Aims: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people (LGBTQ) are at increased risk of traumatization. This systematic review aimed to summarize data regarding the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for LGBTQ people and their subgroups. Methods: Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO and EMBASE were searched until September 2022. Studies reporting a comparative estimation of PTSD among LGBTQ population and the general population (i.e., heterosexual/cisgender), without restrictions on participants’ age and setting for the enrolment, were identified. Meta-analyses were based on odds ratio (OR and 95% confidence intervals [CI]), estimated through inverse variance models with random effects. Results: The review process led to the selection of 27 studies, involving a total of 31,903 LGBTQ people and 273,842 controls, which were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, LGBTQ people showed an increased risk of PTSD (OR: 2.20 [95% CI: 1.85; 2.60]), although there was evidence of marked heterogeneity in the estimate (I² = 91%). Among LGBTQ subgroups, transgender people showed the highest risk of PTSD (OR: 2.52 [95% CI: 2.22; 2.87]) followed by bisexual people (OR: 2.44 [95% CI: 1.05; 5.66]), although these comparisons are limited by the lack of data for other sexual and gender minorities, such as intersex people. Interestingly, the risk of PTSD for bisexual people was confirmed also considering lesbian and gay as control group (OR: 1.44 [95% CI: 1.07; 1.93]). The quality of the evidence was low. Conclusions: LGBTQ people are at higher risk of PTSD compared with their cisgender/heterosexual peers. This evidence may contribute to the public awareness on LGBTQ mental health needs and suggest supportive strategies as well as preventive interventions (e.g., supportive programs, counselling, and destigmatizing efforts) as parts of a tailored health-care planning aimed to reduce psychiatric morbidity in this at-risk population.

Research evidence has consistently documented a higher risk of suicidality in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer (LGBTIQ) population. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to report a detailed description of research data regarding the risk of Attempted Suicide (SA), Suicide Ideation (SI), and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury (NSSI) behaviours for LGBTIQ people and their subgroups. Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting a comparative estimation of SA, SI, and NSSI rates among LGBTIQ population and the general population (i.e. heterosexual/cisgender), without restrictions on participants’ age and setting for the enrolment. Pooled analyses were based on odds ratios (ORs, with 95% CIs), estimated through inverse variance models with random effects. Fifty studies were selected for the quantitative synthesis and included fifty samples involving 3.735.601 controls and 87.252 LGBTIQ people. LGBTIQ people reported an increased risk of SA (OR:4.36[95%CI:3.32;5.71]), SI (OR:3.76[95%CI:3.02;4.69]), and NSSI (OR:4.24[95%CI:3.23;5.55]). Among LGBTIQ subgroups, the Bisexual group has shown the highest risk of suicidality (SA, OR:6.71; SI, OR:5.04; NSSI, OR: 5.03), followed by the Lesbian-Gay for attempted suicide (SA, OR:6.03), and the Transgender-Intersex-Queer for suicide ideation and non-suicidal self-injury (SI and NSSI, OR:3.42). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Our findings have shown that LGBTIQ people report a higher risk of suicidality compared with their cisgender/heterosexual peers. This evidence may contribute to the public awareness on LGBTQI mental health needs and suggest supportive strategies as well as preventive interventions (e.g. supportive programs, counselling, and destigmatizing efforts) as parts of a tailored health-care planning aimed to reduce psychiatric morbidity and mortality in this at-risk population.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately hard impact on refugees and other migrants who are often exposed to the virus with limited means to protect themselves. We tested the hypothesis that during the COVID-19 pandemic, refugees and other migrants have suffered a negative impact on mental health and have been unjustly discriminated for spreading the disease in Europe (data collection from April to November 2020).Methods: Participants in the ApartTogether Survey (N = 8297, after listwise deletion of missing items finalN = 3940) provided data regarding to their difficulties to adhere to preventive recommendations against COVID-19 infection (CARE), self-perceived stigmatization (SS), and psychological distress (PD). Structural Equation Modeling was used to investigate PD as a mediator in the pathway linking CARE to SS, while adjusting for the housing and residence status. To improve confidence in the findings, single hold-out sample cross-validation was performed using a train/test split ratio of 0.8/0.2.Results: In the exploratory set (N = 3159) SS was associated with both CARE (B = 0.200,p < 0.001) and PD (B = 0.455,p < 0.001). Moreover, PD was also associated with CARE (B = 0.094,p = 0.001) and mediated the effect of CARE on SS (proportion mediated = 17.7%, p = 0.001). The results were successfully replicated in the confirmation set (N = 781; total effect = 0.417,p < 0.001; proportion mediated = 29.7%,p < 0.001). Follow-up analyses also found evidence for an opposite effect (i.e., from SS to CARE, B = 0.132;p < 0.001), suggesting that there might be a vicious circle between the self-perceived stigmatization and the access to health care and the use of preventive measures against COVID-19 infection.Conclusions: Refugees and other migrants who had more difficulties in accessing health care and preventive measures against COVID-19 infection experienced worse mental health and increased discrimination. These negative effects appeared to be stronger for those with more insecure housing and residence status, highlighting from one side the specific risk of insecure housing in the impact of COVID-19 upon mental health and infection protection, and for another side the need to proper housing as a strategy to prevent both COVID-19 and mental distress.

