Mental health related stigma and discrimination is a universal phenomenon and a contributor to the adversity experienced by people with schizophrenia. Research has produced inconsistent findings on how discrimination differs across settings and the contextual factors that underpin these differences. This study investigates the association between country-level Human Development Index (HDI) and experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with schizophrenia.

This study is a secondary data analysis of a global cross-sectional survey completed by people living with schizophrenia across 29 countries, between 2005 and 2008. Experienced and anticipated discrimination were assessed using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-10). Countries were classified according to their 2006 HDI. Negative binomial and Poisson regression analyses with a robust standard errors approach were conducted to investigate associations between country-level HDI and discrimination.

In the regression analyses, no evidence was found for a linear association between HDI and experienced or anticipated discrimination. Further exploratory analyses showed a significant non-linear association between HDI ratings and experienced discrimination. Participants in “high” and “very high” HDI countries reported more experienced discrimination compared to those in “medium” HDI countries.

HDI does, to some extent, appear to be associated with how far discrimination is experienced across different contexts. More high-quality cross-national research, including research focused on “medium” and “low” countries, is needed to substantiate these findings and identify underlying factors that may explain the pattern observed for experienced discrimination, including generating new datasets that would enable for these analyses to be repeated and contrasted with more recent data. An in-depth understanding of these factors will further aid the adaptation of cross-cultural and context specific anti-stigma interventions in future.

The aim of this paper is to present a novel case for the formation, operation and evaluation of a community advisory aboard comprised of Muslims residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, California that utilised a community based participatory approach to address local Muslim mental health needs. The CAB was recruited in partnership with the Muslim Community Association (MCA), one of the largest Islamic centres in the San Franscisco Bay Area. In addition to describing the development of the CAB, the authors present the findings of the evaluation and synthesis of best processes based on CAB members' feedback.

To evaluate the perceived community advisory board members' perceptions of their roles and elicit feedback on how to enhance the relationship between the university team and the CAB, an evaluation was conducted by an independent team who was not part of the research process. Data was collected using anonymous individual surveys and small group open discussions that were conducted over three evaluation meetings. The evaluation utilised mixed method data collection strategies using questions from Schulz et al. (2003, Evaluation and Program Planning 26, 249–262), an instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within CBPR partnerships.

Results of the evaluation within the sphere of CAB operation indicated that CAB members found the greatest satisfaction from their contributions through direct participation in the research activities that were conducted by the university-CAB team. The collective responses indicated that most CAB members were satisfied with trust built between the university-CAB team and the diversity represented in the members of the board. However, given that the Bay Area is home to a very diverse Muslim community, challenges in recruiting representatives that account for all possible self-identifying groups was reported by the CAB with recommendations to recruit religious leaders. Recommendations also included eliciting funds for potential financial compensation for CAB members.

The Stanford-San Francisco Bay Area CAB demonstrated that empowering community members through direct participation, creating channels and safe spaces for feedback help create community rooted research that carry the true voices of marginalised communities and reflects their evolving needs

Underutilisation of mental health services among migrant youth has been demonstrated repeatedly, but little is known about potential discrepancies in terms of treatment receipt for those who do reach services. This study examines the type and level of care received among migrant children and descendants of migrants, particularly investigating disparities in treatment receipt given a specific diagnosis.

We used register data of the total population aged 6–17 years in Stockholm, followed from 2006 to 2015, comprising 444 196 individuals, categorised as refugees, non-refugee migrants, descendants of migrants and Swedish-born. To identify recommended treatments for specific diagnoses we used official clinical guidelines. We report logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of diagnosis receipt, treatment provision and level of care where a diagnosis was first registered.

Migrant children had a lower likelihood of receiving a wide range of psychiatric diagnoses, including mood disorder (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.52–0.64), anxiety disorder (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.57–69) and neurodevelopmental disorder (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.55–0.63). Moreover, when these diagnoses were set, migrant children had a lower likelihood of receiving the recommended treatments for these conditions compared to the majority individuals with the same diagnosis (OR of receiving psychotherapy for anxiety disorder and depression: 0.71; 95% CI 0.62–0.95 and 0.50; 95% CI 0.33–0.75, respectively; OR for receiving ADHD-medication: 0.49; 95% CI 0.43–0.54).

Migrant children risk underdiagnosis of various mental health conditions, and, when reaching mental health services, risk not receiving the optimal care available.

