This editorial reflects on current methodological trends in translational research in mental health. It aims to build a bridge between two fields that are frequently siloed off from each other: interventional research and phenomenologically informed research. Recent years have witnessed a revival of phenomenological approaches in mental health, often – but not only – as a means of connecting the subjective character of experience with neurobiological explanatory accounts of illness. Rich phenomenological knowledge accrued in schizophrenia, and wider psychosis research, has opened up new opportunities for improving prediction, early detection, diagnosis, prognostic stratification, treatment and ethics of care. Novel qualitative studies of delusions and hallucinations have challenged longstanding assumptions about their nature and meaning, uncovering highly complex subjective dimensions that are not adequately captured by quantitative methodologies. Interdisciplinary and participatory research efforts, informed by phenomenological insights, have prompted revisions of pre-established narratives of mental disorder dominated by a dysfunction framework and by researcher-centric outcome measures. Despite these recent advances, there has been relatively little effort to integrate and translate phenomenological insights across applied clinical research, with the goal of producing more meaningful, patient-valued results. It is our contention that phenomenological psychopathology – as the basic science of psychiatry – represents an important methodology for advancing evidence-based practices in mental health, and ultimately improving real-world outcomes. Setting this project into motion requires a greater emphasis on subjectivity and the structures of experience, more attention to the quality and patient-centredness of outcome measures, and the identification of treatment targets that matter most to patients.

A Consensus Conference of clinicians, researchers, public health specialists and users was convened in Italy to review efficacy, effectiveness, treatment appropriateness and access to care for anxiety and depression, and to consider the role of psychological therapies. Expert opinion was sought concerning identification of people requiring psychological therapies according to levels of symptom severity matched to corresponding levels of treatment intensity, suitability of psychological therapies for subclinical anxiety or depression, definition of a minimum level of information on evidence-based psychotherapies to be provided by university medical and psychology courses, initiatives to raise awareness among potential users and decision makers on the role and effectiveness of psychological therapies in healthcare. The expert jury concluded that a number of psychological therapy models endorsed by most authoritative guidelines are supported by research showing their effectiveness at least equal to the drugs used in common mental disorders (CMDs). Such therapies are under-represented in the Italian public health system, leading many people to resort to the private sector, resulting in unacceptable wealth discrimination. The difficulty of accessing psychological treatments often entails the use of drug therapies in cases where they are not indicated. Starting from these assumptions, the experts recommended the promotion of better and timely recognition of anxiety and depressive disorders and their classification in terms of symptom intensity and functional impairment, differentiating subthreshold mood swings from clinical forms, to foster outcome studies of psychotherapies in CMDs in Italy, to introduce a stepped care model structured according to levels of intensity of treatment, based on wellbeing support strategies in nonmedical contexts for subthreshold situations, self-help, support and psychoeducation as frontline interventions in mild clinical forms, evidence-based psychotherapies in moderate and severe forms, with the option of combining psychological treatment and appropriate drug therapy in the most severe cases.

Mental disorders are one of the largest contributors to the burden of disease globally, this holds also for children and adolescents, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prevalence and severity of these disorders are influenced by social determinants, including exposure to adversity. When occurring early in life, these latter events are referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).

In this editorial, we provide an overview of the literature on the role of ACEs as social determinants of mental health through the lenses of global mental health. While the relation between ACEs and mental health has been extensively explored, most research was centred in higher income contexts. We argue that findings from the realm of global mental health should be integrated into that of ACEs, e.g. through preventative and responsive psychosocial interventions for children, adolescents and their caregivers. The field of global mental health should also undertake active efforts to better address ACEs in its initiatives, all with the goal of reducing the burden of mental disorders among children and adolescents globally.

