Racism is increasingly recognised as a key contributor to poor mental health. However, the existing literature primarily focuses on its effects on adults.

To identify literature on the association between experiences of racism and mental health in children and young people in the UK.

Inclusion criteria were: (a) peer-reviewed publications containing original data; (b) UK-based research; (c) included examination of associations between mental health and experiences of direct or indirect racism (quantitative or qualitative); (d) inclusion of an assessment of mental health outcomes; (e) participant ages up to and including 18 years of age or (if the range went beyond 18) with a mean age of 17 years or less. Six databases were searched between 2000 and 2022; an initial 11 522 studies were identified with only eight meeting the inclusion criteria.

Five of the identified studies provided quantitative data and three provided qualitative data. The majority of studies (7/8) focused on children and young people aged 10 years and over; only one focused on children under the age of 10 years. Measurements of racism varied among the studies providing quantitative data. Only four studies directly focused on the effects of racism on the mental health of children and young people.

Although the included studies highlighted potential negative impacts of experiences of racism on children and young people in the UK, this review shows the lack of available literature to inform policy and practice. No studies examined the impact of internalised racism, systemic and institutional racism, or intersectionality.

Negative perceptions of mental health professionals can deter individuals from seeking mental healthcare. Given the high burden of mental health globally, it is essential to understand attitudes towards mental health professionals. Social media platforms like Twitter/X provide valuable insights into the views of the general population.

This study aimed to use social media to investigate the (a) public perceptions (positive or negative) of mental health professionals, (b) changes in these perceptions over time and (c) engagement levels with tweets about mental health professionals over time.

We collected all tweets posted in English between 2007 and 2023, containing key terms such as ‘mental health’, ‘psychology’, ‘psychologist’, ‘psychiatry’, ‘psychiatrist’, ‘neurology’ and ‘neurologist’. A total of 1500 tweets were manually classified into categories, which were used in conjunction with semi-supervised machine learning to categorise a large data-set.

For most key terms, there was a higher frequency of positive perceptions compared with negative, with this trend improving over time. However, tweets containing ‘psychiatrist’ exhibited a higher proportion of negative perceptions (n = 4872, 39.52% negative v. n = 1972, 15.99% positive before 2020). After 2020, the gap narrowed, yet negative perceptions continued to dominate (n = 5505, 36.10% negative v. n = 3472, 22.77% positive).

Overall, positive perceptions of mental health and mental health professionals increased over time. However, ‘psychiatrist’ had a consistently higher proportion of negative perceptions. This study underscores the need to improve public perception of psychiatrists, and demonstrates the potential of using Twitter/X to better understand public attitudes and reduce stigma associated with accessing mental health services.

The clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-p) syndrome enables early identification of individuals at risk of schizophrenia and related disorders. We differentiate between the stigma associated with the at-risk identification itself (‘labelling-related’ stigma) versus stigma attributed to experiencing mental health symptoms (‘symptom-related’ stigma) and examine their relationships with key psychosocial variables.

We compare labelling- and symptom-related stigma in rates of endorsement and associations with self-esteem, social support loss and quality of life.

We assessed stigma domains of shame-related emotions, secrecy and experienced discrimination for both types of stigma. Individuals at CHR-p were recruited across three sites (N = 150); primary analyses included those who endorsed awareness of psychosis risk (n = 113). Paired-sample t-tests examined differences in labelling- versus symptom-related stigma; regressions examined associations with psychosocial variables, controlling for covariates, including CHR-p symptoms.

Respondents reported greater symptom-related shame, but more labelling-related secrecy. Of the nine significant associations between stigma and psychosocial variables, eight were attributable to symptom-related stigma, even after adjusting for CHR-p symptoms.

Stigma attributed to symptoms had a stronger negative association with psychosocial variables than did labelling-related stigma among individuals recently identified as CHR-p. That secrecy related to the CHR-p designation was greater than its symptom-related counterpart suggests that labelling-related stigma may still be problematic for some CHR-p participants. To optimise this pivotal early intervention effort, interventions should address the holistic ‘stigmatising experience’ of having symptoms, namely any harmful reactions received as well as participants’ socially influenced concerns about what their experiences mean, in addition to the symptoms themselves.

Between 2008 and 2019, we reported positive change relating to mental health stigma and discrimination among the adult population of England, supporting the effectiveness of the Time to Change campaign.

Using data from the Attitudes to Mental Illness survey (2008/2009 to 2023), we investigated the extent to which positive changes in stigma were sustained by 2023, 2 years after the programme's end in 2021.

We used regression analyses to evaluate trends in outcomes. Measures were of stigma-related knowledge (Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS)), attitudes (Community Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill scale (CAMI)) and desire for social distance (Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS)). We also examined willingness to interact with people based on vignettes of depression and schizophrenia, and attitudes toward workplace discrimination, using data from the British Social Attitudes Survey for comparison.

