Determining the optimum next-step treatment for the numerous patients with depression who do not adequately respond to an initial trial of medication remains a source of uncertainty in clinical practice. Although a number of psychological treatments are known to be effective for depression, their relative merits in the treatment-resistant group have not been ascertained. The Cochrane Collaboration has recently published a meta-analysis of the evidence available for the use of various psychotherapies as an adjunct to antidepressants compared with antidepressants alone in treatment-resistant depression. This article provides a commentary and appraisal of the clinical utility of these findings.

The evidence base on the relationship between religion and mental health is growing rapidly, and we summarise the latest research on the topic. This includes studies on religious involvement and depression, bipolar disorder, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders, personality disorder, chronic psychotic disorder, marital/family stability, social support and psychological well-being. We also review a relatively new topic in psychiatry, moral injury, which often accompanies PTSD and may interfere with its treatment. We describe a theoretical model that explains how religion might affect mental health and briefly discuss its applications in clinical practice, including a discussion of religiously integrated therapies for depression, anxiety and other emotional problems. Overall, studies indicate that religious involvement often serves as a powerful resource for patients, one that can be integrated into psychiatric care. At times, however, religion may impede or complicate treatment. This article will help clinicians determine, on the basis of the latest research, whether religion is an asset or a liability for a particular patient.

In an earlier article we reviewed the latest research on the relationship between religious involvement and mental health, the effects of religiosity on mental health and well-being over time and the impact of religious interventions. Here we focus on clinical applications that may be useful to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. We discuss general clinical applications relevant to all patients (e.g. taking a spiritual history, supporting/encouraging religious beliefs, referring to clergy), violations of clinician–patient boundaries and the need to ensure that religious/spiritual interventions are patient-centred. We describe evidence-based religious interventions and how to identify appropriate patients for this approach. Finally, we explore situations in which religious beliefs and practices may be a problem, not a resource, and make recommendations on how to address such cases. Case vignettes illustrate clinical situations that mental health professionals are likely to encounter. Although the focus is on the North American context, we note how practice and culture in the UK may differ.

Religious concerns, manifested in thought and behaviour, have a complex, bidirectional and sometimes conceptually overlapping relationship with mental health and mental disorder. Psychiatry, concerning itself with what is measurable in research, and with the relief of distress in clinical practice, has a different perspective on these complex interrelationships than does theology or religion. That which is transcendent, and therefore not measurable, is often important to patients, and sometimes distress may (theologically) be a sign of human well-being. The giving of careful attention to transcendence and distress may variously be conceived of as prayer, religious coping or clinical care. Applications of research to clinical practice, addressing as they do a sensitive and controversial boundary between psychiatry and religion, must therefore be patient centred and culturally sensitive.

I comment on two papers by Koenig and colleagues that advocate the integration of religion into routine psychiatric practice. In my opinion, their selective overview of research, although useful, lacks balance. It omits any mention of the literature on worldwide scandals over child sex abuse (and other abuses of power) perpetrated and facilitated by religious authority within several faith groups. There is no mention of damaging ‘religiously informed’ treatments such as sexual orientation conversion therapy, which is still practised in the UK despite widespread condemnation. Their recommendations for clinical practice conflate association with causation. They do not offer practice guidance on managing the impact of power imbalances associated with religion in multicultural societies. In summary, despite more than a decade of research and debate, there are still no generally accepted ways of avoiding boundary violations where psychiatrists introduce religion into their clinical practice.

Psychiatrists live and work in complex, clinically challenging times. Their paperwork is geared increasingly towards defensive practice, key performance indicators and risk assessment forms. Somewhere in the process, detailed understanding of patient experience and clinical formulation based on key psychiatric expertise and skill in mental state examination have taken a backseat. I review the history behind the Present State Examination, the realisation in the 1980s of the need for a common psychiatric language internationally and the current position on phenomenology in psychiatry curricula in the UK. I conclude that it is time to think seriously about a return to basics in psychiatric phenomenology and psychopathology.

Psychopathology is an integral part of the theory and practice of psychiatry. This commentary explores the importance of psychopathology, especially with regard to clinical practice. The concept of lifeworld is introduced as an important component of attributing meaning to a person's experience of mental disorder. It is also argued that the advance of neuroscience does not preclude the importance of psychopathology.

People with intellectual disability can have a range of common mental health difficulties that sit at the interface of two psychiatry subspecialties: intellectual disability and general adult psychiatry. Clinical presentations, comorbidities and complexities can affect the setting of boundaries between the two disciplines. This article touches on current concepts, drives for inclusion of people with intellectual disability in mainstream psychiatry services and some of the difficulties at the interface. It focuses on potential solutions for managing this interface between the two subspecialties.

In social science research and clinical practice, and in educational settings, psychological tests/scales are being increasingly used because of their reliability and the ease and speed of gathering, comparing and differentiating data. A new scale is usually created when instruments or questionnaires to measure the construct of interest are not be readily available or if existing questionnaires do not fully satisfy requirements. Scales are also translated and revalidated if they are not in the language required. This article takes the reader through steps in developing, validating and translating tests in the field of social sciences.