The need to ensure that research evidence is adopted by health systems and is informed by lived experience expertise has been increasingly recognised in mental health research. In the field of global mental health (GMH), though some progress has been made, the meaningful engagement of key stakeholders in research remains low. This editorial outlines recommendations to support the meaningful engagement of policy makers and people with lived or living experience of mental illness in GMH research. Recommendations include: increasing funding structures that are designed to support meaningful engagement; urging institutions to consider administrative structures that support engagement with lower resourced partners; promoting capacity development opportunities and resources to support researchers to promote meaningful engagement; developing research governance structures that include key stakeholders; and, taking steps to ensure the needs of diverse stakeholders are met through their engagement in research. Examples of good practice from these areas are provided. Though not an exhaustive list of recommendations, this editorial represents a call to the GMH research community to take a deliberate and proactive approach to prioritising meaningful stakeholder engagement in GMH research with the ultimate goal of improving accessible and appropriate mental health care.

Abstract employment is critically important in mental health care. Unemployment worsens mental health and gaining employment can improve mental health, even for people with the most serious mental illnesses. In this editorial, we argue for a new treatment paradigm in mental health that emphasises employment, because supported employment is an evidence-based intervention that can help the majority of people with mental health disability to succeed in integrated, competitive employment. Unlike most mental health treatments, employment engenders self-reliance and leads to other valued outcomes, including self-confidence, the respect of others, personal income and community integration. It is not only an effective short-term treatment but also one of the only interventions that lessen dependence on the mental health system over time.

Children exposed to trauma are predisposed to develop a number of mental health syndromes. They are prone to under-treatment with effective psychosocial interventions and over-treatment with high-risk psychotropic medications, especially polypharmacy and the use of antipsychotics for unapproved conditions. We review the evidence for psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for mental health problems associated with high exposure to childhood trauma – identifying those in foster care as an index group – and the frequency of high-risk pharmacological practices. We describe current efforts to reduce over-treatment of children with high-risk psychotropic medications and propose further recommendations to protect and provide effective care for these vulnerable children.

Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are likely to receive high-risk prescribing practices, such as polypharmacy, long-term use of psychotropic medications, and overuse of antipsychotics. Behavioural interventions, such as applied behavioural analysis, are evidence-based practices for children with IDD and should be the first-line treatment. Short-term use of psychotropic medications may be helpful in reducing the severity and frequency of challenging behaviours while evidence-based behavioural interventions are pursued. In this essay, we offer practical guidelines for better care.

There had been a long way to go before we felt comfortable about even discussing the issues revolving around the concept of ‘schizophrenia’, let alone reckoning on mere semantic revision. In this editorial, we aim to extend our discussion on the reasons behind the slow death of the concept of ‘schizophrenia’ and the benefits of changing the name and embracing a spectrum approach with an umbrella psychosis spectrum disorder (PSD) category (similar to autism spectrum disorder) that goes further than a mere semantic revision. We attempted to cover the topic of the renaming by providing five most pertinent points categorised under five domains: reasons, signals, challenges, promises and steps for the change. Admittedly, even a modest revision, such as classifying all psychotic disorder categories under an umbrella category of PSD, and abolishing the term schizophrenia requires careful deliberation and some effort in the beginning, but the revision is well worth the effort considering the benefits in the long run. Renaming a particular form of mental suffering should be accompanied by a broader debate of the entire diagnosis-evidence-based-practice (EBP)-symptom-reduction model as the normative factor driving the content and organisation of mental health services that may be detached from patients’ needs and reality, overlooks the trans-syndromal structure of mental difficulties, appraises the significance of the technical features over the relational and ritual components of care, and underestimates the lack of EBP group-to-individual generalisability. Individuals may make great strides in attaining well-being by accommodating to living with mental vulnerabilities through building resilience in the social and existential domains. Changing the name and the concept of ‘schizophrenia’, which goes beyond a mere semantic revision, may become the first step that allows catalysation of the process of modernising psychiatric science and services worldwide.