To conduct international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement regarding older adult psychopathology.

We compared self-ratings of problems (e.g. I cry a lot) and personal strengths (e.g. I like to help others) for 10,686 adults aged 60–102 years from 19 societies and collateral ratings for 7,065 of these adults from 12 societies.

Data were obtained via the Older Adult Self-Report (OASR) and the Older Adult Behavior Checklist (OABCL; Achenbach et al., 2004).

Cronbach’s alphas were .76 (OASR) and .80 (OABCL) averaged across societies. Across societies, 27 of the 30 problem items with the highest mean ratings and 28 of the 30 items with the lowest mean ratings were the same on the OASR and the OABCL. Q correlations between the means of the 0–1–2 ratings for the 113 problem items averaged across all pairs of societies yielded means of .77 (OASR) and .78 (OABCL). For the OASR and OABCL, respectively, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) yielded effect sizes (ESs) for society of 15% and 18% for Total Problems and 42% and 31% for Personal Strengths, respectively. For 5,584 cross-informant dyads in 12 societies, cross-informant correlations averaged across societies were .68 for Total Problems and .58 for Personal Strengths. Mixed-model ANOVAs yielded large effects for society on both Total Problems (ES = 17%) and Personal Strengths (ES = 36%).

The OASR and OABCL are efficient, low-cost, easily administered mental health assessments that can be used internationally to screen for many problems and strengths.

Despite recent worldwide migratory movements, there are only a few studies available that report robust epidemiological data on the mental health in recent refugee populations. In the present study, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and somatisation were assessed using an epidemiological approach in refugees who have recently arrived in Germany from different countries.

The study was conducted in a reception facility for asylum-seekers in Leipzig, Germany. A total of 1316 adult individuals arrived at the facility during the survey period (May 2017–June 2018), 569 of whom took part in the study (N = 67 pilot study and N = 502 study sample; response rate 43.2%). The questionnaire (11 different languages) included sociodemographic and flight-related questions as well as standardised instruments for assessing PTSD (PCL-5), depression (PHQ-9) and somatisation (SSS-8). Unweighted and weighted prevalence rates of PTSD, depression and somatisation were presented stratified by sex and age groups.

According to established cut-off scores, 49.7% of the respondents screened positive for at least one of the mental disorders investigated, with 31% suffering from somatisation, 21.7% from depression and 34.9% from PTSD; prevalence rates of major depression, other depressive syndromes and PTSD were calculated according to the DSM-5, which indicated rates of 10.3, 17.6 and 28.2%, respectively.

The findings underline the dramatic mental health burden present among refugees and provide important information for health care planning. They also provide important information for health care systems and political authorities in receiving countries and strongly indicate the necessity of establishing early psychosocial support for refugees suffering from psychological distress.

To identify the common causal beliefs of mental illness in a multi-ethnic Southeast Asian community and describe the sociodemographic associations to said beliefs. The factor structure to the causal beliefs scale is explored. The causal beliefs relating to five different mental illnesses (alcohol abuse, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), dementia and schizophrenia) and desire for social distance are also investigated.

Data from 3006 participants from a nationwide vignette-based study on mental health literacy were analysed using factor analysis and multiple logistic regression to address the aims. Participants answered questions related to sociodemographic information, causal beliefs of mental illness and their desire for social distance towards those with mental illness.

Physical causes, psychosocial causes and personality causes were endorsed by the sample. Sociodemographic differences including ethnic, gender and age differences in causal beliefs were found in the sample. Differences in causal beliefs were shown across different mental illness vignettes though psychosocial causes was the most highly attributed cause across vignettes (endorsed by 97.9% of respondents), followed by personality causes (83.5%) and last, physical causes (37%). Physical causes were more likely to be endorsed for OCD, depression and schizophrenia. Psychosocial causes were less often endorsed for OCD. Personality causes were less endorsed for dementia but more associated with depression.

The factor structure of the causal beliefs scale is not entirely the same as that found in previous research. Further research on the causal beliefs endorsed by Southeast Asian communities should be conducted to investigate other potential causes such as biogenetic factors and spiritual/supernatural causes. Mental health awareness campaigns should address causes of mental illness as a topic. Lay beliefs in the different causes must be acknowledged and it would be beneficial for the public to be informed of the causes of some of the most common mental illnesses in order to encourage help-seeking and treatment compliance.