Psychosis as a transdiagnostic and extended phenotype in the general population

A large body of research indicates that weak expressions of positive psychotic symptoms (“psychotic experiences”) can be measured in the general population, and likely represent the behavioural manifestation of distributed multifactorial (genetic and non‐genetic) risk for psychosis. Psychotic experiences are a transdiagnostic phenomenon: the majority of individuals with these experiences have a diagnosis of non‐psychotic disorder, particularly common mental disorder, in which psychotic experiences predict greater illness severity and poorer treatment response. Some of the people with common mental disorder and psychotic experiences will present to mental health services meeting criteria for “clinical high risk”. Treatment of the transdiagnostic dimension of psychosis in individuals with common mental disorder who meet “clinical high risk” criteria thus may improve outcome (which cannot be interpreted as prevention of “schizophrenia”). Subthreshold psychotic experiences are transitory in about 80% of individuals, while around 20% go on to develop persistent psychotic experiences and 7% a psychotic disorder, with an annual transition rate of 0.5‐1%. Persistence is associated, on the one hand, with environmental exposures, particularly childhood trauma, and, on the other, with network‐type dynamic interactions between psychotic experiences themselves (e.g., interactions between hallucinatory experiences and delusional ideation) and between symptom dimensions (e.g., interactions between affective symptoms and psychotic experiences, or interactions between subthreshold negative symptoms and psychotic experiences). The study of psychotic experiences is helping to elucidate the mechanisms by which environmental and genetic influences shape the transdiagnostic expression of psychosis proneness, that is mostly transitory but may first become persistent over time and eventually give rise to transition to a psychotic disorder.     

A critique of the “ultra‐high risk” and “transition” paradigm

The transdiagnostic expression of psychotic experiences in common mental disorder (anxiety/depression/substance use disorder) is associated with a poorer prognosis, and a small minority of people may indeed develop a clinical picture that meets criteria for schizophrenia. However, it appears neither useful nor valid to observe early states of multidimensional psychopathology in young people through the “schizo”‐prism, and apply misleadingly simple, unnecessary and inefficient binary concepts of “risk” and “transition”. A review of the “ultra‐high risk” (UHR) or “clinical high risk” (CHR) literature indicates that UHR/CHR samples are highly heterogeneous and represent individuals diagnosed with common mental disorder (anxiety/depression/substance use disorder) and a degree of psychotic experiences. Epidemiological research has shown that psychotic experiences are a (possibly non‐causal) marker of the severity of multidimensional psychopathology, driving poor outcome, yet notions of “risk” and “transition” in UHR/CHR research are restrictively defined on the basis of positive psychotic phenomena alone, ignoring how baseline differences in multidimensional psychopathology may differentially impact course and outcome. The concepts of “risk” and “transition” in UHR/CHR research are measured on the same dimensional scale, yet are used to produce artificial diagnostic shifts. In fact, “transition” in UHR/CHR research occurs mainly as a function of variable sample enrichment strategies rather than the UHR/CHR “criteria” themselves. Furthermore, transition rates in UHR/CHR research are inflated as they do not exclude false positives associated with the natural fluctuation of dimensional expression of psychosis. Biological associations with “transition” thus likely represent false positive findings, as was the initial claim of strong effects of omega‐3 polyunsatured fatty acids in UHR samples. A large body of UHR/CHR intervention research has focused on the questionable outcome of “transition”, which shows lack of correlation with functional outcome. It may be more productive to consider the full range of person‐specific psychopathology in all young individuals who seek help for mental health problems, instead of “policing” youngsters for the transdiagnostic dimension of psychosis. Instead of the relatively inefficient medical high‐risk approach, a public health perspective, focusing on improved access to a low‐stigma, high‐hope, small scale and youth‐specific environment with acceptable language and interventions may represent a more useful and efficient strategy.     

