A Pre-Post Evaluation of OpenMinds: a Sustainable, Peer-Led Mental Health Literacy Programme in Universities and Secondary Schools.

Engaging young people in the design and delivery of mental health education could lead to more effective interventions; however, few of these interventions have been evaluated. This study aimed to gain preliminary evidence with regards to the efficacy and acceptability of OpenMinds: a peer-designed and facilitated mental health literacy programme for university and secondary school students. The programme involves a structured programme of education and training for university medical students, who then deliver workshops in secondary schools. Pre- and post-surveys were completed by 234 school students who received two workshops and 40 university medical students who completed the OpenMinds programme and delivered the workshops. The main outcomes in both groups were components of mental health literacy (non-stigmatising attitudes, knowledge, social distance and helping attitudes). Perceived teaching efficacy and interest in mental health careers (university medical students) and workshop acceptability (school students) were also examined. University and school student participation in OpenMinds was associated with significant improvements in three of four mental health literacy elements in both samples. Knowledge and attitudes improved in both samples, social distance improved only in the university sample and knowledge of helping behaviours increased in the school sample. University students' perceived teaching efficacy improved but there was no change in their reported interest in pursuing psychiatry in their career. Acceptability was high; over 70% of the school students agreed that they enjoyed the workshops and liked being taught by a university student. This study provides preliminary evidence for the acceptability and efficacy of OpenMinds as a sustainable peer-led model of mental health education for young people. The OpenMinds programme is ready for efficacy testing in a randomised trial.

Parity of publication for psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: There is an established disparity between physical and mental healthcare. Parity of research outputs has not been assessed internationally across influential medical journals. AIMS: To assess parity of publication between physical and mental health, and within psychiatry. METHOD: Four major medical disciplines were identified and their relative burden estimated. All publications from the highest-impact general medical journals in 2001, 2006 and 2011 were categorised accordingly. The frequency of psychiatry, cardiology, oncology and respiratory medicine articles were compared with the expected proportion (given illness burdens). Six subspecialties within psychiatry were also compared. RESULTS: Psychiatry was consistently and substantially underrepresented; other specialties were overrepresented. Dementia and psychosis demonstrated overrepresentation, with addiction and anxiety disorders represented proportionately and other disorders underrepresented. The underrepresentation of mood disorders increased more recently. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be an important element of disparity of esteem; further action is required to achieve equivalence between mental and physical health research publications.