Research and public interest in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) are growing. This study investigated attitudes toward psychedelics among a diverse and multinational sample of psychiatrists currently working in Europe. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey consisting of demographic information, a test of basic knowledge on psychedelics, and the previously validated 20-item Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ), which was validated for the first time in English within this sample. We included N = 419 participants from 33 countries in the study. One-third of participants (34%) reported past use of psychedelics. The APQ sub-scale with the highest score was Openness to Psychedelics, while Risk Assessment of Psychedelics was rated lowest. Regression modelling, explaining 31.3% of variance in APQ scores, showed that younger male psychiatrists who identified as spiritual, were better at recognizing and classifying substances as psychedelics and had previously used psychedelics had more positive attitudes on psychedelics. No professional variables besides self-reported previous experience with PAP or psychedelic research predicted APQ scores. European psychiatrists, therefore, show a general openness to psychedelics and PAP, but are concerned by the potential risks associated with them. Our findings overall suggest that psychedelics are a subject where it is difficult to remain impartial. Protocol registration: The study was pre-registered at the Open Science Framework (available online at https://osf.io/upkv3 ).

Sudden unexpected death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is one of the leading causes of death in people with epilepsy (PWE). Awareness and taking adequate preventive measures are pivotal to reducing SUDEP. Nearly 80% of PWE live in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India where for many, epilepsy management is by psychiatrists. To evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practices of Indian psychiatrists on SUDEP and seizure risk. A cross-sectional online survey of 12 Likert response questions using validated themes, was circulated among Indian Psychiatric Society members. Non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to convenience non-probability sampling was used. The inquiry involved SUDEP-related topics including the need for and importance of counselling. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were used for analysis. The psychiatrists responding (n = 134) were likely to be males (72.4 %), urban (94 %) and affiliated to academic institutions (76.1 %). Nearly all saw PWE monthly with over half (54 %) seeing more than 10. Nearly two-third (64.17 %) did not counsel PWE regarding SUDEP, due to fear of raising concerns in caregivers/family (33.3 %), patients (38.9 %) or lack of time (35.6 %), though 37 % had lost patients due to SUDEP. Over two-third (66.7 %) agreed risk counselling was important. Barriers included fear of raising concerns, limited time, and training. A strong need for national SUDEP guidelines (89 %) and suitable training (75.4 %) was expressed. Though epilepsy care is provided by a considerable number of psychiatrists, there is a poor understanding of SUDEP. Enhancing the awareness and understanding of SUDEP is likely to enhance epilepsy care.

This cross-sectional study identifies and quantifies state-level shortages in community-based perinatal psychiatry care in the US.

Until 1994, men were not recognized legally as victims of rape in England and Wales. This article explores the history of male survivors of rape there, establishing the uneven patchwork of support services available to them prior to 1994. It argues that a growing psychiatric literature which studied male survivors of sexual violence was a major factor in convincing lawmakers to include men as potential victims of rape in updated sexual offence legislation. Other medical professionals played key roles in bringing male survivors to police attention, but psychiatric research was most influential in changing the policy agenda in this arena.

Recent advances in psychiatric genetics have enabled the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to estimate genetic risk for psychiatric disorders. However, the potential use of PRS in child and adolescent psychiatry has raised concerns. This study provides an in-depth examination of attitudes among child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding the use of PRS in psychiatry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with U.S.-based CAP (n = 29) who possess expertise in genetics. The majority of CAP indicated that PRS have limited clinical utility in their current form and are not ready for clinical implementation. Most clinicians stated that nothing would motivate them to generate PRS at present; however, some exceptions were noted (e.g., parent/family request). Clinicians spoke to challenges related to ordering, interpreting, and explaining PRS to patients and families. CAP raised concerns regarding the potential for this information to be misinterpreted or misused by patients, families, clinicians, and outside entities such as insurance companies. Finally, some CAP noted that PRS may lead to increased stigmatization of psychiatric disorders, and at the extreme, could be used to support eugenics. As PRS testing increases, it will be critical to examine CAP and other stakeholders\' views to ensure responsible implementation of this technology.

