Personality disorder is common in the community, especially in urban areas. Services are normally restricted to symptomatic, help-seeking individuals, but a vulnerable group with cluster B disorders can be identified early, are in care during childhood and enter the criminal justice system when young. This suggests the need for preventive interventions at the public mental health level.

Although urban birth, upbringing, and living are associated with increased risk of nonaffective psychotic disorders, few studies have used appropriate multilevel techniques accounting for spatial dependency in risk to investigate social, economic, or physical determinants of psychosis incidence. We adopted Bayesian hierarchical modeling to investigate the sociospatial distribution of psychosis risk in East London for DSM-IV nonaffective and affective psychotic disorders, ascertained over a 2-year period in the East London first-episode psychosis study. We included individual and environmental data on 427 subjects experiencing first-episode psychosis to estimate the incidence of disorder across 56 neighborhoods, having standardized for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. A Bayesian model that included spatially structured neighborhood-level random effects identified substantial unexplained variation in nonaffective psychosis risk after controlling for individual-level factors. This variation was independently associated with greater levels of neighborhood income inequality (SD increase in inequality: Bayesian relative risks [RR]: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.04–1.49), absolute deprivation (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.08–1.51) and population density (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00–1.41). Neighborhood ethnic composition effects were associated with incidence of nonaffective psychosis for people of black Caribbean and black African origin. No variation in the spatial distribution of the affective psychoses was identified, consistent with the possibility of differing etiological origins of affective and nonaffective psychoses. Our data suggest that both absolute and relative measures of neighborhood social composition are associated with the incidence of nonaffective psychosis. We suggest these associations are consistent with a role for social stressors in psychosis risk, particularly when people live in more unequal communities.

There are no previous surveys of psychopathy and psychopathic traits in representative general population samples using standardized instruments. This study aimed to measure prevalence and correlates of psychopathic traits, based on a two-phase survey using the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) in 638 individuals, 16-74 years, in households in England, Wales and Scotland. The weighted prevalence of psychopathy was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2-1.6) at a cut score of 13, similar to the noncriminal/nonpsychiatric sample described in the manual of the PCL: SV. Psychopathy scores correlated with: younger age, male gender; suicide attempts, violent behaviour, imprisonment and homelessness; drug dependence; histrionic, borderline and adult antisocial personality disorders; panic and obsessive-compulsive disorders. This survey demonstrated that, as measured by the PCL: SV, psychopathy is rare, affecting less than 1% of the household population, although it is prevalent among prisoners, homeless persons, and psychiatric admissions. There is a halfnormal distribution of psychopathic traits in the general population, with the majority having no traits, a significant proportion with non-zero values, and a severe subgroup of persons with multiple associated social and behavioral problems. This distribution has implications for research into the etiology of psychopathy and its implications for society.

Gang members show inordinately high levels of psychiatric morbidity, placing a heavy burden on mental health services. Traumatization and fear of further violence, exceptionally prevalent in gang members, are associated with service use. Gang membership should be routinely assessed in individuals presenting to health care services in areas with high levels of violence and gang activity. Health care professionals may have an important role in promoting desistence from gang activity.

The nature of the relationship between risk and protection should be considered in the assessment of risk for violence. Furthermore, risk factors focus on pathology and hazards, whereas protective factors emphasize positivism and hope for change. Future interventions may benefit from this positive approach.