Minoritised young people face a double burden of discrimination through increased risk of stress and differential treatment access. However, acute care pathways for minoritised young people with urgent mental health needs are poorly understood.

To explore variation in stress-related presentations (SRPs) to acute hospitals across racial-ethnic groups in England.

We examined rates, distribution, duration and types of SRPs across racial-ethnic groups in a retrospective cohort of 11- to 15-year-olds with one or more emergency hospital admissions between April 2014 and March 2020. SRPs were defined as emergency admissions for potentially psychosomatic symptoms, self-harm and internalising, externalising and thought disorders.

White British (8–38 per 1000 births) and Mixed White–Black (9–42 per 1000 births) young people had highest rates of SRPs, whereas Black African (5–14 per 1000 births), Indian (6–19 per 1000 births) and White other (4–19 per 1000 births) young people had the lowest rates of SRPs. The proportion of readmissions were highest for Pakistani (47.7%), White British (41.4%) and Mixed White–Black (41.3%) groups. Black Other (36.4%) and White Other (35.8%) groups had the lowest proportions of readmissions. The proportion of admission durations ≥3 days was higher for Black Other (16.6%), Bangladeshi (16.3%), Asian Other (15.9%) and Black Caribbean (15.8%) groups than their White British (11.9%) and Indian (11.8%) peers. The type of SRPs varied across racial-ethnic groups.

Patterns of SRP admissions systematically differed across racial-ethnic groups, indicative of inequitable triage, assessment and treatment processes. These findings highlight the need for implementation of race equality frameworks to address structural racism in healthcare pathways.

In patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD), the ESCAPE-TRD study showed esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine extended release.

To determine the robustness of the ESCAPE-TRD results and confirm the superiority of esketamine nasal spray over quetiapine extended release.

ESCAPE-TRD was a randomised, open-label, rater-blinded, active-controlled phase IIIb trial. Patients had TRD (i.e. non-response to two or more antidepressive treatments within a major depressive episode). Patients were randomised 1:1 to flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray or quetiapine extended release, while continuing an ongoing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The primary end-point was achieving a Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score of ≤10 at Week 8, while the key secondary end-point was remaining relapse free through Week 32 after achieving remission at Week 8. Sensitivity analyses were performed on these end-points by varying the definition of remission based on timepoint, threshold and scale.

Of 676 patients, 336 were randomised to esketamine nasal spray and 340 to quetiapine extended release. All sensitivity analyses on the primary and key secondary end-point favoured esketamine nasal spray over quetiapine extended release, with relative risks ranging from 1.462 to 1.737 and from 1.417 to 1.838, respectively (all p < 0.05). Treatment with esketamine nasal spray shortened time to first and confirmed remission (hazard ratio: 1.711 [95% confidence interval 1.402, 2.087], p < 0.001; 1.658 [1.337, 2.055], p < 0.001).

Esketamine nasal spray consistently demonstrated significant superiority over quetiapine extended release using all pre-specified definitions for remission and relapse. Sensitivity analyses supported the conclusions of the primary ESCAPE-TRD analysis and demonstrated robustness of the results.

Accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BPD) is difficult in clinical practice, with an average delay between symptom onset and diagnosis of about 7 years. A depressive episode often precedes the first manic episode, making it difficult to distinguish BPD from unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD).

We use genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) to identify differential genetic factors and to develop predictors based on polygenic risk scores (PRS) that may aid early differential diagnosis.

Based on individual genotypes from case–control cohorts of BPD and MDD shared through the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, we compile case–case–control cohorts, applying a careful quality control procedure. In a resulting cohort of 51 149 individuals (15 532 BPD patients, 12 920 MDD patients and 22 697 controls), we perform a variety of GWAS and PRS analyses.

Although our GWAS is not well powered to identify genome-wide significant loci, we find significant chip heritability and demonstrate the ability of the resulting PRS to distinguish BPD from MDD, including BPD cases with depressive onset (BPD-D). We replicate our PRS findings in an independent Danish cohort (iPSYCH 2015, N = 25 966). We observe strong genetic correlation between our case–case GWAS and that of case–control BPD.

We find that MDD and BPD, including BPD-D are genetically distinct. Our findings support that controls, MDD and BPD patients primarily lie on a continuum of genetic risk. Future studies with larger and richer samples will likely yield a better understanding of these findings and enable the development of better genetic predictors distinguishing BPD and, importantly, BPD-D from MDD.

Social prescribing is growing rapidly globally as a way to tackle social determinants of health. However, whom it is reaching and how effectively it is being implemented remains unclear.

To gain a comprehensive picture of social prescribing in the UK, from referral routes, reasons, to contacts with link workers and prescribed interventions.

This study undertook the first analyses of a large database of administrative data from over 160 000 individuals referred to social prescribing across the UK. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses and regression modelling, including logistic regression for binary outcomes and negative binomial regression for count variables.

Mental health was the most common referral reason and mental health interventions were the most common interventions prescribed. Between 72% and 85% of social prescribing referrals were from medical routes (primary or secondary healthcare). Although these referrals demonstrated equality in reaching across sociodemographic groups, individuals from more deprived areas, younger adults, men, and ethnic minority groups were reached more equitably via non-medical routes (e.g. self-referral, school, charity). Despite 90% of referrals leading to contact with a link worker, only 38% resulted in any intervention being received. A shortage of provision of community activities – especially ones relevant to mental health, practical support and social relationships – was evident. There was also substantial heterogeneity in how social prescribing is implemented across UK nations.

Mental health is the leading reason for social prescribing referrals, demonstrating its relevance to psychiatrists. But there are inequalities in referrals. Non-medical referral routes could play an important role in addressing inequality in accessing social prescribing and therefore should be prioritised. Additionally, more financial and infrastructural resource and strategic planning are needed to address low intervention rates. Further investment into large-scale data platforms and staff training are needed to continue monitoring the development and distribution of social prescribing.

Understanding risk factors for violence in people with psychosis can inform risk management and violence prevention. However, much of the evidence comes from cross-sectional studies, and previous reviews require updating.

To synthesise evidence from longitudinal studies on risk factors for violence in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder or other affective psychoses.

We searched five bibliographic databases up to June 2022. We identified longitudinal studies reporting risk factors for violence in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychoses using DSM or ICD criteria. If ≥3 independent samples reported a risk factor, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses to provide a pooled estimate. We also meta-analysed risk factors by major domains.

We identified 47 longitudinal studies on risk factors for violence in psychosis, representing 41 independent samples – 21 from the original and 20 from the updated review – and 203 297 individuals. A total of 30 risk factors were present in ≥3 independent samples. Criminal history factors were associated with the greatest risk of violent outcomes (pooled odds ratio 3.50, 95% CI = 2.37, 5.16), followed by substance misuse factors (odds ratio 2.36, 95% CI = 1.99, 2.80). Many treatment-related factors were protective (odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI = 0.34, 0.85). Effect estimates were attenuated in inpatient settings. We also identified novel risk factors, including cannabis use, in a secondary analysis (odds ratio 3.34, 95% CI = 2.32, 4.82).

Using longitudinal evidence, we have validated comorbid substance misuse and criminal history as major risk factors for violence in psychosis. Novel factors such as cannabis use need further replication. Several identified factors are possible intervention targets if associations are found to be causal.