Background: In psychiatry, stigma is an attitude of disapproval towards people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric disorders are common in Asia but some Asians receive inadequate treatment. Previous review found that Asians with mental illness were perceived to be dangerous and aggressive. There is a need for renewed efforts to understand stigma and strategies which can effectively reduce stigma in specific Asian societies. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an up-to-date overview of existing research and status on stigma experienced by psychiatric patients and anti-stigma campaigns in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Korea, and Thailand. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the following databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and local databases. Studies published in English and the official language of included countries/territories were considered for inclusion in the systematic review. Any article on stigma related to any form of psychiatric illness in the six Asian societies was included. Results: One hundred and twenty-three articles were included for this systematic review. This review has six major findings. Firstly, Asians with mental illnesses were considered as dangerous and aggressive, especially patients suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; second, psychiatric illnesses in Asian societies were less socially-acceptable and were viewed as being personal weaknesses; third, stigma experienced by family members was pervasive and this is known as family stigma; fourth, this systemic review reported more initiatives to handle stigma in Asian societies than a decade ago; fifth, there have been initiatives to treat psychiatric patients in the community; and sixth, the role of supernatural and religious approaches to psychiatric illness was not prevailing. Conclusion: This systematic review provides an overview of the available scientific evidence that points to areas of needed intervention to reduce and ultimately eliminate inequities in mental health in Asia.

Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., “Iran”), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as “cannabis,” “marijuana,” “hashish,” “bhang “dual diagnosis,” “use,” “addiction,” “prevalence,” “co-morbidity,” “substance use disorder,” “legalization” or “policy” (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies’ titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries. The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal). Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.

With the uncertainties of COVID-19, people infected with coronavirus present with diverse psychiatric presentations. Some institutions have had to manage their patients with existing protocols, others have had to create them. In this article we aimed to report the challenges and good practices in the management of psychiatric conditions and delirium coexisting with COVID-19 across continents. Early Career Psychiatrists (ECPs) from across five continents were approached to share their experiences on the management of psychiatric conditions in patients with COVID-19 during the current pandemic. We collected information about the experiences from sixteen countries. Commonalities were similar psychiatric presentations and poor preparedness across countries. Differences were varying adjustments made in the management of psychiatric conditions coexisting with COVID-19 and different innovations. Good practices which can be adopted by other countries are novel approaches such as telepsychiatry, proactive consultation-liaison units and enhanced community services targeted at circumventing challenges faced when providing mental health services. These findings highlight the need for global preparedness in the mental health sector during outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the need for concerted efforts targeted at global and locally sensitive adaptation of existing protocols and the development of new guidelines for the management of psychiatric conditions for the present pandemic and subsequent occurrences.