BACKGROUND:Diagnosed anxiety disorder is a predictor of same-day case cancellations. Many patients experience significant preoperative anxiety without a formal diagnosis. We investigated whether high preoperative anxiety independently predicts same-day case cancellations beyond established risk factors. METHODS:This prospective study was conducted at Montefiore Medical Center between April 2023 and January 2025. Anxiety was assessed one day preoperatively using a self-reported Numeric Rating Scale (NRS:0-10). High anxiety was defined as NRS ≥5. The primary outcome was same-day case cancellation. We used modified Poisson and logistic regressions to examine associations between exposure and outcome, adjusting for known predictors of same-day case cancellation. RESULTS:The final cohort included 6469 cases, of which 1248 (19.3%) reported high preoperative anxiety whereas only 9.5% of them had a documented anxiety diagnosis. The most frequently reported concerns were complications in surgery (1147 (17.7%)), postoperative complications (811 (12.5%)), and pain (682 (10.5%)). Same-day case cancellation rates were 6.0% (312/5221) for patients with low anxiety and 7.7% (96/1248) for those with high anxiety (risk difference 1.7% (95%CI (confidence interval): 0.1% -3.3%), p = 0.025). The attributable risk fraction of high anxiety for same-day case cancellation amounted to 22.1%. High anxiety was associated with an increased risk of case cancellation (adjusted risk ratio 1.29; 95%CI: 1.04-1.62; p = 0.023). An increase in each NRS anxiety score (0-10) was dose-dependently associated with added risk of case cancellation (adjusted odds ratio 1.04; 95%CI: 1.01-1.08; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS:A significant level of preoperative anxiety occurs in one out of 5 patients and is an independent predictor of surgical case cancellations. One-fifth of same-day case cancellations in patients can be attributed to preoperative anxiety, which may potentially be addressed by a preoperative intervention.

OBJECTIVE:The authors of this review aimed to examine the characteristics of published research on the clinical diagnosis of malingering and to critically assess the reporting of data on housing, race-ethnicity, and co-occurring psychiatric disorders. METHODS:Five databases (Embase, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) were searched from database inception to June 17, 2025. Results were independently screened by two researchers to identify studies of patients given a diagnosis of malingering in a clinical setting. PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS:Of 3,150 records screened, 21 articles were included. Methods of identifying malingering used by these studies included the nonmutually exclusive categories of chart review (N=17 studies, 81%), ICD codes (N=7, 33%), and DSM criteria (N=3, 14%). Only five (24%) articles reported the housing status of individuals given a diagnosis of malingering. The racial-ethnic characteristics of people determined to be malingering were seldom reported (N=6, 29%). Although nine (43%) articles reported the prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders among people determined to be malingering, the focus of reporting was overwhelmingly on personality, mood, psychotic, and substance use-related disorders, with limited coverage of cognitive disorders and anxiety- and trauma-related disorders. Only three (14%) articles reported data on longitudinal mental health outcomes such as overdose and suicide. CONCLUSIONS:Limited data are available with regard to how diagnostic decisions about malingering take into consideration patients' housing status and mental health history. Potential racial-ethnic disparities in malingering diagnoses are poorly characterized.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND:Pharmacogenomics (PGx), or the use of genetic information to assess drug-gene interactions, is an important step toward precision medicine. It is unclear if clinician use of PGx yields better outcomes for their patients. This study compared the effectiveness of combinatorial PGx-guided plus guideline-informed treatment (PGx+GIT) with guideline-informed treatment (GIT) alone to improve well-being in individuals with major depressive disorder. METHODS/PROCEDURES:Eligible participants (N=201) were randomized to PGx+GIT or GIT alone. PGx was measured with the proprietary GeneSight combinatorial test. PGx+GIT participant clinicians received test results within 2 business days to inform decisions about medication changes. Participants completed the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and PROMIS Profile physical functioning and social roles and activity domains every 2 weeks for 2 months and then every 2 months for the remaining 10 months. Monthly medication changes operationalized as necessary clinical adjustments were tracked with the medication recommendation tracking form. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Both groups improved average well-being over the 12-month study period (model-based change in WHO-5 per log (week) [95% CI]: 4.1 [3.3, 5.0] PGx+GIT and 4.8 [4.0, 5.5] GIT). PGx+GIT did not result in superior improvement in well-being (model-based difference [95% CI]: -0.6 [-1.8, 0.5], P =0.270), or any secondary outcomes. The effect of randomized treatment on well-being was not moderated by depression severity, number of previous failed medications for major depressive disorder, or presence of a comorbid condition. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:These data suggest PGx+GIT was not superior to GIT alone, possibly due to a ceiling effect of GIT, or PGx did not yield better results.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric disorder that can become chronic and debilitating when left untreated. The most commonly recommended first-line treatments for PTSD among adults are individual trauma-focused psychotherapies. Other evidence-based treatments include specific antidepressant medications and non-trauma-focused psychotherapies. Despite the effectiveness of these available treatments, many patients' symptoms do not remit. This has led to the search for novel treatments for PTSD. In this review, the authors critically evaluate the data supporting several emerging pharmacological and other somatic interventions in the categories of medication-assisted psychotherapy, novel medication monotherapy strategies, and neuromodulation, selected because of the salience of their mechanisms of action to the pathophysiology of PTSD (e.g., MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, ketamine, cannabidiol, transcranial magnetic stimulation). The authors also evaluate the evidence for treatments that are the focus of increasing scientific or public interest (i.e., hyperbaric oxygen therapy, stellate ganglion block, neurofeedback). To date, the evidence supporting most novel pharmacological and somatic treatments for PTSD is preliminary and highly variable; however, the data for several specific treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, are encouraging.