It is unclear whether poverty and mental illness are causally related. Using UK Biobank and Psychiatric Genomic Consortium data, we examined evidence of causal links between poverty and nine mental illnesses (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anorexia nervosa, anxiety disorder, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia). We applied genomic structural equation modelling to derive a poverty common factor from household income, occupational income and social deprivation. Then, using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that schizophrenia and ADHD causally contribute to poverty, while poverty contributes to major depressive disorder and schizophrenia but decreases the risk of anorexia nervosa. Poverty may also contribute to ADHD, albeit with uncertainty due to unbalanced pleiotropy. The effects of poverty were reduced by approximately 30% when we adjusted for cognitive ability. Further investigations of the bidirectional relationships between poverty and mental illness are warranted, as they may inform efforts to improve mental health for all.

Background: Research suggests that microaggressions detrimentally impact the mental health of members of marginalized social groups. Aims: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the exposure to microaggressions and related implications on mental health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer (LGBTIQ) people. Method: Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched until January 2023. Studies reporting data on the exposure to microaggressions toward LGBTIQ people were identified. Meta-analyses of rates of exposure to microaggression and of the association between microaggressions and mental health outcomes were based on odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), estimated through inverse variance models with random effects. Results: The review process led to the selection of 17 studies, involving a total of 9036 LGBTIQ people, of which 6827 identifying as cisgenders, and 492 as heterosexuals, were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, LGBTIQ people showed an increased risk of microaggression (SMD: 0.89; 95% CI [0.28, 1.50]), with Transgender people having the highest risk ( OR: 10.0; 95% CI [3.08, 32.4]). Microaggression resulted associated with risk of depression (SMD: 0.21; 95% CI [0.05, 0.37]), anxiety (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI [0.17, 0.40]), suicide attempts ( OR: 1.13; 95% CI [1.08, 1.18]), alcohol abuse ( OR: 1.32; 95% CI [1.13, 1.54]), but not to suicidal ideation ( OR: 1.56; 95% CI [0.64, 3.81]) and cannabis abuse ( OR: 1.44; 95% CI [0.82, 2.55]). The quality of the evidence was limited by the small number of studies. Conclusions: LGBTIQ people are at higher risk of microaggressions compared with their cisgender/heterosexual peers, which may lead to mental health consequences. This evidence may contribute to public awareness of LGBTIQ mental health needs and suggest supportive strategies as well as preventive interventions (e.g., supportive programs and destigmatizing efforts) as parts of tailored health-care planning aimed to reduce psychiatric morbidity in this population.

Background: N-methyl-glycine (sarcosine) may improve symptoms of schizophrenia via NMDA-receptor modulation. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the short- and long-term effectiveness of sarcosine for schizophrenia. Research design and methods: The databases Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched. We included six independent randomized controlled trials of sarcosine as add-on treatment to current antipsychotic medication, involving 234 adult participants with schizophrenia, and reporting data on symptom severity. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used to assess continuous outcomes. Results: In all of the trials, sarcosine was administered orally at 2 g/day. Treatment with sarcosine did not show a significant effect size at any of the pre-established time points (2, 4, 6, or >6 weeks), due to marked quantitative heterogeneity. However, sarcosine was associated with significant reductions of symptom severity in the subgroups of people with chronic schizophrenia and no treatment resistance (namely, without added-on clozapine) in relation to the SMD after 6 weeks treatment at −0.36 and −0.31, respectively. Conclusions: People with chronic and non-refractory schizophrenia may benefit from the use of sarcosine as an add-on treatment to antipsychotic medication. Due to the good tolerability of this compound, future trials with larger sample sizes appear worthwhile.