Introduction The current study aimed to investigate the rates of anxiety, clinical depression, and suicidality and their changes in health professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and methods The data came from the larger COMET-G study. The study sample includes 12,792 health professionals from 40 countries (62.40% women aged 39.76 ± 11.70; 36.81% men aged 35.91 ± 11.00 and 0.78% non-binary gender aged 35.15 ± 13.03). Distress and clinical depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm, respectively. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses, and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. Results Clinical depression was detected in 13.16% with male doctors and ‘non-binary genders’ having the lowest rates (7.89 and 5.88% respectively) and ‘non-binary gender’ nurses and administrative staff had the highest (37.50%); distress was present in 15.19%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics, and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (24.64% vs. 9.62%; p < 0.0001). Suicidal tendencies were at least doubled in terms of RASS scores. Approximately one-third of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop clinical depression was associated with a history of Bipolar disorder (RR = 4.23). Conclusions The current study reported findings in health care professionals similar in magnitude and quality to those reported earlier in the general population although rates of clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, and adherence to conspiracy theories were much lower. However, the general model of factors interplay seems to be the same and this could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable.

This study aimed to analyze treatment guidelines of 12 SEE countries to identify non-pharmacological interventions recommended for schizophrenia, explore the evidence base supporting recommendations, and assess the implementation of recommended interventions. Desk and content analysis were employed to analyze the guidelines. Experts were surveyed across the 12 countries to assess availability of non-pharmacological treatments in leading mental health institutions, staff training, and inclusion in the official service price list. Most SEE countries have published treatment guidelines for schizophrenia focused on pharmacotherapy. Nine countries—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia—included non-pharmacological interventions. The remaining three countries—Kosovo (UN Resolution), Romania, and Slovenia—have not published such treatment guidelines, however they are on offer in leading institutions. The median number of recommended interventions was seven (range 5–11). Family therapy and psychoeducation were recommended in most treatment guidelines. The majority of recommended interventions have a negative or mixed randomized controlled trial evidence base. A small proportion of leading mental health institutions includes these interventions in their official service price list. The interventions recommended in the treatment guidelines seem to be rarely implemented within mental health services in the SEE countries.

Background and Objectives: Current psychiatric care is increasingly focusing on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Research is still trying to determine the main factors which influence QoL. The present study aims to assess the QoL of patients with chronic psychotic-spectrum disorders, as well as its relation to symptomatology, functionality, adaptive behavior, and perceived level of recovery. Materials and Methods: The study included a sample of 78 patients with chronic psychosis. Symptomatology and illness severity were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S) scales, respectively. The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAFS) and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II (ABAS-II)-Adult Form were used for the assessment of patients’ functionality, and the Quality-of-Life Inventory (QOLI) scale was applied for the evaluation of QoL. Results: According to the CGI-Severity scale, 20.5% of the patients were borderline mentally ill, and 24.4% were mildly ill. The highest number of patients (34.6%) were moderately ill, while 14.1% and 2.6% were markedly ill and severely ill, respectively. Among the moderately ill patients, more than half (63%) were patients with schizophrenia, 18.5% were patients with delusional disorder, and 18.5% were patients with schizoaffective disorder. Most of the patients (43.6%) presented moderate functioning deficiency, while 38.5% of the patients presented severe deficiency, according to the GAFS score. When assessed with the ABAS, we observed that almost half of the patients (44.9%) showed an average functioning across skill areas in the conceptual, social, and practical domains. A percent of 67.9% of the patients presented an average QoL, while 15.4% and 12.8% showed a very low and low QoL. QoL was not influenced by the patients’ symptomatology, gender, and education level. Having children, family support, better social and conceptual skills, and a higher perceived level of recovery was correlated with an increased QoL, hierarchical multiple regression R² = 0.379, F(9, 68) = 2.616, and p = 0.012. Conclusions: Psychiatric interventions in psychosis should focus not only on symptoms’ control, but also on improving social and family support, as well as adaptive skills to increase the patients’ QoL.

This study registered rates of specific treatment options for mental disorders as well as their long-term outcome. The history of mental disorders was used as a proxy for diagnosis. The data came from the COMET-G study (40 countries; 54,826 subjects, 64.73 % females, 35.45±13.51 years old). The analysis included descriptive statistics, Risk Ratios, t-tests, and ANCOVA's. ²⁴.14 % reported a history of any mental disorder (depression >12 %, non-affective psychosis and Bipolar disorder 1 % each, >20 % self-injury, >10 % had attempted suicide, 7.17 % illegal substance abuse). Most patients were not under any kind of treatment (59.44 %) and most were not receiving treatment as recommended (e.g. 90 % of Bipolar and 2/3 of psychotic patients). No treatment at all and psychotherapy as monotherapy were consistently related to poorer outcomes. In anxiety or depression, only antidepressant monotherapy and benzodiazepines, in Bipolar disorder only antipsychotic monotherapy in males and antidepressant monotherapy in females and in non-affective psychosis antipsychotics and psychotherapy in females only, were related to good outcomes. No treatment modality was related to a good outcome in those with a history of self-harm, suicidal attempts, or illegal substance use. Only depression and treatment with antidepressants were related to metabolic syndrome. In the community, the overwhelming majority of mental patients do not receive appropriate treatment or, even worse, no treatment at all. The outcome is unfavourable for the majority and only a few selective treatment options seem to make a difference.