To which countries do European psychiatric trainees want to move to and why?

BACKGROUND: There is a shortage of psychiatrists worldwide. Within Europe, psychiatric trainees can move between countries, which increases the problem in some countries and alleviates it in others. However, little is known about the reasons psychiatric trainees move to another country. METHODS: Survey of psychiatric trainees in 33 European countries, exploring how frequently psychiatric trainees have migrated or want to migrate, their reasons to stay and leave the country, and the countries where they come from and where they move to. A 61-item self-report questionnaire was developed, covering questions about their demographics, experiences of short-term mobility (from 3 months up to 1 year), experiences of long-term migration (of more than 1 year) and their attitudes towards migration. RESULTS: A total of 2281 psychiatric trainees in Europe participated in the survey, of which 72.0% have 'ever' considered to move to a different country in their future, 53.5% were considering it 'now', at the time of the survey, and 13.3% had already moved country. For these immigrant trainees, academic was the main reason they gave to move from their country of origin. For all trainees, the overall main reason for which they would leave was financial (34.4%), especially in those with lower (<500€) incomes (58.1%), whereas in those with higher (>2500€) incomes, personal reasons were paramount (44.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A high number of psychiatric trainees considered moving to another country, and their motivation largely reflects the substantial salary differences. These findings suggest tackling financial conditions and academic opportunities.

Factors associated with response after deep transcranial magnetic stimulation in a real-world clinical setting: Results from the first 40 cases of treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) has been sanctioned by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression. In a retrospective cohort study, we evaluated response and effectiveness of dTMS in real-world practice, as an add-on treatment for resistant depression. METHODS: Forty adult outpatients suffering from depression, all taking psychiatric medications, underwent 20 dTMS treatments over a 4-6 week period. At baseline (T0), visit 10 (T1), and visit 20 (T2), the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale was administered, and the Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI-I) scale was completed at T1 and T2; the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) was administrated at T0 and T2 only. The patients also completed the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) at T0, T1, and T2. RESULTS: Depressive symptoms (HDRS-21 total score) decreased significantly following treatment. The HDRS total score decreased from an average of 21.22 (±6.09) at T0, to 13.95 (±7.24) at T2. Correspondingly, at T2, 32.5% were responders to the treatment and 20% were in remission, based on the HDRS-21. Treatment was well tolerated, with a discontinuation rate of 7.5%. While depressive symptoms at baseline did not predict remission/response at T2, higher HDRS scores at T0 were associated with a larger decrease in depressive symptoms during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Significant antidepressant effects were seen following 20 dTMS treatments, given as augmentation to ongoing medications in treatment-resistant depression. The findings suggest that among patients with TRD, the severity of the depressive episode (and not necessarily the number of failed antidepressant medication trials) is associated with a positive therapeutic effect of dTMS. Hence, the initial severity of the depressive episode may guide clinicians in referring patients for dTMS.

Pharmaceutical industry interactions of psychiatric trainees from 20 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Interactions between the pharmaceutical industry (PI) and psychiatrists have been under scrutiny recently, though there is little empirical evidence on the nature of the relationship and its intensity at psychiatry trainee level. We therefore studied the level of PI interactions and the underlying beliefs and attitudes in a large sample of European psychiatric trainees. METHODS: One thousand four hundred and forty-four psychiatric trainees in 20 European countries were assessed cross-sectionally, with a 62-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The total number of PI interactions in the preceding two months varied between countries, with least interactions in The Netherlands (M (Mean)=0.92, SD=1.44, range=0-12) and most in Portugal (M=19.06, SD=17.44, range=0-100). Trainees were more likely to believe that PI interactions have no impact on their own prescribing behaviour than that of other physicians (M=3.30, SD=1.26 vs. M=2.39, SD=1.06 on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 "completely disagree" to 5 "completely agree"). Assigning an educational role to the pharmaceutical industry was associated with more interactions and higher gift value (IRR (incidence rate ratio)=1.21, 95%CI=1.12-1.30 and OR=1.18, 95%CI=1.02-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: There are frequent interactions between European psychiatric trainees and the PI, with significant variation between countries. We identified several factors affecting this interaction, including attribution of an educational role to the PI. Creating alternative educational opportunities and specific training dedicated to PI interactions may therefore help to reduce the impact of the PI on psychiatric training.