We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and panic disorder (PD) among citizens in 11 countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. We explored risks and protective factors most associated with the development of these mental health disorders and their course at 68 days follow up. We acquired 9543 unique responses via an online survey that was disseminated in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. The prevalence and new incidence during the pandemic for at least one disorder was 48.6% and 17.6%, with the new incidence of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder being 11.4%, 8.4%, 9.3%, and 3%, respectively. Higher resilience was associated with lower mental health burden for all disorders. Ten to thirteen associated factors explained 79% of the variance in PTSD, 80% in anxiety, 78% in depression, and 89% in PD. To reduce the mental health burden, governments should refrain from implementing many highly restrictive and lasting containment measures. Public health campaigns should focus their effort on alleviating stress and fear, promoting resilience, building public trust in government and medical care, and persuading the population of the measures’ effectiveness. Psychosocial services and resources should be allocated to facilitate individual and community-level recovery from the pandemic.

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens’ personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens’ compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens’ adherence and undermines human rights.

This article analyses trends in violence at work on the basis of victim surveys, work-environment surveys, and press material. It proceeds from the two most common explanations of why violence at work appears to have increased over recent decades. These emphasize shifts in working conditions that have increased employees' victimization risk, and a broadened view of what is regarded as work-related violence. The empirical analyses provide support for both these explanations, and the various dimensions examined—increased reporting propensities, expanded definitions, a reduced tolerance of violence, and altered working conditions—are linked to one another.

Previous research illustrated that the laws regulating involuntary placement and treatment of people with mental-health problems are diverse across countries. International studies comparing satisfaction levels between countries are rare. We compared the opinions of professionals and family members about the operation of the national mental-health law regulating forcibly admission and treatment of psychiatric patients in 11 countries: Ireland, Iceland, England and Wales, Romania, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and India. An online survey design was adopted using a Mental Health Legislation Attitudes Scale (MHLAS). This brief nine-item questionnaire was distributed via email to psychiatrists, general practitioners, acute and community mental-health nurses, tribunal members, police officers and family members in each collaborating country. The levels of agreement/disagreement were measured on a Likert scale. Data were analysed both per question and with regard to a total MHLAS ‘approval’ score computed as a sum of the nine questions. We found that respondents in England and Wales and Denmark expressed the highest approval for their national legislation (76% and 74%, respectively), with those in India and Ireland expressing the lowest approval (65% and 64%, respectively). Almost all countries had a more positive attitude in comparison to Ireland on the admission criteria for involuntary placement and the way people are transferred to psychiatric hospitals. There are significant variations across Europe and beyond in terms of approval for how the national mental-health law framework operates in each country.

Workplace violence is a complex occupational hazard that health care staffs are facing in today’s work environment. This study examines the safety measures recommended by staff in occupational injury reports filed in the wake of violence- and threat-related injuries. The results suggest that measures relating to psychosocial factors and structural factors such as adequate staffing are much more important than surveillance, staff training, and penal sanctions.

Safety and security are essential concepts for everyone involved in mental health care. Safety means the absence of potential harm, while security refers to the protection against deliberate, external threats. The focus on the management of safety and security changes from Safety-I (avoiding that something goes wrong) to Safety-II (ensuring that everything goes right). Due to societal dilemmas, clinical practice needs to address safety and security for everyone involved in mental services, instead of primarily safety and security of professionals. The primary focus of safety management should be on relational safety and security, instead of procedural and environmental safety and security. Several organisational innovations, such as High Intensive Care, Six Core Strategies, and Safewards, assist in ensuring safety and security for all involved. People working or staying in mental health wards need to be safe and secure but also need to feel safe and secure.