(1) Background: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between identifying as transgender and substance use. (2) Methods: We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, and PsycINFO on 21 July 2021. (3) Results: Twenty studies comparing transgender and cisgender people were included in this work, accounting for a total of 2,376,951 participants (18,329 of whom were transgender). These articles included data on current tobacco use, current tobacco use disorder, current alcohol use, current alcohol use disorder, lifetime substance (all) use, current substance use (excluding tobacco and alcohol), current use of specific substances (excluding tobacco and alcohol and including cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, stimulants, heroin, opiates, cannabis, marijuana, LSD, hallucinogens, steroids, inhalants, sedatives, Ritalin or Adderall, diet pills, cold medicine, prescription medications, polysubstance, other club drugs, and other illegal drugs), and current substance use disorder (excluding tobacco and alcohol). We used the ORs and their 95% CIs to state the association between identifying as transgender and those variables. The control reference category used in all cases was cisgender. We employed a random-effects model. Transgender people were more likely to use tobacco (odds ratio (OR) = 1.65; 95% CI [1.37, 1.98]), have used substances throughout their lives (OR = 1.48; 95% CI [1.30, 1.68]), and present current use of specific substances (OR = 1.79; 95% CI [1.54, 2.07]). When current alcohol and substance use in general and tobacco, alcohol, and substance use disorders specifically were considered, the likelihood did not differ from that of cisgender people. (4) Conclusions: The presence of substance use disorders did not differ between transgender and cisgender people. Considering this population as consumers or as addicted may be a prejudice that perpetuates stigma. Nonetheless, transgender people were more likely to use tobacco and other substances, but not alcohol. Hypothetically, this might be an emotional regulation strategy, a maladaptive mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences, or could respond to minority stress, produced by stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and harassment. It is of particular importance to implement policies against discrimination and stigmatisation and to adapt prevention and treatment services so that they are inclusive of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

There is an association between smoking and suicide, even though the direction and nature of this relationship remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between smoking and suicidal behaviours (ideation, planning, suicide attempts, and death by suicide). On 24 August 2020, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, TRIP, and SCIENCE DIRECT databases for relevant articles on this topic. Twenty prospective cohort studies involving 2,457,864 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with never smokers, former and current smokers had an increased risk of death by suicide (relative risk [RR] = 1.31; 95% CI [1.13, 1.52] and RR = 2.41; 95% CI [2.08, 2.80], respectively), ideation (RR = 1.35; 95% CI [1.31, 1.39] and RR = 1.84; 95% CI [1.21, 2.78]), and attempted suicide (RR = 1.27; 95% CI [0.56, 2.87] and RR = 1.71; 95% CI [0.73, 3.97]). Moreover, compared to never smokers, current smoker women (RR = 2.51; 95% CI [2.06–3.04] had an increased risk of taking their own life (Q = 13,591.53; p < 0.001) than current smoker men (RR = 2.06; 95% CI [1.62–2.62]. Furthermore, smoking exposure (former and current smokers) was associated with a 1.74-fold increased risk (95% CI [1.54, 1.96]) of suicidal behaviour (death by suicide, ideation, planning, or attempts). Thus, because of the prospective relationship between smoking and suicidal behaviours, smoking should be included in suicide risk scales as a useful and easy item to evaluate suicide risk.

Sex differences are poorly studied within the field of mental health, even though there is evidence of disparities (with respect to brain anatomy, activation patterns, and neurochemistry, etc.) that can significantly influence the etiology and course of mental disorders. The objective of this work was to review sex differences in adolescents (aged 13–18 years) diagnosed with ADHD (according to the DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 criteria) in terms of substance use disorder (SUD), prevalence, pharmacological therapy and mental health. We searched three academic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) and performed a narrative review of a total of 21 articles. The main conclusions of this research were (1) girls with ADHD are more at risk of substance use than boys, although there was no consensus on the prevalence of dual disorders; (2) girls are less frequently treated because of underdiagnosis and because they are more often inattentive and thereby show less disruptive behavior; (3) together with increased impairment in cognitive and executive functioning in girls, the aforementioned could be related to greater substance use and poorer functioning, especially in terms of more self-injurious behavior; and (4) early diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, especially in adolescent girls, is essential to prevent early substance use, the development of SUD, and suicidal behavior.

Little data are available for women diagnosed with a dual diagnosis. However, dual diagnosis in women presents increased stigma, social penalties, and barriers to access to treatment than it does for men. Indeed, it increases the probability of suffering physical or sexual abuse, violent victimization, gender-based violence, unemployment, social exclusion, social-role problems, and physical and psychiatric comorbidities. Thus, a transversal sex and gender-based perspective is required to adequately study and treat dual diagnosis. For this, sex and gender factors should be included in every scientific analysis; professionals should review their own prejudices and stereotypes and train themselves specifically from a gender perspective; administrations should design and provide specific treatment resources for women; and we could all contribute to a structural social transformation that goes beyond gender mandates and norms and reduces the risk of abuse and violence inflicted on women.

Although the required personal protective equipment was not available during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, Spanish healthcare workers continued to work, being dubbed as ‘healthcare kamikazes’. Two possible reasons are moral courage and purpose in life that, in turn, would modulate the appearance of psychopathology. Cross-sectional study was carried out in 90 Spanish and 59 Mexican healthcare professionals, and 56 medical and nursing students. Spanish professionals had suffered more work and overall exposure (M = 8.30; SD = 2.57 and M = 9.03; SD = 2.66) than Mexican (M = 5.10; SD = 1.87 and M = 5.55; SD = 2.35). Mexican professionals had fewer anxiety disorders (30.5%; n = 18) and a lower depression score (M = 4.45; SD = 5.63) than the Spanish (43.7%; n = 38; and M = 8.69; SD = 8.07). Spanish professionals more often experienced acute stress disorder (32.6%; n = 29). Purpose in life, in addition to having a direct protective effect on psychopathology, also modulated the relationship between personal and family exposure and psychopathology. In conclusion, purpose in life protects against the appearance of psychopathology in healthcare workers with personal and family exposure to SARS-CoV-2.