Background: Peers are people with lived experience of mental illness. Peer support is an established intervention in which peers offer support to others with mental illness. A large proportion of people living with severe mental illness receive no care. The care gap is largest in low- and middle-income countries, with detrimental effects on individuals and societies. The global shortage of human resources for mental health is an important driver of the care gap. Peers are an under-used resource in global mental health. Objectives: To describe rationale and methodology of an international multicentre study which will scale-up peer support for people with severe mental illness in high-, middle-, and low-income countries through mixed-methods implementation research. Methods: UPSIDES is an international community of research and practice for peer support, including peer support workers, mental health researchers, and other relevant stakeholders in eight study sites across six countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia. During the first two years of UPSIDES, a series of qualitative studies and systematic reviews will explore stakeholders’ perceptions and the current state of peer support at each site. Findings will be incorporated into a conceptual framework to guide the development of a culturally appropriate peer support intervention to be piloted across all study sites. All intervention and study materials will be translated according to internationally recognised guidelines. Expected Impact: UPSIDES: will leverage the unique expertise of people with lived experience of mental illness to strengthen mental health systems in high-, middle- and low-income countries. UPSIDES will actively involve and empower service users and embed patient-centeredness, recovery orientation, human rights approaches, and community participation into services. The focus on capacity-building of peers may prove particularly valuable in low-resource settings in which shortages of human capital are most severe.

Nutritional interventions have beneficial effects on certain psychiatric disorder symptomatology and common physical health comorbidities. However, studies evaluating nutritional literacy in mental health professionals (MHP) are scarce. This study aimed to assess the across 52 countries. Surveys were distributed via colleagues and professional societies. Data were collected regarding self-reported general nutrition knowledge, nutrition education, learning opportunities, and the tendency to recommend food supplements or prescribe specific diets in clinical practice. In total, 1056 subjects participated in the study: 354 psychiatrists, 511 psychologists, 44 psychotherapists, and 147 MHPs in-training. All participants believed the diet quality of individuals with mental disorders was poorer compared to the general population (p < 0.001). The majority of the psychiatrists (74.2%) and psychologists (66.3%) reported having no training in nutrition. Nevertheless, many of them used nutrition approaches, with 58.6% recommending supplements and 43.8% recommending specific diet strategies to their patients. Only 0.8% of participants rated their education regarding nutrition as ‘very good.’ Almost all (92.9%) stated they would like to expand their knowledge regarding ‘Nutritional Psychiatry.’ There is an urgent need to integrate nutrition education into MHP training, ideally in collaboration with nutrition experts to achieve best practice care.

No abstract

Current treatment for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders focusses primarily on psychotropic medication to treat symptoms, though their efficacy varies between patients and psychotropic medication is often accompanied by severe side effects. Nutritional interventions to prevent and treat mental illness have received considerable attention over recent years. However, evidence for nutritional interventions in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders remains limited in quantity and quality. Pathways currently in focus include: i) nutritional deficits and impairments in glucose metabolism, ii) inflammation and immune dysregulation (also known from the mild encephalitis hypothesis), and iii) altered gut microbiota. All of which appear to be interconnected. Key limiting factors for advancing research in this field are research challenges associated with assessing and interpreting inflammatory profiles, microbiota and subjective nutritional assessments, which is further complicated by illness characteristics. This review describes the state of evidence for key hypotheses, including underlying mechanisms, implicated in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, the challenges in nutritional psychiatry research and the current state of nutrition interventions in mental healthcare.