: The First Key Symposium was held in Stockholm, Sweden, 2–5 September 2003. The aim of the symposium was to integrate clinical and epidemiological perspectives on the topic of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). A multidisciplinary, international group of experts discussed the current status and future directions of MCI, with regard to clinical presentation, cognitive and functional assessment, and the role of neuroimaging, biomarkers and genetics. Agreement on new perspectives, as well as recommendations for management and future research were discussed by the international working group. The specific recommendations for the general MCI criteria include the following: (i) the person is neither normal nor demented; (ii) there is evidence of cognitive deterioration shown by either objectively measured decline over time and/or subjective report of decline by self and/or informant in conjunction with objective cognitive deficits; and (iii) activities of daily living are preserved and complex instrumental functions are either intact or minimally impaired.

Objectives: To assess the public's recognition of mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of various treatments (“mental health literacy”). Design: A cross‐sectional survey, in 1995, with structured interviews using vignettes of a person with either depression or schizophrenia. Participants: A representative national sample of 2031 individuals aged 18–74 years; 1010 participants were questioned about the depression vignette and 1021 about the schizophrenia vignette. Results: Most of the participants recognised the presence of some sort of mental disorder: 72% for the depression vignette (correctly labelled as depression by 39%) and 84% for the schizophrenia vignette (correctly labelled by 27%). When various people were rated as likely to be helpful or harmful for the person described in the vignette for depression, general practitioners (83%) and counsellors (74%) were most often rated as helpful, with psychiatrists (51%) and psychologists (49%) less so. Corresponding data for the schizophrenia vignette were: counsellors (81%), GPs (74%), psychiatrists (71%) and psychologists (62%). Many standard psychiatric treatments (antidepressants, antipsychotics, electroconvulsive therapy, admission to a psychiatric ward) were more often rated as harmful than helpful, and some nonstandard treatments were rated highly (increased physical or social activity, relaxation and stress management, reading about people with similar problems). Vitamins and special diets were more often rated as helpful than were antidepressants and antipsychotics. Conclusion: If mental disorders are to be recognised early in the community and appropriate intervention sought, the level of mental health literacy needs to be raised. Further, public understanding of psychiatric treatments can be considerably improved.

For major physical diseases, it is widely accepted that members of the public will benefit by knowing what actions they can take for prevention, early intervention, and treatment. However, this type of public knowledge about mental disorders (mental health literacy) has received much less attention. There is evidence from surveys in several countries for deficiencies in (a) the public's knowledge of how to prevent mental disorders, (b) recognition of when a disorder is developing, (c) knowledge of help-seeking options and treatments available, (d) knowledge of effective self-help strategies for milder problems, and (e) first aid skills to support others affected by mental health problems. Nevertheless, there is evidence that a range of interventions can improve mental health literacy, including whole-of-community campaigns, interventions in educational settings, Mental Health First Aid training, and information websites. There is also evidence for historical improvements in mental health literacy in some countries. Increasing the community's mental health literacy needs to be a focus for national policy and population monitoring so that the whole community is empowered to take action for better mental health.

Background: Although the benefits of public knowledge of physical diseases are widely accepted, knowledge about mental disorders (mental health literacy) has been comparatively neglected.Aims: To introduce the concept of mental health literacy to a wider audience, to bring together diverse research relevant to the topic and to identify gaps in the area.Method: A narrative review within a conceptual framework.Results: Many members of the public cannot recognise specific disorders or different types of psychological distress. They differ from mental health experts in their beliefs about the causes of mental disorders and the most effective treatments. Attitudes which hinder recognition and appropriate help-seeking are common. Much of the mental health information most readily available to the public is misleading. However, there is some evidence that mental health literacy can be improved.Conclusions: If the public's mental health literacy is not improved, this may hinder public acceptance of evidence-based mental health care. Also, many people with common mental disorders may be denied effective self-help and may not receive appropriate support from others in the community.

Synopsis: Data from four studies were used to assess the psychometric properties of the 26 IQCODE items. The items were assessed in terms of item–total correlations, test–retest reliabilities, correlations with indicators of current cognitive functioning and correlations with indicators of pre-morbid cognitive functioning. These data were used to develop a 16-item short form. The short form was cross-validated in a new sample using dementia/delirium diagnosis as the validity standard. It was found to perform as well as the long form.