The burden of mental disorders (MD) in the Western Pacific Region (WPR) remains a critical public health concern, with substantial variations across demographics and countries.

To analyze the burden of MD in the WPR from 1990 to 2021, along with associated risk factors, to reveal changing trends and emerging challenges.

We used data from the Global Burden of Disease 2021, analyzing prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of MD from 1990 to 2021. Statistical methods included age-standardisation and uncertainty analysis to address variations in population structure and data completeness.

Between 1990 and 2021, the prevalence of MD rose from 174.40 million cases [95% uncertainty interval (UI): 160.17-189.84] to 234.90 million cases (95%UI: 219.04-252.50), with corresponding DALYs increasing from 22.8 million (95%UI: 17.22-28.79) to 32.07 million (95%UI: 24.50-40.68). During this period, the burden of MD shifted towards older age groups. Depressive and anxiety disorders were predominant, with females showing higher DALYs for depressive and anxiety disorders, and males more affected by conduct disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders. Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia reported the highest burdens, whereas Vietnam, China, and Brunei Darussalam reported the lowest. Additionally, childhood sexual abuse and bullying, and intimate partner violence emerged as significant risk factors.

This study highlights the significant burden of MD in the WPR, with variations by age, gender, and nation. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has exacerbated the situation, emphasizing the need for a coordinated response.

Thanks to methodological advances, large-scale data collections, and longitudinal designs, psychiatric neuroimaging is better equipped than ever to identify the neurobiological underpinnings of youth mental health problems. However, the complexity of such endeavors has become increasingly evident, as the field has been confronted by limited clinical relevance, inconsistent results, and small effect sizes. Some of these challenges parallel those historically encountered by psychiatric genetics. In past genetic research, robust findings were historically undermined by oversimplified biological hypotheses, mistaken assumptions about expectable effect sizes, replication problems, confounding by population structure, and shared biological patterns across disorders. Overcoming these challenges has contributed to current successes in the field. Drawing parallels across psychiatric genetics and neuroimaging, we identify key shared challenges as well as pinpoint relevant insights that could be gained in psychiatric neuroimaging from the transition that occurred from the candidate gene to (post) genome-wide "eras" of psychiatric genetics. Finally, we discuss the prominent developmental component of psychiatric neuroimaging and how that might be informed by epidemiological and omics approaches. The evolution of psychiatric genetic research offers valuable insights that may expedite the resolution of key challenges in psychiatric neuroimaging, thus potentially moving our understanding of psychiatric pathophysiology forward.

The US child mental health care system requires a revival and reimagination. We need to shift toward healing-centered models of care and prioritize access to high-quality mental health care through policy changes and resource allocation. Funding community-based programs that provide culturally responsive, antiracist, and equitable (CARE) systems is essential. Policies must be implemented to reduce barriers to accessing mental health services for underresourced communities. By prioritizing (CARE) over control, we can build a just workforce that is equipped to address the needs of a growing diverse population and ensure that all children and families can heal and thrive.

The adverse psychological and social impacts of COVID-19 pandemic are well characterized, but the role of composite, modifiable lifestyle factors that may interact to mitigate these impacts is not. The effect of socioeconomic deprivation on these lifestyle risks also remains unclear. Based on a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort, we assessed the association between a combination of pre-pandemic lifestyle factors and mental health conditions during pandemic, and the contribution of deprivation to it. Composite lifestyle factors included BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, sedentary time, sleep duration, and fruit and vegetable intake, with lifestyle scores and lifestyle categories calculated for each participant. Symptoms of depression and anxiety, and personal well-being were assessed by validated scales during the pandemic. Socioeconomic deprivation was characterized by both individual-level (income, wealth, and education) and group-level factors (Index of Multiple Deprivation). Of the 5049 eligible participants (mean [SD] age, 68.1 [10.9] years; 57.2% were female) included in the study, 41.6% followed a favorable lifestyle, 48.9% followed an intermediate lifestyle, and 9.5% followed an unfavorable lifestyle. Compared with favorable lifestyle category, participants in the intermediate and unfavorable lifestyle category were at increased risk of mental health conditions, with the hazard ratio (HR) for trend per increment change towards unfavorable category of 1.17 (95% CI 1.09-1.26) for depression, 1.23 (1.07-1.42) for anxiety, and 1.39 (1.20-1.61) for low well-being. A significant trend of lower risk for mental health conditions with increasing number of healthy lifestyle factors was observed (P < 0.001 for trend). There were no significant interactions between lifestyle factors and socioeconomic deprivation for any of the outcomes, with similar HRs for trend per one increment change in lifestyle category observed in each deprivation group. Compared with those in the least deprived group with favorable lifestyle, participants in the most deprived group adherent to unfavorable lifestyle had the highest risk of mental health outcomes. These results suggest that adherence to a broad combination of healthy lifestyle factors was associated with a significantly reduced risk of mental health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lifestyle factors, in conjunction with socioeconomic deprivation, independently contribute to the risk of mental health issues. Although further research is needed to assess causality, the current findings support public health strategies and individual-level interventions that provide enhanced support in areas of deprivation and target multiple lifestyle factors to reduce health inequalities and promote mental well-being during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The mental health and well-being of gender and sexuality diverse (GSD) people needs to be understood within a socio-political and cultural context.

