articles reported engagement data. All primary analyses adopted treatment policy strategies, ignoring engagement levels. Only 19 (10.3%) articles provided additional intervention effect estimates accounting for user engagement: 2 (10.5%) conducted a complier-average-causal effect (CACE) analysis (principal stratum strategy) and 17 (89.5%) used a less-preferred per-protocol (PP) population excluding individuals failing to meet engagement criteria (estimand strategies unclear). Meta-analysis for PP estimates, when accounting for user engagement, changed the standardised effect to -0.18 95% CI (-0.32, -0.04) from − 0.14 95% CI (-0.24, -0.03) and sample sizes reduced by 33% decreasing precision, whereas meta-analysis for CACE estimates were − 0.19 95% CI (-0.42, 0.03) from − 0.16 95% CI (-0.38, 0.06) with no sample size decrease and less impact on precision. Discussion Many articles report user engagement metrics but few assessed the impact on the intervention effect missing opportunities to answer important patient centred questions for how well DMHIs work for engaged users. Defining engagement in this area is complex, more research is needed to obtain ways to categorise this into groups. However, the majority that considered engagement in analysis used approaches most likely to induce bias.

Objectives. To investigate the prevalence of serious psychological distress (SPD), mental health treatment, unmet need for mental health treatment, social isolation, and barriers to treatment access among emerging adults, aged 18 to 24 years, and compared with older adults. Methods. We use data from the New York City (NYC) Neighborhood Wellness Survey (2023), a representative survey of adults in NYC (n = 43 606), to calculate weighted prevalence estimates and fit logistic regression models controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Results. Emerging adults had higher odds of SPD and social isolation than adults aged 35 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years or older, and lower odds of past-year mental health treatment among those with SPD compared with all other age groups. Emerging adults reported different reasons for unmet need for mental health treatment than other age groups. Among emerging adults, individuals who identified as noncisgender, bisexual, or unsure of their sexual orientation, or who experienced financial strain, violence, or discrimination, had poorer mental health outcomes. Conclusions. These findings demonstrate the need for expanded efforts to increase mental health treatment access focused on those aged 18 to 24 years, as their needs may differ from those of other age groups. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(9):1426–1435. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308163 )

This study investigates the association between protected characteristics and inequalities in mental health care in the UK. Multinomial regression was used to model the association between protected characteristics and self-reported distress. Data was extracted from waves 6–10 (2014–2019) of the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Two risk categories were constructed: “undiagnosed distress” referred to a General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) score above “caseness” along with no history of mental health diagnosis; “diagnosis without self-report symptoms” referred to a GHQ-12 score consistently below “caseness” within the study time frame but having received a mental health diagnosis. Compared to people without a disability, people with a disability are at considerably greater risk of both undiagnosed distress (Relative risk ratios (RRR) 2.76; Confidence Interval (CI): 2.55, 2.99) and diagnosis without self-reported symptoms (RRR 3.61; CI: 2.80, 4.66). Likewise, women were more likely than men to report undiagnosed distress (RRR = 1.49; CI: 1.38,1.61) or a diagnosis without self-reported symptoms (RRR = 1.38; CI: 1.08, 1.76. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are at greater risk of undiagnosed distress compared with heterosexual people (RRR 1.42; CI: 1.19, 1.70). Adults aged 16–24 years were at greatest risk compared to all other age groups. People from a minority ethnic background had a reduced risk of diagnosis without self-report symptoms compared with people from a White ethnic background (RRR 0.34; CI: 0.20, 0.61). Education, employment and income variables moderated some of these associations. This is the first study to examine diagnosis without self-report symptoms alongside undiagnosed distress. Findings suggest that addressing inequality in mental health care requires increased understanding of the needs and strengths within different groups and to provide appropriate forms of social, medical or psychosocial intervention rather than a singular focus on increasing detection, diagnosis and treatment. People with a disability appear to be at greatest disadvantage, requiring greater attention in policy and practice.

ObjectiveTo develop a core set of outcomes to be used in all future studies into discharge from acute mental health services to increase homogeneity of outcome reporting.DesignWe used a cross-sectional online survey with qualitative responses to derive a comprehensive list of outcomes, followed by two online Delphi rounds and a face-to-face consensus meeting.SettingThe setting the core outcome set applies to is acute adult mental health.ParticipantsParticipants were recruited from five stakeholder groups: service users, families and carers, researchers, healthcare professionals and policymakers.InterventionsThe core outcome set is intended for all interventions that aim to improve discharge from acute mental health services to the community.ResultsNinety-three participants in total completed the questionnaire, 69 in Delphi round 1 and 68 in round 2, with relatively even representation of groups. Eleven participants attended the consensus meeting. Service users, healthcare professionals, researchers, carers/families and end-users of research agreed on a four-item core outcome set: readmission, suicide completed, service user-reported psychological distress and quality of life.ConclusionImplementation of the core outcome set in future trials research will provide a framework to achieve standardisation, facilitate selection of outcome measures, allow between-study comparisons and ultimately enhance the relevance of trial or research findings to healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers and service users.

Purpose Loneliness disproportionately affects people with mental disorders, but associations with mental health outcomes in groups affected remain less well understood. Method A cohort of patients receiving mental healthcare on 30th June 2012 was assembled from a large mental health records database covering a south London catchment area. Recorded loneliness within the preceding 2 years was extracted using natural language processing and outcomes were measured between 30th June 2012 until 30th December 2019, except for survival which applied a censoring point of 6th December 2020 according to data available at the time of extraction. The following mental healthcare outcomes: (i) time to first crisis episode; (ii) time to first emergency presentation; (iii) all-cause mortality; (iv) days active to service per year; and (v) face-to-face contacts per year. Results Loneliness was recorded in 4,483 (16.7%) patients in the study population and fully adjusted models showed associations with subsequent crisis episode (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07–1.29), emergency presentation (HR 1.30, 1.21–1.40), days active per year (IRR 1.04, 1.03–1.05), and face-to-face contacts per year (IRR 1.28, 1.27–1.30). Recorded loneliness in patients with substance misuse problems was particularly strongly associated with adverse outcomes, including risk of emergency presentation (HR 1.68, 1.29–2.18) and mortality (HR 1.29, 1.01–1.65). Conclusion Patients receiving mental healthcare who are recorded as lonely have a higher risk of several adverse outcomes which may require a need for higher service input.