Search

In an era marked by escalating international crises, environmental shifts, and sociopolitical volatilities, global mental health is facing profound challenges. With its distinctive position at the intersection between clinical and judicial domains, forensic psychiatry can be predisposed to the consequences of adverse external determinants and events. At present, geopolitical conflicts, rising insecurities, climate change, forced and voluntary migration, and regressive sociopolitical ideologies are all compounding role responsibilities, care models, and ethical expectations across forensic-psychiatric practice; in short, complex distal factors are increasingly informing domestic considerations. These far-reaching concerns indicate a need for adaptive and proactive responses, underpinned by cultural sensitivity, social justice, and respect for human rights. Through illustrative examples from different regions, this perspective paper calls for a greater recognition of the transnational dynamics that are affecting local contexts of practice. Equally, it outlines the importance of advocacy, interdisciplinary collaborations, and potential evolutions in training and ethical frameworks to address contemporary issues. By adopting these approaches, forensic psychiatrists can promote more just systems and equitable mental healthcare for patients amidst the uncertainties of an interconnected and rapidly transforming world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In electoral contexts, mental health topics have recently attracted sociopolitical relevance, influenced by policy developments, election-related psychopathology and popular discourse about individual candidates. Yet, whether this reflects generalised trends or is contingent on election-specific and contextual factors remains difficult to ascertain. Aims: This study sought to examine correlations between Google Trends (GT) data on mental health and four national elections in the US and the UK from 2008 to 2020. This was intended to yield preliminary insights into the relevance of mental health topics amongst voters and the potential impact of electoral cycles on patterns of online engagement with these issues. Methods: Monthly and daily Search Volume Indexes (SVI) were gathered from the 'Mental Health' category on GT in the US and UK from 2008 to 2023. SVI were evaluated around the past four national ballots, comparing election-year intervals and baseline data from the preceding year. Statistical tests were conducted to assess SVI and short- and long-term dynamics. Findings: The results showed heterogeneous SVI patterns related to mental health during elections in the US and the UK. In the US, there were statistically significant SVI increases proximal to the majority of elections as compared to data in the same calendar year, but these did not typically exceed baseline SVI. However, interestingly, divisive US contests showed correlations with several elevated SVI measures in the same and previous years. Conversely, there was a lack of consistent longitudinal trends in UK elections, perhaps informed by its disparate sociopolitical landscape. Conclusions: These findings underline the composite relationship between electoral politics and popular engagement with mental health topics around national votes, suggesting that this is driven more by situational factors rather than a recurrent electoral effect or signs of burgeoning engagement. Detailed research is required to understand the nuances and causality behind these dynamics and their wider implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the intersection of global mental health with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing the critical role of psychiatrists in addressing geopolitical challenges and promoting social justice. Topics discussed include the importance of mental health within the SDG framework, the impact of geopolitical uncertainties on mental health advancements, and the potential of geopsychiatry in guiding interventions and policies.

Background: This contribution responds to three articles (we refer to all three as 'editorials') concerning something called 'geopsychiatry'. Aims: To evaluate claims made in these editorials for 'geopsychiatry' as a new field of inquiry at the interface between geography and psychiatry. Method: Close critical reading of two editorials in the International Journal of Social Psychiatry – entitled 'Geographical determinants of mental health' and 'Political determinants of mental health' – and one in the International Review of Psychiatry – entitled 'What is geopsychiatry?' Results: While this geopsychiatry initiative is to be applauded, disquiet can be expressed about the almost complete neglect of a pre-existing domain of inquiry – 'mental health geography' or 'the geography of mental health' – that has long been researched by academic geographers and cognate scholars. Key trajectories in this field can be identified and related to the proposed foci for geopsychiatry. Conclusions: The hope is voiced that future developments in geopsychiatry will proceed in dialogue with the literature and practitioners of mental health geography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors discuss the need for integrating geopsychiatry into foreign policy to address the multi-dimensional geopolitical mental health challenges worldwide. Other topics include how mental health is affected by transnational challenges like conflict, human rights violations, and fragile security, and the events that disturbed public order like persecution, conflict and violence.