Background: Previous reviews on risk and protective factors for violence in psychosis have produced contrasting findings. There is therefore a need to clarify the direction and strength of association of risk and protective factors for violent outcomes in individuals with psychosis.

Infectious disease epidemics have become more frequent and more complex during the 21 st century, posing a health threat to the general public and leading to psychological symptoms. The current study was designed to investigate the prevalence of and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety and insomnia symptoms during epidemic outbreaks, including COVID-19. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, OVID, Medline, Cochrane databases, bioRxiv and medRxiv to identify studies that reported the prevalence of depression, anxiety or insomnia during infectious disease epidemics, up to August 14 th , 2020. Prevalence of mental symptoms among different populations including the general public, health workers, university students, older adults, infected patients, survivors of infection, and pregnant women across all types of epidemics was pooled. In addition, prevalence of mental symptoms during COVID-19 was estimated by time using meta-regression analysis. A total of 17,506 papers were initially retrieved, and a final of 283 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 948,882 individuals. The pooled prevalence of depression ranged from 23.1%, 95% confidential intervals (95% CI: [13.9–32.2]) in survivors to 43.3% (95% CI: [27.1–59.6]) in university students, the pooled prevalence of anxiety ranged from 25.0% (95% CI: [12.0–38.0]) in older adults to 43.3% (95% CI: [23.3–63.3]) in pregnant women, and insomnia symptoms ranged from 29.7% (95% CI: [24.4–34.9]) in the general public to 58.4% (95% CI: [28.1–88.6]) in university students. Prevalence of moderate-to-severe mental symptoms was lower but had substantial variation across different populations. The prevalence of mental problems increased over time during the COVID-19 pandemic among the general public, health workers and university students, and decreased among infected patients. Factors associated with increased prevalence for all three mental health symptoms included female sex, and having physical disorders, psychiatric disorders, COVID infection, colleagues or family members infected, experience of frontline work, close contact with infected patients, high exposure risk, quarantine experience and high concern about epidemics. Frequent exercise and good social support were associated with lower risk for these three mental symptoms. In conclusion, mental symptoms are common during epidemics with substantial variation across populations. The population-specific psychological crisis management are needed to decrease the burden of psychological problem and improve the mental wellbeing during epidemic.

Recent years have seen the rapid proliferation of clinical prediction models aiming to support risk stratification and individualized care within psychiatry. Despite growing interest, attempts to synthesize current evidence in the nascent field of precision psychiatry have remained scarce. This systematic review therefore sought to summarize progress towards clinical implementation of prediction modeling for psychiatric outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO databases from inception to September 30, 2020, for English-language articles that developed and/or validated multivariable models to predict (at an individual level) onset, course, or treatment response for non-organic psychiatric disorders (PROSPERO: CRD42020216530). Individual prediction models were evaluated based on three key criteria: (i) mitigation of bias and overfitting; (ii) generalizability, and (iii) clinical utility. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to formally appraise each study’s risk of bias. 228 studies detailing 308 prediction models were ultimately eligible for inclusion. 94.5% of developed prediction models were deemed to be at high risk of bias, largely due to inadequate or inappropriate analytic decisions. Insufficient internal validation efforts (within the development sample) were also observed, while only one-fifth of models underwent external validation in an independent sample. Finally, our search identified just one published model whose potential utility in clinical practice was formally assessed. Our findings illustrated significant growth in precision psychiatry with promising progress towards real-world application. Nevertheless, these efforts have been inhibited by a preponderance of bias and overfitting, while the generalizability and clinical utility of many published models has yet to be formally established. Through improved methodological rigor during initial development, robust evaluations of reproducibility via independent validation, and evidence-based implementation frameworks, future research has the potential to generate risk prediction tools capable of enhancing clinical decision-making in psychiatric care.

IMPORTANCEChildren who are placed in out-of-home care may have poorer outcomes in adulthood, on average, compared with their peers, but the direction and magnitude of these associations need clarification.OBJECTIVE To estimate associations between being placed in out-of-home care in childhood and adolescence and subsequent risks of experiencing a wide range of social and health outcomes in adulthood following comprehensive adjustments for preplacement factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cohort and cosibling study of all children born in Finland between 1986 and 2000 (N = 855 622) monitored each person from their 15th birthday either until the end of the study period (December 2018) or until they migrated, died, or experienced the outcome of interest. Cox and Poisson regression models were used to estimate associations with adjustment for measured confounders (from linked population registers) and unmeasured familial confounders (using sibling comparisons). Data were analyzed from October 2020 to August 2021.EXPOSURES Placement in out-of-home care up to age 15 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThrough national population, patient, prescription drug, cause of death, and crime registers, 16 specific outcomes were identified across the following categories: psychiatric disorders; low socioeconomic status; injuries and experiencing violence; and antisocial behaviors, suicidality, and premature mortality.RESULTS A total of 30 127 individuals (3.4%) were identified who had been placed in out-of-home care for a median (interquartile range) period of 1.3 (0.2-5.1) years and 2 (1-3) placement episodes before age 15 years. Compared with their siblings, individuals who had been placed in out-of-home care were 1.4 to 5 times more likely to experience adverse outcomes in adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] for those with a fall-related injury, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.25-1.57 and aHR for those with an unintentional poisoning injury, 4.79; 95% CI, 3.56-6.43, respectively). The highest relative risks were observed for those with violent crime arrests (aHR, 4.16; 95% CI, 3.74-4.62; cumulative incidence, 24.6% in individuals who had been placed in out-of-home care vs 5.1% in those who had not), substance misuse (aHR, 4.75; 95% CI,; cumulative incidence, 23.2% vs 4.6%), and unintentional poisoning injury (aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 3.56-6.43; cumulative incidence, 3.1% vs 0.6%). Additional adjustments for perinatal factors, childhood behavioral problems, and traumatic injuries, including experiencing violence, did not materially change the findings.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Out-of-home care placement was associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes in adulthood, which persisted following adjustments for measured preplacement factors and unmeasured familial factors.