Effects of the Global Ecological Crisis on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents: An International Perspective.

Climate change has become a global emergency, which mental health effects are increasingly being described and understood. Children and adolescents, especially those in low income countries and minority communities, are particularly vulnerable to experience the worst impacts of climate change now and in the coming decades. Our group of early career mental health clinicians and researchers in nine culturally and socioeconomic different countries across three continents initiated a global, online discussion about the effects of climate change on the mental health of children and adolescents, based on literature and our professional experience. We identified a paucity of research and psychiatric education on the topic, and a need to advance global and local efforts in this direction. We also identified three main domains of mental health impact of climate change: direct, indirect, and through physical conditions. Our work offers a preliminary, up-to-date overview of the consequences of climate change on the mental health of children and adolescents, and provides recommendations to advance policies, public health efforts, research, education, and clinical care in the emerging area of 'Climate Psychiatry'.

Is everyone invited to the discussion table? A bibliometric analysis COVID-19-related mental health literature.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has captured the mental health discussion worldwide. Examining countries' representation in this discussion could prove instrumental in identifying potential gaps in terms of ensuring a truly global conversation in times of global crisis. Methods: We collected mental health and COVID-19-related journal articles published in PubMed in 2020. We focused on the corresponding authors' countries of affiliation to explore countries' representation. We also examined these articles' academic impact and correlations with their corresponding authors' countries of affiliation. Additional journals and countries' indicators were collected from the Web of Science and World Bank websites, respectively. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics and the VOSviewer software. Results: In total, 3492 publications were analyzed. Based on the corresponding author, high-income countries produced 61.9% of these publications. Corresponding authors from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East combined accounted for 11.8% of the publications. Europe hosted corresponding authors with the most publications and citations, and corresponding authors from North America had the largest mean journal impact factor. Conclusions: The global scientific discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increased contribution of academics from developing countries. However, authors from high-income countries have continued to shape this discussion. It is imperative to ensure the active participation of low- and middle-income countries in setting up the global mental health research agenda, particularly in situations of global crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic.

Scaling Up Global Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

Every health care system requires an adequate health care workforce, service delivery, financial support, and information technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global health systems were ill prepared to address the rising prevalence of mental health problems, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), thereby increasing treatment gaps. To close these gaps globally, task shifting and telepsychiatry should be made available and maximized, particularly in LMICs. Task shifting to nonspecialist health workers to improve essential mental health coverage and encourage efficient use of the available resources and technology has become the most viable strategy.

Current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries: cross-country comparisons and international perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., "Iran"), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as "cannabis," "marijuana," "hashish," "bhang "dual diagnosis," "use," "addiction," "prevalence," "co-morbidity," "substance use disorder," "legalization" or "policy" (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies' titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries. RESULTS: The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal). CONCLUSIONS: Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.

Current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries: cross-country comparisons and international perspectives

Abstract Introduction Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries. Methods PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., "Iran"), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as "cannabis," "marijuana," "hashish," "bhang "dual diagnosis," "use," "addiction," "prevalence," "co-morbidity," "substance use disorder," "legalization" or "policy" (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies' titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries. Results The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal). Conclusions Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.

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.

Management of psychiatric conditions and delirium during the COVID-19 pandemic across continents: lessons learned and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: With the uncertainties of COVID-19, people infected with coronavirus present with diverse psychiatric presentations. Some institutions have had to manage their patients with existing protocols, others have had to create them. In this article we aimed to report the challenges and good practices in the management of psychiatric conditions and delirium coexisting with COVID-19 across continents. METHODS: Early Career Psychiatrists (ECPs) from across five continents were approached to share their experiences on the management of psychiatric conditions in patients with COVID-19 during the current pandemic. RESULTS: We collected information about the experiences from sixteen countries. Commonalities were similar psychiatric presentations and poor preparedness across countries. Differences were varying adjustments made in the management of psychiatric conditions coexisting with COVID-19 and different innovations. Good practices which can be adopted by other countries are novel approaches such as telepsychiatry, proactive consultation-liaison units and enhanced community services targeted at circumventing challenges faced when providing mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for global preparedness in the mental health sector during outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the need for concerted efforts targeted at global and locally sensitive adaptation of existing protocols and the development of new guidelines for the management of psychiatric conditions for the present pandemic and subsequent occurrences.