CAMI scores improved between 2008 and 2023 (s.d. 0.24, 95% CI 0.16–0.31), but decreased since 2019 (P = 0.015). After improvements between 2009 and 2019, 2023 MAKS and RIBS scores no longer differed from 2009 scores, indicating decreases in stigma-related knowledge (MAKS scores declined 7.8%; P < 0.001) and willingness to interact (RIBS scores declined by 10.2%; P < 0.001) since 2019. Conversely, comparison with British Social Attitudes Survey data indicated that willingness to interact with people with depression and schizophrenia increased gradually between 2007, 2015 and 2023, and attitudes to workplace discrimination also improved.

The lasting positive changes reflect support for non-discrimination and willingness to interact with someone after a sense of familiarity is evoked. Besides the end of Time to Change, interpretations for declines in other outcomes include the COVID-19 pandemic and economic stress.

Chemsex occurs primarily among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), and there is evidence of a subgroup of users who carry out chemsex-related criminal offences and experience harm. Challenges with chemsex can present to various settings; there are concerns that harm is increasing, including at interfaces between health, social care and criminal justice systems. The UK response to date has lacked a coordinated approach. An expert reference group was convened to share chemsex knowledge, articulate priorities for research and pathway development, and foster collaborative working between agencies. It made three key recommendations: develop and increase training and awareness across all services; implement a coordinated research programme with the development of a common data-set and assessment tool to fully characterise population-level needs; develop a professional network to share information, provide professional support and act as a knowledge hub. There was support for a unified multi-agency strategy incorporating the priorities identified as overarching principles.

We aimed to assess whether viewing expert witness evidence regarding the mental health of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in the 2022 court case in the USA would affect viewers’ attitudes towards the mental health of the two protagonists and towards mental illness in general. After viewing excerpts of the cross-examination evidence, 38 trial-naive undergraduate students completed the Prejudice towards People with a Mental Illness (PPMI) scale.

Following viewing, participants held more stigmatising views of the protagonists than they held about mental disorders in general.

It is plausible that mass media trial coverage further stigmatises mental illness.

Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these.

To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare.

A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts.

Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups’ engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners.

With growing numbers of countries legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS), there is a debate as to whether EAS should also be available to people with severe, treatment-resistant mental illness. Excluding mental illness as a legitimate reason to receive EAS has been framed as discriminating against people with mental illness.

We examine whether approval or opposition to psychiatric EAS are related to stigma toward people with mental illness.

We asked a representative sample of the general population in Germany (N = 1515) whether they would approve of EAS for someone with severe, treatment-resistant mental illness. Stigma was assessed with the Value-Based Stigma Inventory (VASI), addressing rejection of people with mental illness in relation to different personal values.

A total of 19% of the German population approved of psychiatric EAS. Higher stigma scores were associated with greater approval of EAS (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.28; P < 0.001). This association held true when controlling for sociodemographic variables. It was strongest for stigma related to perceived threats to one's security, reputation and meritocratic values.

Our results highlight that, although opposing psychiatric EAS is sometimes framed as discriminatory, approval of psychiatric EAS might also carry hidden, stigmatising motives. To avoid any unintended negative consequences for people with severe, treatment-resistant mental illness, any legislation on psychiatric EAS needs to be crafted with particular caution.

Computational models offer promising potential for personalised treatment of psychiatric diseases. For their clinical deployment, fairness must be evaluated alongside accuracy. Fairness requires predictive models to not unfairly disadvantage specific demographic groups. Failure to assess model fairness prior to use risks perpetuating healthcare inequalities. Despite its importance, empirical investigation of fairness in predictive models for psychiatry remains scarce.

To evaluate fairness in prediction models for development of psychosis and functional outcome.

Using data from the PRONIA study, we examined fairness in 13 published models for prediction of transition to psychosis (n = 11) and functional outcome (n = 2) in people at clinical high risk for psychosis or with recent-onset depression. Using accuracy equality, predictive parity, false-positive error rate balance and false-negative error rate balance, we evaluated relevant fairness aspects for the demographic attributes ‘gender’ and ‘educational attainment’ and compared them with the fairness of clinicians’ judgements.

Our findings indicate systematic bias towards assigning less favourable outcomes to individuals with lower educational attainment in both prediction models and clinicians’ judgements, resulting in higher false-positive rates in 7 of 11 models for transition to psychosis. Interestingly, the bias patterns observed in algorithmic predictions were not significantly more pronounced than those in clinicians’ predictions.

Educational bias was present in algorithmic and clinicians’ predictions, assuming more favourable outcomes for individuals with higher educational level (years of education). This bias might lead to increased stigma and psychosocial burden in patients with lower educational attainment and suboptimal psychosis prevention in those with higher educational attainment.