UNASSIGNED: Disaster-related psychiatric disorders (DRPD) present a significant challenge to mental health professionals, yet there is a notable lack of emphasis on the preparedness of psychiatrists in managing these conditions within post-graduate medical education.
UNASSIGNED: This study utilized a questionnaire to collect data from psychiatrists, focusing on their prior involvement in managing DRPD, perceived competence, medication preferences, and factors influencing their experiences in handling such disorders. Analysis included distribution and ranking of variables, alongside cross-analysis examining associations between demographic factors (age, gender, hospital levels, years of practice, board certification) and treatment experiences, as well as readiness for in-hospital or outside-hospital mobilization in DRPD management.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and three Taiwanese psychiatrists participated in the study, with the majority reporting involvement in managing DRPD (71.8%), particularly in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Antidepressants, specifically serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, were commonly preferred for DRPD treatment, including PTSD and depression. Psychiatrists aged over 40, with more than 10 years of practice, and hold the board-certified status, showed greater experiences for outside- or inside- the hospital mobilization in DRPD management.
UNASSIGNED: Findings suggest that within post-graduate medical education, Taiwanese psychiatrists demonstrate significant experience, willingness, and capacity to effectively manage DRPD. However, there is a need to integrate comprehensive training on disaster psychiatry into post-graduate psychiatric education programs to further enhance preparedness and optimize outcomes in managing these challenging conditions.

BACKGROUND: The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland published a report into the death of a young person, with recommendations for the Royal College of Psychiatry in Scotland Child and Adolescent Faculty; to explore if there were barriers to the use of Clozapine in young people in Scotland.
METHODS: A mixed-methods study was performed using a cross-sectional survey of clinicians working in child and adolescent psychiatry across Scotland, to determine attitudes towards clozapine use and the perceived barriers and facilitators to clozapine treatment.
RESULTS: Results suggest that there may be a lack of clearly defined pathways within and between services, as well as a lack of resources provided for the necessary monitoring of a young person started on clozapine. Multiple respondents felt unskilled in clozapine initiation and had not accessed formal training. The most frequently mentioned themes for improving facilitation of clozapine prescription were that of increased resources and training.
CONCLUSIONS: National policymakers including the Mental Welfare Commission, NHS Education for Scotland, and NHS Scotland should consider these findings to address the potential underutilisation of clozapine for people aged under 18 in services across Scotland. A review of current service provision should take place, with consideration of whether the facilitators to clozapine prescription which our study has highlighted could be implemented more effectively. This may help reduce identified barriers and increase clozapine prescription to those who would benefit from it, potentially improving outcomes for young people with treatment-resistant psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical associates are a health professional cadre that could be utilised in mental health task sharing in South Africa but this is training dependent. The objectives of the study were to identify the potential curricula content, training sites, and teaching modalities for undergraduate and potential postgraduate clinical associate mental health training and to identify the tasks that they should perform based on these curricula.
METHODS: We utilised the Delphi method to reach consensus on items with the panel comprising psychiatrists and family physicians. The first round questionnaire of the Delphi survey was developed based on a literature review and the results from earlier phases of the overall study. The survey was administered electronically and consisted of three rounds. Following both the first and second rounds, an updated questionnaire was constructed omitting the items on which consensus was reached. The questionnaire consisted primarily of nine-point scales with consensus based on 70% of participants rating 1,2,3 or 7,8,9.
RESULTS: There were 26 participants in the first round with this number falling to 23 in later rounds. There was strong consensus on a training attachment to a mental health clinic at a community health centre (CHC) at undergraduate (96.2%) and postgraduate level (100%). Consensus was reached on the importance of training on the management of six categories of disorders at the undergraduate level and nine categories of disorders at the postgraduate level. Clerking patients as a teaching modality reached 100% consensus at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. PHC clinics, CHCs and district hospitals reached consensus as appropriate settings for clinical associates to provide mental health services. In addition, GP practices and secondary hospitals reached consensus for those with postgraduate training. Consensus was reached on ten of the 21 listed tasks that could be performed based on undergraduate training and 20 of the 21 tasks based on a postgraduate qualification in mental health.
CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi panel\'s recommendations provide a clear roadmap for enhancing mental health curricula for clinical associates, enabling their utilisation in mental health service provision. A future postgraduate mental health qualification for clinical associates would allow for expanded task sharing.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for a variety of language-related tasks, including sentiment analysis, and summarization of provider-patient interactions. However, there is limited research on these models in the area of crisis prediction.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of LLMs, specifically OpenAI\'s generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), in predicting current and future mental health crisis episodes using patient-provided information at intake among users of a national telemental health platform.
METHODS: Deidentified patient-provided data were pulled from specific intake questions of the Brightside telehealth platform, including the chief complaint, for 140 patients who indicated suicidal ideation (SI), and another 120 patients who later indicated SI with a plan during the course of treatment. Similar data were pulled for 200 randomly selected patients, treated during the same time period, who never endorsed SI. In total, 6 senior Brightside clinicians (3 psychologists and 3 psychiatrists) were shown patients\' self-reported chief complaint and self-reported suicide attempt history but were blinded to the future course of treatment and other reported symptoms, including SI. They were asked a simple yes or no question regarding their prediction of endorsement of SI with plan, along with their confidence level about the prediction. GPT-4 was provided with similar information and asked to answer the same questions, enabling us to directly compare the performance of artificial intelligence and clinicians.
RESULTS: Overall, the clinicians\' average precision (0.7) was higher than that of GPT-4 (0.6) in identifying the SI with plan at intake (n=140) versus no SI (n=200) when using the chief complaint alone, while sensitivity was higher for the GPT-4 (0.62) than the clinicians\' average (0.53). The addition of suicide attempt history increased the clinicians\' average sensitivity (0.59) and precision (0.77) while increasing the GPT-4 sensitivity (0.59) but decreasing the GPT-4 precision (0.54). Performance decreased comparatively when predicting future SI with plan (n=120) versus no SI (n=200) with a chief complaint only for the clinicians (average sensitivity=0.4; average precision=0.59) and the GPT-4 (sensitivity=0.46; precision=0.48). The addition of suicide attempt history increased performance comparatively for the clinicians (average sensitivity=0.46; average precision=0.69) and the GPT-4 (sensitivity=0.74; precision=0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4, with a simple prompt design, produced results on some metrics that approached those of a trained clinician. Additional work must be done before such a model can be piloted in a clinical setting. The model should undergo safety checks for bias, given evidence that LLMs can perpetuate the biases of the underlying data on which they are trained. We believe that LLMs hold promise for augmenting the identification of higher-risk patients at intake and potentially delivering more timely care to patients.

