Current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries : cross-country comparisons and international perspectives

INTRODUCTION : Varying public views on cannabis use across countries may explain the variation in the prevalence of use, policies, and research in individual countries, and global regulation of cannabis. This paper aims to describe the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research across sixteen countries. METHODS : PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g., “Iran”), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as “cannabis,” “marijuana,” “hashish,” “bhang “dual diagnosis,” “use,” “addiction,” “prevalence,” “co-morbidity,” “substance use disorder,” “legalization” or “policy” (in English and non-English languages). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string for studies’ titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English languages (using countries national languages) to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries. RESULTS : The main findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and variation in intervention strategies across the countries reviewed. European countries dominate the cannabis research output indexed on PubMed, in contrast to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran, and Nepal). CONCLUSIONS : Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.The Indian Council of Medical Research.https://www.scielo.br/j/trendsam2023Family Medicin

Is everyone invited to the discussion table? A bibliometric analysis COVID-19-related mental health literature

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has captured the mental health discussion worldwide. Examining countries' representation in this discussion could prove instrumental in identifying potential gaps in terms of ensuring a truly global conversation in times of global crisis. Methods We collected mental health and COVID-19-related journal articles published in PubMed in 2020. We focused on the corresponding authors' countries of affiliation to explore countries' representation. We also examined these articles' academic impact and correlations with their corresponding authors' countries of affiliation. Additional journals and countries' indicators were collected from the Web of Science and World Bank websites, respectively. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics and the VOSviewer software. Results In total, 3492 publications were analyzed. Based on the corresponding author, high-income countries produced 61.9% of these publications. Corresponding authors from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East combined accounted for 11.8% of the publications. Europe hosted corresponding authors with the most publications and citations, and corresponding authors from North America had the largest mean journal impact factor. Conclusions The global scientific discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increased contribution of academics from developing countries. However, authors from high-income countries have continued to shape this discussion. It is imperative to ensure the active participation of low- and middle-income countries in setting up the global mental health research agenda, particularly in situations of global crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Scaling Up Global Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

Every health care system requires an adequate health care workforce, service delivery, financial support, and information technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global health systems were ill prepared to address the rising prevalence of mental health problems, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), thereby increasing treatment gaps. To close these gaps globally, task shifting and telepsychiatry should be made available and maximized, particularly in LMICs. Task shifting to nonspecialist health workers to improve essential mental health coverage and encourage effi-cient use of the available resources and technology has become the most viable strategy. Psychiatric Services 2022; 73:231-234; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20200077

How to overcome barriers to publication in low- and middle-income countries:Recommendations from early career psychiatrists and researchers from around the world

There is an increasing movement toward international collaboration and global discussion in mental health. If provided with the right opportunities, early career psychiatrists (ECPs) and researchers in mental health can contribute meaningfully to this discussion. However, they often experience multiple barriers when attempting to add their voices via academic publications. We represent a diverse group of ECPs and researchers from all six World Health Organization regions. In this piece, we discuss these barriers, grounded in our first-hand experiences, and put forth a series of recommendations. The most potentially beneficial and immediate way forward is ensuring a much-needed mentorship and support, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. In this regard, international organizations, especially those with a particular focus on education, such as the Section on Education in Psychiatry of the World Psychiatric Association, can play a pivotal role