In every year over a third of the total EU population suffers from mental disorders. The true size of "disorders of the brain" including neurological disorders is even considerably larger. Disorders of the brain are the largest contributor to the all cause morbidity burden as measured by DALY in the EU. No indications for increasing overall rates of mental disorders were found nor of improved care and treatment since 2005; less than one third of all cases receive any treatment, suggesting a considerable level of unmet needs. We conclude that the true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU was significantly underestimated in the past. Concerted priority action is needed at all levels, including substantially increased funding for basic, clinical and public health research in order to identify better strategies for improved prevention and treatment for disorders of the brain as the core health challenge of the 21st century.

No abstract

The development of the ICD-11 CDDG over the past decade, based on the principles of clinical utility and global applicability, has been the most broadly international, multilingual, multidisciplinary and participative revision process ever implemented for a classification of mental disorders. Innovations in the ICD-11 include the provision of consistent and systematically characterized information, the adoption of a lifespan approach, and culture-related guidance for each disorder. Dimensional approaches have been incorporated into the classification, particularly for personality disorders and primary psychotic disorders, in ways that are consistent with current evidence, are more compatible with recovery-based approaches, eliminate artificial comorbidity, and more effectively capture changes over time. Here we describe major changes to the structure of the ICD-11 classification of mental disorders as compared to the ICD-10, and the development of two new ICD-11 chapters relevant to mental health practice. We illustrate a set of new categories that have been added to the ICD-11 and present the rationale for their inclusion. Finally, we provide a description of the important changes that have been made in each ICD-11 disorder grouping. This information is intended to be useful for both clinicians and researchers in orienting themselves to the ICD-11 and in preparing for implementation in their own professional contexts.

BackgroundFloods are the most common type of global natural disaster. Floods have a negative impact on mental health. Comprehensive evaluation and review of the literature are lacking.ObjectiveTo systematically map and review available scientific evidence on mental health impacts of floods caused by extended periods of heavy rain in river catchments.MethodsWe performed a systematic mapping review of published scientific literature in five languages for mixed studies on floods and mental health. PUBMED and Web of Science were searched to identify all relevant articles from 1994 to May 2014 (no restrictions).ResultsThe electronic search strategy identified 1331 potentially relevant papers. Finally, 83 papers met the inclusion criteria. Four broad areas are identified: i) the main mental health disorders—post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety; ii] the factors associated with mental health among those affected by floods; iii) the narratives associated with flooding, which focuses on the long-term impacts of flooding on mental health as a consequence of the secondary stressors; and iv) the management actions identified. The quantitative and qualitative studies have consistent findings. However, very few studies have used mixed methods to quantify the size of the mental health burden as well as exploration of in-depth narratives. Methodological limitations include control of potential confounders and short-term follow up.LimitationsFloods following extreme events were excluded from our review.ConclusionsAlthough the level of exposure to floods has been systematically associated with mental health problems, the paucity of longitudinal studies and lack of confounding controls precludes strong conclusions.ImplicationsWe recommend that future research in this area include mixed-method studies that are purposefully designed, using more rigorous methods. Studies should also focus on vulnerable groups and include analyses of policy and practical responses.

No abstract