Beyond the “at risk mental state” concept: transitioning to transdiagnostic psychiatry

The “at risk mental state” for psychosis approach has been a catalytic, highly productive research paradigm over the last 25 years. In this paper we review that paradigm and summarize its key lessons, which include the valence of this phenotype for future psychosis outcomes, but also for comorbid, persistent or incident non‐psychotic disorders; and the evidence that onset of psychotic disorder can at least be delayed in ultra high risk (UHR) patients, and that some full‐threshold psychotic disorder may emerge from risk states not captured by UHR criteria. The paradigm has also illuminated risk factors and mechanisms involved in psychosis onset. However, findings from this and related paradigms indicate the need to develop new identification and diagnostic strategies. These findings include the high prevalence and impact of mental disorders in young people, the limitations of current diagnostic systems and risk identification approaches, the diffuse and unstable symptom patterns in early stages, and their pluripotent, transdiagnostic trajectories. The approach we have recently adopted has been guided by the clinical staging model and adapts the original “at risk mental state” approach to encompass a broader range of inputs and output target syndromes. This approach is supported by a number of novel modelling and prediction strategies that acknowledge and reflect the dynamic nature of psychopathology, such as dynamical systems theory, network theory, and joint modelling. Importantly, a broader transdiagnostic approach and enhancing specific prediction (profiling or increasing precision) can be achieved concurrently. A holistic strategy can be developed that applies these new prediction approaches, as well as machine learning and iterative probabilistic multimodal models, to a blend of subjective psychological data, physical disturbances (e.g., EEG measures) and biomarkers (e.g., neuroinflammation, neural network abnormalities) acquired through fine‐grained sequential or longitudinal assessments. This strategy could ultimately enhance our understanding and ability to predict the onset, early course and evolution of mental ill health, further opening pathways for preventive interventions.     

A meta‐review of “lifestyle psychiatry”: the role of exercise,smoking, diet and sleep in the prevention and treatment of mental disorders

There is increasing academic and clinical interest in how “lifestyle factors” traditionally associated with physical health may also relate to mental health and psychological well‐being. In response, international and national health bodies are producing guidelines to address health behaviors in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. However, the current evidence for the causal role of lifestyle factors in the onset and prognosis of mental disorders is unclear. We performed a systematic meta‐review of the top‐tier evidence examining how physical activity, sleep, dietary patterns and tobacco smoking impact on the risk and treatment outcomes across a range of mental disorders. Results from 29 meta‐analyses of prospective/cohort studies, 12 Mendelian randomization studies, two meta‐reviews, and two meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials were synthesized to generate overviews of the evidence for targeting each of the specific lifestyle factors in the prevention and treatment of depression, anxiety and stress‐related disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Standout findings include: a) convergent evidence indicating the use of physical activity in primary prevention and clinical treatment across a spectrum of mental disorders; b) emerging evidence implicating tobacco smoking as a causal factor in onset of both common and severe mental illness; c) the need to clearly establish causal relations between dietary patterns and risk of mental illness, and how diet should be best addressed within mental health care; and d) poor sleep as a risk factor for mental illness, although with further research required to understand the complex, bidirectional relations and the benefits of non‐pharmacological sleep‐focused interventions. The potentially shared neurobiological pathways between multiple lifestyle factors and mental health are discussed, along with directions for future research, and recommendations for the implementation of these findings at public health and clinical service levels.     

Mental Health Problems in Adolescence and the Interpretation of Unambiguous Threat

Aberrant threat perception has been linked to paranoia, anxiety and other mental health problems, and is widely considered to be a core, transdiagnostic feature of psychopathology. However, to date there has been only limited investigation of whether mental health problems are associated with a biased interpretation of stimuli that have explicit (as opposed to ambiguous) connotations of threat. In the present study, 41 adolescents diagnosed with a mental illness and 45 demographically matched controls were asked to provide danger ratings of stimuli normatively rated as being either low or high in potential threat. All participants were also asked to complete background measures of cognitive function, mental health and wellbeing. The results indicated that the two groups did not differ in their capacity to discriminate between low and high threat stimuli, nor did they differ in the absolute level of threat that they attributed to these stimuli. However, for the control group, the overall level of threat perceived in facial stimuli was correlated with two important indices of mental health (depression and anxiety). No associations emerged in the clinical group. These data are discussed in relation to their potential implications for the role of aberrant threat perception in transdiagnostic models of mental health.     

Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery‐oriented practices in mental health systems

An understanding of recovery as a personal and subjective experience has emerged within mental health systems. This meaning of recovery now underpins mental health policy in many countries. Developing a focus on this type of recovery will involve transformation within mental health systems. Human systems do not easily transform. In this paper, we identify seven mis‐uses (“abuses”) of the concept of recovery: recovery is the latest model; recovery does not apply to “my” patients; services can make people recover through effective treatment; compulsory detention and treatment aid recovery; a recovery orientation means closing services; recovery is about making people independent and normal; and contributing to society happens only after the person is recovered. We then identify ten empirically‐validated interventions which support recovery, by targeting key recovery processes of connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (the CHIME framework). The ten interventions are peer support workers, advance directives, wellness recovery action planning, illness management and recovery, REFOCUS, strengths model, recovery colleges or recovery education programs, individual placement and support, supported housing, and mental health trialogues. Finally, three scientific challenges are identified: broadening cultural understandings of recovery, implementing organizational transformation, and promoting citizenship.     

Designing and scaling up integrated youth mental health care

Mental ill‐health represents the main threat to the health, survival and future potential of young people around the world. There are indications that this is a rising tide of vulnerability and need for care, a trend that has been augmented by the COVID‐19 pandemic. It represents a global public health crisis, which not only demands a deep and sophisticated understanding of possible targets for prevention, but also urgent reform and investment in the provision of developmentally appropriate clinical care. Despite having the greatest level of need, and potential to benefit, adolescents and emerging adults have the worst access to timely and quality mental health care. How is this global crisis to be addressed? Since the start of the century, a range of co‐designed youth mental health strategies and innovations have emerged. These range from digital platforms, through to new models of primary care to new services for potentially severe mental illness, which must be locally adapted according to the availability of resources, workforce, cultural factors and health financing patterns. The fulcrum of this progress is the advent of broad‐spectrum, integrated primary youth mental health care services. They represent a blueprint and beach‐head for an overdue global system reform. While resources will vary across settings, the mental health needs of young people are largely universal, and underpin a set of fundamental principles and design features. These include establishing an accessible, “soft entry” youth primary care platform with digital support, where young people are valued and essential partners in the design, operation, management and evaluation of the service. Global progress achieved to date in implementing integrated youth mental health care has highlighted that these services are being accessed by young people with genuine and substantial mental health needs, that they are benefiting from them, and that both these young people and their families are highly satisfied with the services they receive. However, we are still at base camp and these primary care platforms need to be scaled up across the globe, complemented by prevention, digital platforms and, crucially, more specialized care for complex and persistent conditions, aligned to this transitional age range (from approximately 12 to 25 years). The rising tide of mental ill‐health in young people globally demands that this focus be elevated to a top priority in global health.     

Biomarkers and clinical staging in psychiatry

Personalized medicine is rapidly becoming a reality in today's physical medicine. However, as yet this is largely an aspirational goal in psychiatry, despite significant advances in our understanding of the biochemical, genetic and neurobiological processes underlying major mental disorders. Preventive medicine relies on the availability of predictive tools; in psychiatry we still largely lack these. Furthermore, our current diagnostic systems, with their focus on well‐established, largely chronic illness, do not support a pre‐emptive, let alone a preventive, approach, since it is during the early stages of a disorder that interventions have the potential to offer the greatest benefit. Here, we present a clinical staging model for severe mental disorders and discuss examples of biological markers that have already undergone some systematic evaluation and that could be integrated into such a framework. The advantage of this model is that it explicitly considers the evolution of psychopathology during the development of a mental illness and emphasizes that progression of illness is by no means inevitable, but can be altered by providing appropriate interventions that target individual modifiable risk and protective factors. The specific goals of therapeutic intervention are therefore broadened to include the prevention of illness onset or progression, and to minimize the risk of harm associated with more complex treatment regimens. The staging model also facilitates the integration of new data on the biological, social and environmental factors that influence mental illness into our clinical and diagnostic infrastructure, which will provide a major step forward in the development of a truly pre‐emptive psychiatry.     

Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: review and update

Individuals living with serious mental illness are often difficult to engage in ongoing treatment, with high dropout rates. Poor engagement may lead to worse clinical outcomes, with symptom relapse and rehospitalization. Numerous variables may affect level of treatment engagement, including therapeutic alliance, accessibility of care, and a client's trust that the treatment will address his/her own unique goals. As such, we have found that the concept of recovery‐oriented care, which prioritizes autonomy, empowerment and respect for the person receiving services, is a helpful framework in which to view tools and techniques to enhance treatment engagement. Specifically, person‐centered care, including shared decision making, is a treatment approach that focuses on an individual's unique goals and life circumstances. Use of person‐centered care in mental health treatment models has promising outcomes for engagement. Particular populations of people have historically been difficult to engage, such as young adults experiencing a first episode of psychosis, individuals with coexisting psychotic and substance use disorders, and those who are homeless. We review these populations and outline how various evidence‐based, recovery‐oriented treatment techniques have been shown to enhance engagement. Our review then turns to emerging treatment strategies that may improve engagement. We focus on use of electronics and Internet, involvement of peer providers in mental health treatment, and incorporation of the Cultural Formulation Interview to provide culturally competent, person‐centered care. Treatment engagement is complex and multifaceted, but optimizing recovery‐oriented skills and attitudes is essential in delivery of services to those with serious mental illness.     

Public attitudes towards psychiatry and psychiatric treatment at the beginning of the 21st century: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of population surveys

Public attitudes towards psychiatry are crucial determinants of help‐seeking for mental illness. It has been argued that psychiatry as a discipline enjoys low esteem among the public, and a “crisis” of psychiatry has been noted. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of population studies examining public attitudes towards various aspects of psychiatric care. Our search in PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO and bibliographies yielded 162 papers based on population surveys conducted since 2000 and published no later than 2015. We found that professional help for mental disorders generally enjoys high esteem. While general practitioners are the preferred source of help for depression, mental health professionals are the most trusted helpers for schizophrenia. If respondents have to rank sources of help, they tend to favor mental health professionals, while open questions yield results more favorable to general practitioners. Psychiatrists and psychologists/psychotherapists are equally recommended for the treatment of schizophrenia, while for depression psychologists/psychotherapists are more recommended, at least in Europe and America. Psychotherapy is consistently preferred over medication. Attitudes towards seeking help from psychiatrists or psychologists/psychotherapists as well as towards medication and psychotherapy have markedly improved over the last twenty‐five years. Biological concepts of mental illness are associated with stronger approval of psychiatric help, particularly medication. Self‐stigma and negative attitudes towards persons with mental illness decrease the likelihood of personally considering psychiatric help. In conclusion, the public readily recommends psychiatric help for the treatment of mental disorders. Psychotherapy is the most popular method of psychiatric treatment. A useful strategy to further improve the public image of psychiatry could be to stress that listening and understanding are at the core of psychiatric care.     

Preventive psychiatry: a blueprint for improving the mental health of young people

Preventive approaches have latterly gained traction for improving mental health in young people. In this paper, we first appraise the conceptual foundations of preventive psychiatry, encompassing the public health, Gordon''s, US Institute of Medicine, World Health Organization, and good mental health frameworks, and neurodevelopmentally‐sensitive clinical staging models. We then review the evidence supporting primary prevention of psychotic, bipolar and common mental disorders and promotion of good mental health as potential transformative strategies to reduce the incidence of these disorders in young people. Within indicated approaches, the clinical high‐risk for psychosis paradigm has received the most empirical validation, while clinical high‐risk states for bipolar and common mental disorders are increasingly becoming a focus of attention. Selective approaches have mostly targeted familial vulnerability and non‐genetic risk exposures. Selective screening and psychological/psychoeducational interventions in vulnerable subgroups may improve anxiety/depressive symptoms, but their efficacy in reducing the incidence of psychotic/bipolar/common mental disorders is unproven. Selective physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal psychological/psychoeducational interventions may improve anxiety symptoms but not prevent depressive/anxiety disorders, while universal physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal public health approaches targeting school climate or social determinants (demographic, economic, neighbourhood, environmental, social/cultural) of mental disorders hold the greatest potential for reducing the risk profile of the population as a whole. The approach to promotion of good mental health is currently fragmented. We leverage the knowledge gained from the review to develop a blueprint for future research and practice of preventive psychiatry in young people: integrating universal and targeted frameworks; advancing multivariable, transdiagnostic, multi‐endpoint epidemiological knowledge; synergically preventing common and infrequent mental disorders; preventing physical and mental health burden together; implementing stratified/personalized prognosis; establishing evidence‐based preventive interventions; developing an ethical framework, improving prevention through education/training; consolidating the cost‐effectiveness of preventive psychiatry; and decreasing inequalities. These goals can only be achieved through an urgent individual, societal, and global level response, which promotes a vigorous collaboration across scientific, health care, societal and governmental sectors for implementing preventive psychiatry, as much is at stake for young people with or at risk for emerging mental disorders.     

Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries

Many people identified as having common mental disorders in community surveys do not receive treatment. Modelling has suggested that closing this “treatment gap” should reduce the population prevalence of those disorders. To evaluate the effects of reducing the treatment gap in industrialized countries, data from 1990 to 2015 were reviewed from four English‐speaking countries: Australia, Canada, England and the US. These data show that the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders and symptoms has not decreased, despite substantial increases in the provision of treatment, particularly antidepressants. Several hypotheses for this lack of improvement were considered. There was no support for the hypothesis that reductions in prevalence due to treatment have been masked by increases in risk factors. However, there was little evidence relevant to the hypothesis that improvements have been masked by increased reporting of symptoms because of greater public awareness of common mental disorders or willingness to disclose. A more strongly supported hypothesis for the lack of improvement is that much of the treatment provided does not meet the minimal standards of clinical practice guidelines and is not targeted optimally to those in greatest need. Lack of attention to prevention of common mental disorders may also be a factor. Reducing the prevalence of common mental disorders remains an unsolved challenge for health systems globally, which may require greater attention to the “quality gap” and “prevention gap”. There is also a need for nations to monitor outcomes by using standardized measures of service provision and mental disorders over time.     

The pursuit of euthymia

Psychiatrists often consider the positive characteristics displayed by a patient in their clinical judgment, yet current assessment and treatment strategies are shifted on the side of psychological dysfunction. Euthymia is a transdiagnostic construct referring to the presence of positive affects and psychological well‐being, i.e., balance and integration of psychic forces (flexibility), a unifying outlook on life which guides actions and feelings for shaping future accordingly (consistency), and resistance to stress (resilience and tolerance to anxiety or frustration). There is increasing evidence that the evaluation of euthymia and its components has major clinical implications. Specific instruments (clinical interviews and questionnaires) may be included in a clinimetric assessment strategy encompassing macro‐analysis and staging. The pursuit of euthymia cannot be conceived as a therapeutic intervention for specific mental disorders, but as a transdiagnostic strategy to be incorporated in an individualized therapeutic plan. A number of psychotherapeutic techniques aiming to enhance positive affects and psychological well‐being (such as well‐being therapy, mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy) have been developed and validated in randomized controlled clinical trials. The findings indicate that flourishing and resilience can be promoted by specific interventions leading to a positive evaluation of one's self, a sense of continuing growth and development, the belief that life is purposeful and meaningful, satisfaction with one's relations with others, the capacity to manage effectively one's life, and a sense of self‐determination.     

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the “transdiagnostic” approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self‐defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi‐step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word “transdiagnostic” in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical “TRANSD”iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.     

Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey

We report on a global survey of diagnosing mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists, conducted as a part of the development of the ICD‐11 mental and behavioural disorders classification. The survey assessed these professionals' use of various components of the ICD‐10 and the DSM, their attitudes concerning the utility of these systems, and usage of “residual” (i.e., “other” or “unspecified”) categories. In previous surveys, most mental health professionals reported they often use a formal classification system in everyday clinical work, but very little is known about precisely how they are using those systems. For example, it has been suggested that most clinicians employ only the diagnostic labels or codes from the ICD‐10 in order to meet administrative requirements. The present survey was conducted with clinicians who were members of the Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN), established by the World Health Organization as a tool for global participation in ICD‐11 field studies. A total of 1,764 GCPN members from 92 countries completed the survey, with 1,335 answering the questions with reference to the ICD‐10 and 429 to the DSM (DSM‐IV, DSM‐IV‐TR or DSM‐5). The most frequent reported use of the classification systems was for administrative or billing purposes, with 68.1% reporting often or routinely using them for that purpose. A bit more than half (57.4%) of respondents reported often or routinely going through diagnostic guidelines or criteria systematically to determine whether they apply to individual patients. Although ICD‐10 users were more likely than DSM‐5 users to utilize the classification for administrative purposes, other differences were either slight or not significant. Both classifications were rated to be most useful for assigning a diagnosis, communicating with other health care professionals and teaching, and least useful for treatment selection and determining prognosis. ICD‐10 was rated more useful than DSM‐5 for administrative purposes. A majority of clinicians reported using “residual” categories at least sometimes, with around 12% of ICD‐10 users and 19% of DSM users employing them often or routinely, most commonly for clinical presentations that do not conform to a specific diagnostic category or when there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis. These results provide the most comprehensive available information about the use of diagnostic classifications of mental disorders in ordinary clinical practice.     

Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry

The experience of burnout has been the focus of much research during the past few decades. Measures have been developed, as have various theoretical models, and research studies from many countries have contributed to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of this occupationally‐specific dysphoria. The majority of this work has focused on human service occupations, and particularly health care. Research on the burnout experience for psychiatrists mirrors much of the broader literature, in terms of both sources and outcomes of burnout. But it has also identified some of the unique stressors that mental health professionals face when they are dealing with especially difficult or violent clients. Current issues of particular relevance for psychiatry include the links between burnout and mental illness, the attempts to redefine burnout as simply exhaustion, and the relative dearth of evaluative research on potential interventions to treat and/or prevent burnout. Given that the treatment goal for burnout is usually to enable people to return to their job, and to be successful in their work, psychiatry could make an important contribution by identifying the treatment strategies that would be most effective in achieving that goal.     

“Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences” and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the most up‐to‐date international legal instrument concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. Such persons are taken to include those with serious mental disorders. According to an authoritative interpretation of a crucial Article (Article 12 ‐ Equal recognition before the law) by the UN CRPD Committee, involuntary detention and treatment of people with mental health disabilities are prohibited under the Convention. Both conventional mental health law and “capacity‐based” law are deemed to violate the Convention. However, some other UN bodies are not in full agreement (for example, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), while others are less explicitly absolutist (for example, the Human Rights Council). Furthermore, strong criticisms of the position of the CRPD Committee have been mounted from a number of academic quarters. These criticisms center on whether the role of a person's ability to make a decision can be ignored, no matter the circumstances. Much of the above debate turns on the concept of “legal capacity” and the now often‐repeated precept that one must always respect the “will and preferences” of the person with a disability. However, “will and preferences” remains undefined. In this paper, I offer an analysis of “will and preferences” that can clarify interventions that may be acceptable or non‐acceptable under the terms of the UN Convention.     

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non‐maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high‐quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery‐supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.     

Community mental health care worldwide: current status and further developments

This paper aims to give an overview of the key issues facing those who are in a position to influence the planning and provision of mental health systems, and who need to address questions of which staff, services and sectors to invest in, and for which patients. The paper considers in turn: a) definitions of community mental health care; b) a conceptual framework to use when evaluating the need for hospital and community mental health care; c) the potential for wider platforms, outside the health service, for mental health improvement, including schools and the workplace; d) data on how far community mental health services have been developed across different regions of the world; e) the need to develop in more detail models of community mental health services for low‐ and middle‐income countries which are directly based upon evidence for those countries; f) how to incorporate mental health practice within integrated models to identify and treat people with comorbid long‐term conditions; g) possible adverse effects of deinstitutionalization. We then present a series of ten recommendations for the future strengthening of health systems to support and treat people with mental illness.