In many European countries, deinstitutionalisation has been an ongoing process over the last few decades. Mental health organisations were transformed to provide support in a more integrated and comprehensive manner, preferably in their own homes in the community. Yet, despite the welcome aspiration of community integration for all, people with complex mental health problems (also termed severe mental illness) have continued to require high levels of support, in inpatient settings and in the community. This group's needs make them highly dependent on their caregivers. The attitudes, knowledge and skills of the staff providing treatment and support is crucial to their recovery. Rehabilitation programmes provide a much-needed framework to guide practitioners and help them organise and focus their recovery-oriented approach. In this editorial, we will provide a non-exhaustive overview of such rehabilitation programmes and interventions to illuminate the wide scope and practical usability of these interventions for this group of people with complex mental health problems.

A substantial proportion of people with mental health conditions do not adhere to prescribed pharmacological treatments. Poor adherence is probably one of the most critical elements contributing to relapse in people with schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders. In order to tackle this global issue, in November 2017 the Food and Drug Administration approved a tablet formulation of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole embedded with a novel digital adherence-assessment device. In this commentary, we critically appraised the potential beneficial and harmful consequences of this new digital formulation of aripiprazole, and we highlighted expected implications for clinical practice.

In the treatment of resistant schizophrenia, a number of meta-analyses attempted to quantify the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic (AP) polypharmacy v. monotherapy with contradictory results. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the efficacy and tolerability of AP combination v. monotherapy in schizophrenia. It included 31 studies: 21 double-blind (considered high-quality studies) and 10 open-label (considered low-quality studies). The meta-analysis showed that, overall, the combination of two APs was more effective than monotherapy in terms of symptom reduction (standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.87 to −0.19); however, this result was confirmed only in the subgroup of low-quality studies. Negative symptoms improved when combining a D2 antagonist with a D2 partial agonist (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.03) both in double-blind and open-label studies. In the present commentary, the results of this systematic review are critically discussed in terms of their clinical and research implications.

Guideline methods to develop recommendations dedicate most effort around organising discovery and corroboration knowledge following the evidence-based medicine (EBM) framework. Guidelines typically use a single dimension of information, and generally discard contextual evidence and formal expert knowledge and consumer's experiences in the process. In recognition of the limitations of guidelines in complex cases, complex interventions and systems research, there has been significant effort to develop new tools, guides, resources and structures to use alongside EBM methods of guideline development. In addition to these advances, a new framework based on the philosophy of science is required. Guidelines should be defined as implementation decision support tools for improving the decision-making process in real-world practice and not only as a procedure to optimise the knowledge base of scientific discovery and corroboration. A shift from the model of the EBM pyramid of corroboration of evidence to the use of broader multi-domain perspective graphically depicted as ‘Greek temple’ could be considered. This model takes into account the different stages of scientific knowledge (discovery, corroboration and implementation), the sources of knowledge relevant to guideline development (experimental, observational, contextual, expert-based and experiential); their underlying inference mechanisms (deduction, induction, abduction, means-end inferences) and a more precise definition of evidence and related terms. The applicability of this broader approach is presented for the development of the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for the Primary Care of People with Developmental Disabilities.

Three-month long-acting paliperidone is a new, recently marketed, formulation of paliperidone, characterised by the longest available dosing interval among long-acting antipsychotics. The clinical profile of 3-month long-acting paliperidone was recently summarised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in a public assessment report, released in April 2016. In this commentary, the main strengths and limitations of the EMA assessment report were appraised and discussed, in order to highlight possible implications for clinical practice, future research and regulatory practices for drug approval.

American researchers have led the world in developing, evaluating, and disseminating evidence-based psychiatric rehabilitation practices for people with serious mental illness. Paradoxically, however, the USA lags behind most industrialized nations in providing access to high-quality mental health and psychiatric services. This essay examines several evidence-based practices developed in the USA, the spread of these practices, the barriers to ensuring availability to people who could benefit from these services, and some promising directions for overcoming the barriers. Factors influencing the growth and sustainment of effective client-centred practices include the availability of adequate and stable funding, committed leadership, and the influence of vested interests. Two strategies for promoting the spread and sustainment of well-implemented evidence-based practices are the adoption of fidelity scales and learning communities.