The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) Summer School allows psychiatric trainees and early career psychiatrists (ECPs) from all over Europe to meet, network, and learn together. After the 2020 edition being cancelled due to COVID-19, the 10th edition in 2021 focused for the first time on research and was conducted remotely.

To provide an overview and feedback about the first Virtual EPA Research Summer School as a new way to encourage international networking during COVID-19.

The School was organized by the EPA Secretary for Education, and 4 Faculty members. It started with a “breaking the ice session” one week before and then a two-days meeting on 23-24 September 2021 using an online video-platform. This was preceded by all the 21 participants (from 18 different countries) recording a short 4-minute video presentation, which was uploaded and shared with other participants and Faculty.

Participants were divided on a voluntary basis into three working groups: 1) “Drug repurposing: overcoming challenges in pharmacoepidemiology” 2) “Psychopathological research in psychiatry”; 3) “How to conduct a cross-sectional survey?”. The Summer School program was composed of plenary sessions with lectures by the Faculty members, discussion sessions, and working groups time. At the end, each group presented a summary of the work done to the rest of the participants.

Although the remote format limits social interactions during the Summer School, overall participants’ high satisfaction and productivity indicate that not only online formats, but also the topic of research might be covered in future editions.

No significant relationships.

Digital mental health interventions and digital psychiatry have been rapidly implemented over the past decade, particularly with the intent to offer a cost-effective solution in those circumstances in which the current mental health services and infrastructure are not able to properly accommodate the patients’ needs. However, mental health workforce is often poorly theoretical/practical trained in digital psychiatry and in delivering remote consultations safely and effectively, not being common to own curricula-specific training requirements in digital psychiatry and skills.

Our aim is evaluating the level of training, knowledge, experience and perception regarding the topic of digital psychiatry in a sample constituted by medical students, psychiatry trainees and early career psychiatrists from WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions (APAC).

A web-based international cross-sectional survey was carried out to specifically investigating digita psychiatry in APAC regions.

An overall lack of theoretical and/or practical training on new digital tools and digital health interventions in psychiatry has been observed. The level of training influences knowledge background, which, in turn, influences young professionals’ perceptions and opinions regarding digital psychiatry and interventions in mental health.

Implementing psychiatry training programs may significantly improve the level of knowledge and use of digital tools in mental healthcare. Moreover, mental health services and infrastructures should be properly adapted to the digital era, considering the overall weak and heterogeneous technical support and equipment, issues of internet connectivity and other administrative related challenges observed in APAC.

No significant relationships.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of digital psychiatry (DP) in everyday clinical practice, resulting in the need for a skilled healthcare workforce.

Our purpose was to investigate the level of training, knowledge and expertise of young mental health professionals and medical students in DP, as well as exploring their beliefs and experiences in this field.

An ad hoc cross-sectional survey was designed and administered to Italian medical students, psychiatry trainees, and early career psychiatrists.

Most of the sample declared that the topic of DP was never discussed within their academic training (89.1%), mainly revealing an overall lack of knowledge on DP. Nevertheless, they mostly declared that DP represents a valuable therapeutic tool in mental health (80%) and that the academic background should include a dedicated course/module (54.4%). Moreover, most subjects declared that DP is less effective than in-person interventions (73.2%), despite the emerging evidence that being trained in DP is significantly associated with the belief that digital and in-person interventions are comparable in their effectiveness (p≤0.05).

During the current pandemic, DP represented an ideal response to the need for physical distancing by ensuring the advantage of greater access to care. However, DP interventions are still uncommon, and there remains a certain resistance to their use in mental health care. The lack of formal training during the academic training could be a limiting factor. Therefore, addressing these issues in academic settings could be crucial to spreading this innovative practice also in the post-COVID-19 era.

No significant relationships.

The global rise in mental health issues calls for a strong psychiatry workforce. Yet, psychiatry training worldwide is facing recruitment challenges, causing unfilled consultant posts and possibly threatening the quality of patient care. An in-depth understanding of trainees’ progression through training is warranted to explore what happens to recruited trainees during training.

To uncover current trends in psychiatry trainees’ progression through training in the UK.

This national retrospective cohort study with data from the UK Medical Education Database used discrete-time survival analysis to analyse training progression for those trainees who started their core psychiatry post in 2012–2017 (2820 trainees; 59.6% female, 67.6% UK graduates (UKGs)). The impact of sociodemographic characteristics on training progression were also investigated.

The overall probability of completing training in 6 years (minimum years required to complete psychiatry training in the UK) was 17.2% (ranging from 4.8% for non-UKG females to 29% for UKG males). The probability to not progress was highest (57.1%) from core to specialty training. For UKGs, trainees from ethnicities other than White, trainees with a disability, and trainees who had experienced childhood social deprivation (measured as entitlement to free school meals) had a significantly (P ≤ 0.02) lower probability of completing training in 6 years.

Less than one in five psychiatry trainees are likely to complete training in 6 years and this probability varies across groups of doctors. Completing psychiatry training in 6 years is, therefore, the exception rather than the norm and this has important implications for trainees, those planning psychiatry workforces or responsible for psychiatry training.