OBJECTIVE: In a growing list of countries, patients are granted access to their clinical notes (\"open notes\") as part of their online record access. Especially in the field of mental health, open notes remain controversial with some clinicians perceiving open notes as a tool for improving therapeutic outcomes by increasing patient involvement, while others fear that patients might experience psychological distress and perceived stigmatization, particularly when reading clinicians\' notes. More research is needed to optimize the benefits and mitigate the risks.
METHODS: Using a qualitative research design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists practicing in Germany, to explore what conditions they believe need to be in place to ensure successful implementation of open notes in psychiatric practice as well as expected subsequent changes to their workload and treatment outcomes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We interviewed 18 psychiatrists; interviewees believed four key conditions needed to be in place prior to implementation of open notes including careful consideration of (1) diagnoses and symptom severity, (2) the availability of additional time for writing clinical notes and discussing them with patients, (3) available resources and system compatibility, and (4) legal and data protection aspects. As a result of introducing open notes, interviewees expected changes in documentation, treatment processes, and doctor-physician interaction. While open notes were expected to improve transparency and trust, participants anticipated negative unintended consequences including the risk of deteriorating therapeutic relationships due to note access-related misunderstandings and conflicts.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists practiced in Germany where open notes have not yet been established as part of the healthcare data infrastructure. Interviewees were supportive of open notes but had some reservations. They found open notes to be generally beneficial but anticipated effects to vary depending on patient characteristics. Clear guidelines for managing access, time constraints, usability, and privacy are crucial. Open notes were perceived to increase transparency and patient involvement but were also believed to raise issues of stigmatization and conflicts.