In this paper, an intersectional, social and system-based framework for understanding the mental health and well-being of GSD people is presented, for practitioners within this field to consider GSD mental health experiences and challenges within context.

Starting with a consideration of the current landscape of understanding, pivotal theories and understandings within the field are outlined. The need for a framework that centralises intersectionality and broader systemic considerations is presented.

The framework provided has an explicit focus on four key features: (1) intersectionality, (2) institutions, policies and laws, (3) people and groups and (4) social stories.

Consideration of each of these 'circles of influence' can help practitioners to understand the multi-layered and intersectional experience of GSD folk and allows for an understanding of potential intervention at both an individual and systemic and societal level.

Use of such a framework in practice goes above and beyond what is currently available by centralising the role and impact of such wider systemic variables through an intersectional lens. The framework can be applicable worldwide given its flexibility to consider and apply pertinent policies, laws, people, groups and social stories within a particular country or culture.

Covid-19 is referred to as a "syndemic," i.e., the consequences of the disease are exacerbated by social and economic disparity. Poor housing, unstable work conditions, caste, class, race and gender based inequities and low incomes have a profound effect on mental health and wellbeing. Such disparities are increasing between, among and within countries and are exacerbated by human rights violations, in institution and in society, stigma and discrimination. Social capital can mediate health outcomes, through trust and reciprocity, political participation, and by mental health service systems, which can be coercive or more open to demand of emancipation and freedom. Societal inequalities affect especially vulnerable groups, and Covid itself had a wider impact on the most socially vulnerable and marginalized populations, suffering for structural discrimination and violence. There are complex relations among these social processes and domains, and mental health inequalities and disparity. Participation and engagement of citizens and community organizations is now required in order to achieve a radical transformation in mental health. A Local and Global Action Plan has been launched recently, by a coalition of organizations representing people with lived experience of mental health care; who use services; family members, mental health professionals, policy makers and researchers, such as the International Mental Health Collaborating Network, the World Federation for Mental Health, the World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, the Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Networks (GAMIAN), The Mental Health Resource Hub in Chennai, India, The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH) and others. The Action Plan addresses the need for fundamental change by focusing on social determinants and achieving equity in mental health care. Equally the need for the politics of wellbeing has to be embedded in a system that places mental health within development and social justice paradigm, enhancing core human capabilities and contrasting discriminatory practices. These targets are for people and organizations to adopt locally within their communities and services, and also to indicate possible innovative solutions to Politics. This global endeavor may represent an alternative to the global mental discourse inspired by the traditional biomedical model.

Black, Indigenous, and other Youth of Color (BIPOC youth) experience racism from a young age. These experiences have both immediate and long-term impacts on their health and wellbeing. Systemic racism contributes to the inequitable distribution of health resources and other social determinants of health, creating barriers to accessing care. Substance use disorders and sexual/nonsexual risk behaviors have been linked to experiences of racism in BIPOC youth. The legacy of generational racial trauma can frame behaviors and attitudes in the present, undermining health and survival in this group. BIPOC youth also face difficulties navigating spheres characterized as white spaces. Ethnic-racial socialization may promote resilience and help with coping in the context of racial stress. While many professional health organizations have embraced dismantling racism, a shift in the narrative on racial values will be critical for preventing adversity and achieving health equity for BIPOC youth.

The causal mechanisms and manifestations of psychiatric illness cannot be neatly narrowed down or quantified for diagnosis and treatment. Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) might renew hope for locating genetic predictors and producing precision medicines, however such hopes can also distract from appreciating social factors and structural injustices that demand more socially inclusive and equitable approaches to mental healthcare. A more comprehensive approach begins with recognizing that there is no one type of contributor to mental illness and its duration that should be prioritized over another. We argue that, if the search for biological specificity is to complement the need to alleviate the social distress that produces mental health inequities, psychiatric genomics must incorporate an intersectional dimension to models of mental illness across research priorities, scientific frameworks, and clinical applications. We outline an intersectional framework that will guide all professionals working in the expanding field of psychiatric genomics to better incorporate issues of social context, racial and cultural diversity, and downstream ethical considerations into their work.