The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.

To compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.

A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability.

We identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = −0.325, 95% CI −0.640 to −0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018–0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312–0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356–594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564).

Telepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.

Childhood and lifetime adversity may reduce brain serotonergic (5-HT) neurotransmission by epigenetic mechanisms.

We tested the relationships of childhood adversity and recent stress to serotonin 1A (5-HT1A) receptor genotype, DNA methylation of this gene in peripheral blood monocytes and in vivo 5-HT1A receptor binding potential (BPF) determined by positron emission tomography (PET) in 13 a priori brain regions, in participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) and healthy volunteers (controls).

Medication-free participants with MDD (n = 192: 110 female, 81 male, 1 other) and controls (n = 88: 48 female, 40 male) were interviewed about childhood adversity and recent stressors and genotyped for rs6295. DNA methylation was assayed at three upstream promoter sites (−1019, −1007, −681) of the 5-HT1A receptor gene. A subgroup (n = 119) had regional brain 5-HT1A receptor BPF quantified by PET. Multi-predictor models were used to test associations between diagnosis, recent stress, childhood adversity, genotype, methylation and BPF.

Recent stress correlated positively with blood monocyte methylation at the −681 CpG site, adjusted for diagnosis, and had positive and region-specific correlations with 5-HT1A BPF in participants with MDD, but not in controls. In participants with MDD, but not in controls, methylation at the −1007 CpG site had positive and region-specific correlations with binding potential. Childhood adversity was not associated with methylation or BPF in participants with MDD.

These findings support a model in which recent stress increases 5-HT1A receptor binding, via methylation of promoter sites, thus affecting MDD psychopathology.

Common postpartum mental health (PMH) disorders such as depression and anxiety are preventable, but determining individual-level risk is difficult.

To create and internally validate a clinical risk index for common PMH disorders.

Using population-based health administrative data in Ontario, Canada, comprising sociodemographic, clinical and health service variables easily collectible from hospital birth records, we developed and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders and converted the final model into a risk index. We developed the model in 75% of the cohort (n = 152 362), validating it in the remaining 25% (n = 75 772).

The 1-year prevalence of common PMH disorders was 6.0%. Independently associated variables (forming the mnemonic PMH CAREPLAN) that made up the risk index were: (P) prenatal care provider; (M) mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy; (H) psychiatric hospital admissions or emergency department visits; (C) conception type and complications; (A) apprehension of newborn by child services (newborn taken into care); (R) region of maternal origin; (E) extremes of gestational age at birth; (P) primary maternal language; (L) lactation intention; (A) maternal age; (N) number of prenatal visits. In the index (scored 0–39), 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5 to 40.5%. Discrimination (C-statistic) was 0.69 in development and validation samples; the 95% confidence interval of expected risk encompassed observed risk for all scores in development and validation samples, indicating adequate risk index calibration.

Individual-level risk of developing a common postpartum mental health disorder can be estimated with data feasibly collectable from birth records. Next steps are external validation and evaluation of various cut-off scores for their utility in guiding postpartum individuals to interventions that reduce their risk of illness.

Collaborative care (CC) and consultation liaison (CL) are two conceptual models aiming to improve mental healthcare in primary care. The effects of these models have not been compared in a Danish setting.

To examine the effects of CC versus CL for persons with anxiety and depression in Danish general practices (trial registration: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201).

Two randomised parallel superiority trials for anxiety disorders and depression were carried out in 2018–2019. In the CC-group, care managers collaborated with general practitioners (GPs) to provide evidence-based treatment according to structured treatment plans. They followed up and provided psychoeducation and/or cognitive–behavioural therapy. The GPs initiated pharmacological treatment if indicated, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. In the CL-group, the intervention consisted of the GP's usual treatment. However, the psychiatrist and care manager could be consulted. Primary outcomes were depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II, BDI-II) in the depression trial and anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI) in the anxiety trial at 6-month follow-up.

In total, 302 participants with anxiety disorders and 389 participants with depression were included. A significant difference in BDI-II score was found in the depression trial, with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group (CC: 12.7, 95% CI 11.4–14.0; CL: 17.5, 95% CI 16.2–18.9; Cohen's d = −0.50, P ≤ 0.001). There was a significant difference in BAI in the anxiety trial (CC: 14.9, 95% CI 13.5–16.3; CL: 17.9, 95% CI 16.5–19.3; Cohen's d = −0.34, P ≤ 0.001), with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group.

Collaborative care was an effective model to improve outcomes for persons with depression and anxiety disorders.

Guided self-help (GSH) for anxiety is widely implemented in primary care services because of service efficiency gains, but there is also evidence of poor acceptability, low effectiveness and relapse.

The aim was to compare preferences for, acceptability and efficacy of cognitive–behavioural guided self-help (CBT-GSH) versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help (CAT-GSH).

This was a pragmatic, randomised, patient preference trial (Clinical trials identifier: NCT03730532). The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was the primary outcome at 8- and 24-week follow-up. Interventions were delivered competently on the telephone via structured workbooks over 6–8 (30–35 min) sessions by trained practitioners.

A total of 271 eligible participants were included, of whom 19 (7%) accepted being randomised and 252 (93%) chose their treatment. In the preference cohort, 181 (72%) chose CAT-GSH and 71 (28%) preferred CBT-GSH. BAI outcomes in the preference and randomised cohorts did not differ at 8 weeks (−0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.52 to 2.92) or 24 weeks (0.85, 95% CI −2.87 to 4.57). After controlling for allocation method and baseline covariates, there were no differences between CAT-GSH and CBT-GSH at 8 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639) or at 24 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639). Mean BAI change from baseline was a reduction of 9.28 for CAT-GSH and 9.78 for CBT-GSH at 8 weeks and 12.90 for CAT-GSH and 12.43 for CBT-GSH at 24 weeks.

Patients accessing routine primary care talking treatments prefer to choose the intervention they receive. CAT-GSH expands the treatment offer in primary care for patients with anxiety seeking a brief but analytically informed GSH solution.