How to overcome barriers to publication in low- and middle-income countries: Recommendations from early career psychiatrists and researchers from around the world.

There is an increasing movement toward international collaboration and global discussion in mental health. If provided with the right opportunities, early career psychiatrists (ECPs) and researchers in mental health can contribute meaningfully to this discussion. However, they often experience multiple barriers when attempting to add their voices via academic publications. We represent a diverse group of ECPs and researchers from all six World Health Organization regions. In this piece, we discuss these barriers, grounded in our first-hand experiences, and put forth a series of recommendations. The most potentially beneficial and immediate way forward is ensuring a much-needed mentorship and support, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. In this regard, international organizations, especially those with a particular focus on education, such as the Section on Education in Psychiatry of the World Psychiatric Association, can play a pivotal role.

Use of Compulsory Treatment by Early-Career Psychiatrists: An International Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) has been broadly incorporated into national frameworks for compulsory psychiatric treatment. Recently, instructions issued by the UN CRPD Committee discouraged any involuntary treatment and detention of people with mental disabilities, which has sparked clinical, legal, and ethical debates. Early-career psychiatrists (ECPs) are often at the front line of decisions to involuntarily detain psychiatric patients; here, the authors surveyed ECPs to gain insight into their experiences with compulsory psychiatric treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: An anonymous, voluntary, online survey among ECPs from 43 countries was conducted between July and August 2019. RESULTS: In total, 142 ECPs completed and were eligible to participate in the survey. Most of the survey respondents reported being involved in the practice of compulsory psychiatric care. More than half reported difficulties in providing compulsory psychiatric care, mostly because of the bureaucracy of legal procedures (e.g., legal correspondence with the court) and ethical issues around detention. Most respondents (96%) generally agreed with their country's legal mechanism for compulsory treatment; 43% indicated that it should remain unchanged, and 53% indicated that it should be revised. CONCLUSIONS: These findings call for a broader discussion in society and among psychiatrists regarding the practice of compulsory treatment while giving due consideration to the legal, therapeutic, and ethical issues involved. The views of ECPs will be helpful in future revisions of the ethical and operational frameworks of compulsory psychiatric care.