It is well recognised that traumatic events can cause psychological disorders in those who experience them. The most common disorders suffered are depression and substance misuse; others include acute stress reactions, anxiety states and personality changes. One disorder following trauma that has received considerable attention over the past 20 years is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD occurs in 20–30% of people exposed to traumatic events and the prevalence in the general population is 1% (Helzer et al, 1987), with life-time prevalence of 9.2%.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most extensively studied of the newer antidepressants and are increasingly being used as first-line treatment for depression (Anderson et al, 2000). In this article we concentrate on issues that need to be taken into account when selecting one of the five SSRIs marketed in the UK (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine and sertraline) for individual patients. We have concentrated on treatment of depression and have not reviewed their use in anxiety disorders because comparative data are lacking.

One hundred years ago, D'Arsonval and Beer first described the effects of magnetic fields on human brain function. Placing one's head into a powerful magnet produced phosphenes, vertigo or even syncopes (George & Belmaker, 2000). However, only since 1985 has the technology of fast discharging capacitors developed sufficiently to generate reproducible effects across the intact skull, with peak magnetic field strengths of about 1–2 tesla (Barker et al, 1985). The headline-grabbing news has been about therapeutic applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), but in the meantime a revolution in functional brain research has taken place, based on the manipulation of brain activity by focused magnetic fields. TMS applied in this way is, in a manner of speaking, brain imaging in the reverse. While common modes of functional brain imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), demonstrate associations between brain metabolic activity and ‘brain tasks', the causal interpretation of such associations can be difficult. Is the frontal lobe activation observed during a memory task, for example, necessary for performing the task, or does it correspond to monitoring activity that runs parallel to task performance proper? If, on the other hand, focal brain activation during TMS results in a muscle twitch, there is no doubt that stimulation of at least some of the neurons within the magnetic field is sufficient cause for the observed movement. Functional neuroimaging is now often combined with TMS, carried out in the same session in order to exploit the complementary strengths of the methods. Although direct stimulation of association (as opposed to motor or sensory) cortex does not usually result in an observable response, TMS applied in repetitive trains can produce reversible ‘lesions'. By interfering with tasks that are dependent on the functioning of the stimulated neurons, it can thus contribute to the localisation of brain function.

For the past 25 years, forensic psychiatry has been concerned with violent offenders with psychosis and/or personality disorder. If dual diagnosis or comorbidity meant anything to a forensic psychiatrist, it would be the ‘typical’ forensic case – an individual with schizophrenia and a premorbid dissocial personality who had been arrested for a violent crime. In this article I use comorbidity to describe the co-occurrence of two or more conditions (here a psychiatric disorder and health problems arising from substance misuse) rather than dual diagnosis. In fact, many violent offenders have multiple diagnoses. Williams & Cohen (2000) argue that dual diagnosis suggests a closer relationship, perhaps including cause and effect, and is a subset of comorbidity.

Diversion from custody is a policy supporting the removal of people with mental disorders from the criminal justice system to hospital or a suitable community placement where they can receive treatment. There are three principal reasons why such a policy is necessary. First, when those with mental disorders fall through the net of psychiatric services they tend to gravitate towards the criminal justice system; second, the standard of health care provided in prison is, generally speaking, poor; and third, because prison health care centres are not recognised as hospitals for the purposes of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, treatment for mental disorder cannot be given against a prisoner's will unless this can be justified under common law.

Over the past 20–30 years psychiatry has gradually moved from predominantly hospital-based care to care in the community. Community psychiatry embraces a variety of definitions: it may describe the practice setting, the population served or the philosophy of illness and treatment (Johnston et al, 1995). In discussing the training implications of this shift towards community models of psychiatric care, we will not consider a separate discipline of ‘adult community psychiatry’. We believe that nearly all psychiatric specialities now involve substantial elements of work outside the hospital, and we therefore contend that the new skills, knowledge and attitudes required to meet the challenge of providing both hospital- and community-based care are pertinent to all trainees. Furthermore, the development of these are essential if the consultant of the future is to provide the safe, effective and sustainable service to those with complex mental health needs detailed in the recent National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999). We will also not attempt specifically to assess the merits of the move to community psychiatry, which may be subject to a separate debate.

Human beings have moved from place to place since time immemorial. The reasons for and the duration of these migrations put extraordinary stress on individuals and their families. Such stress may not be related to an increase in mental illness for all conditions or to the same extent across all migrant groups. In this paper, we provide an overview of some observations in the field of migration and mental health, hypothesise why some individuals and groups are more vulnerable to psychiatric conditions, and consider the impact of migration experiences on provision of services and care.

The merging of behaviour and cognitive therapy into cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) occurred in the 1980s in both Europe and North America, particularly on the basis of the successful treatment of panic disorder by Clark (1986) in the UK and Barlow (1988) in the USA. The behavioural emphasis on empiricism with good-quality research design was combined with the cognitive focus on content and meaning.

Both primary and secondary care practitioners often wish to offer their patients access to effective psychosocial interventions, yet the lengthy waiting-lists for specialised psychological or psychotherapeutic services create frustration among both referrers and their patients. There is therefore a need for new ways of accessing such treatments that can be delivered in most psychiatric team settings. For this to be realistic, such delivery must be possible within the time available to most practitioners (10–20 minutes for many consultant psychiatrists). One approach is to offer structured self-help materials.