Over the past decades, psychiatry, as a science and a clinical discipline, has witnessed profound changes.

To examine whether these changes are reflected in changes in the public's conceptualisation of mental disorders, the acceptance of mental health treatment and attitudes towards people with mental illness.

In 1990 and 2011, population surveys were conducted in Germany on public attitudes about schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence.

Although the public has become more inclined to endorse a biological causation of schizophrenia, the opposite trend was observed with the other two disorders. The public's readiness to recommend help-seeking from mental health professionals and using psychotherapy and psychotropic medication has increased considerably. Attitudes towards people with schizophrenia worsened, whereas for depression and alcohol dependence no or inconsistent changes were found.

The growing divide between attitudes towards schizophrenia and other mental disorders should be of particular concern to future anti-stigma campaigns.

Is the nature of decision-making capacity (DMC) for treatment significantly different in medical and psychiatric patients?

To compare the abilities relevant to DMC for treatment in medical and psychiatric patients who are able to communicate a treatment choice.

A secondary analysis of two cross-sectional studies of consecutive admissions: 125 to a psychiatric hospital and 164 to a medical hospital. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Treatment and a clinical interview were used to assess decision-making abilities (understanding, appreciating and reasoning) and judgements of DMC. We limited analysis to patients able to express a choice about treatment and stratified the analysis by low and high understanding ability.

Most people scoring low on understanding were judged to lack DMC and there was no difference by hospital (P=0.14). In both hospitals there were patients who were able to understand yet lacked DMC (39% psychiatric v. 13% medical in-patients, P<0.001). Appreciation was a better ‘test’ of DMC in the psychiatric hospital (where psychotic and severe affective disorders predominated) (P<0.001), whereas reasoning was a better test of DMC in the medical hospital (where cognitive impairment was common) (P=0.02).

Among those with good understanding, the appreciation ability had more salience to DMC for treatment in a psychiatric setting and the reasoning ability had more salience in a medical setting.

It is uncertain whether antipsychotic long-acting injection (LAI) medication in schizophrenia is associated with better clinical outcomes than oral preparations.

To examine the impact of prior treatment delivery route on treatment outcomes and whether any differences are moderated by adherence.

Analysis of data from two pragmatic 1-year clinical trials in which patients with schizophrenia were randomised to either an oral first-generation antipsychotic (FGA), or a non-clozapine second-generation antipsychotic (SGA, CUtLASS 1 study), or a non-clozapine SGA or clozapine (CUtLASS 2 study).

Across both trials, 43% (n = 155) of participants were prescribed an FGA-LAI before randomisation. At 1-year follow-up they showed less improvement in quality of life, symptoms and global functioning than those randomised from oral medication. This difference was confined to patients rated as less than consistently adherent pre-randomisation. The relatively poor improvement in the patients prescribed an LAI pre-randomisation was ameliorated if they had been randomised to clozapine rather than another SGA. There was no advantage to being randomly assigned from an LAI at baseline to a non-clozapine oral SGA rather than an oral FGA.

A switch at randomisation from an LAI to an oral antipsychotic was associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes at 1-year follow-up compared with switching from one oral antipsychotic to another. This effect appears to be moderated by adherence, and may not extend to switching to clozapine. This has implications for clinical trial design: the drug from which a participant is randomised may have a greater effect than the drug to which they are randomised.

Evidence of remission from borderline personality disorder (BPD) without specialised treatment is accumulating.

To establish whether specialised treatments are indicated for patients with clinically severe disorder.

The impact of clinical severity on outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) was contrasted with structured clinical management (SCM). Severity indicators were defined as severity of comorbid psychiatric syndromes, severity of BPD, severity of personality disturbance and severity of symptom distress. Logistic regressions were used to predict the likelihood of recovery at 18 months, and mixed-effects regression analysis was applied to examine the association of severity and rates of improvement across time in the two treatment groups.

None of the severity criteria predicted outcome at the end of treatment on logistic regression. However, testing the significance of distribution of cases of recovery v. non-recovery suggested that multiple Axis II diagnoses and symptom distress influenced outcomes.

Borderline personality disorder with significant Axis II comorbidity is a possible but uncertain indicator for specialist treatment. Patients whose only personality disorder diagnosis is BPD do equally well with SCM. Prospective studies are needed.

People bereaved by suicide are often reported to be distressed by media reporting. Current media guidelines for reporting suicide focus especially on prevention of copycat behaviour.

To explore bereaved individuals' experiences of media reporting after suicide and to examine their priorities in relation to media guidelines.

In-depth interviews with 40 people bereaved by suicide, with qualitative analysis. Review of four guidelines.

There is a difference of emphasis between guidance for the press that aims to prevent copycat suicides (especially avoidance of details such as method used) and the perspectives of bereaved people (who prioritise sympathetic and accurate reporting, sometimes including details of the death and images of the person who died). We found that bereaved relatives were sometimes keen to talk to the press. Those who were upset by the press focused on careless reporting, misquoting and speculation that gave an inaccurate impression of the death.

The Leveson Inquiry has drawn attention to the damage that can be caused by irresponsible journalism. Guidelines written to prevent ‘copycat’ suicides are important, but so are the needs of bereaved relatives. Because accuracy matters greatly to the bereaved, families should be able to work with an intermediary such as a police press officer to prepare a statement for the press to minimise the risk of misrepresentation.