In recent history, the world has witnessed a trend towards liberalization of abortion laws driven by an increasing understanding of the negative personal and public health consequences of criminalizing abortion. By contrast, several countries have recently implemented restrictive reproductive laws, joining the 112 countries where access to abortion care is banned completely or with narrow exceptions. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned its landmark decisions in Roe v Wade that established abortion until the point of viability of the fetus as a constitutional right. After Roe v Wade having been overturned, it is projected that many women in the USA will be prevented from accessing safe abortion care. Importantly, abortion bans not only impose constraints on patient autonomy, they also restrict physicians' ability to practice evidence-based medicine, which will negatively impact psychiatric care. It is therefore crucial for the practicing psychiatrist to be familiar with this new legal landscape. In this Personal View, we aim to provide a topical overview to help clinicians gain a clear understanding of legal, clinical, and ethical responsibilities, focusing on the USA. We also discuss the reality that psychiatrists might be called upon to determine medical necessity for an abortion on psychiatric grounds, which is new for most US psychiatrists. We predict that psychiatrists will be confronted with very difficult situations in which lawful and ethical conduct might be incongruent, and that abortion bans will result in greater numbers of patients needing psychiatric care from a system that is ill-prepared for additional demands.

Investigators from minoritized backgrounds are underrepresented in psychiatric research. That underrepresentation contributes to disparities in outcomes of access to mental health care. Drawing on lived experience, scholarly qualitative reports, and empirical data, the authors review how the underrepresentation of minoritized researchers arises from interlocking, self-reinforcing effects of structural biases in our research training and funding institutions. Minoritized researchers experience diminished early access to advanced training and opportunities, stereotype threats and microaggressions, isolation due to lack of peers and senior mentors, decreased access to early funding, and unique community and personal financial pressures. These represent structural racism-a system of institutional assumptions and practices that perpetuates race-based disparities, in spite of those institutions' efforts to increase diversity and in contradiction to the values that academic leaders outwardly espouse. The authors further review potential approaches to reversing these structural biases, including undergraduate-focused research experiences, financial support for faculty who lead training/mentoring programs, targeted mentoring through scholarly societies, better use of federal diversity supplement funding, support for scientific reentry, cohort building, diversity efforts targeting senior leadership, and rigorous examination of hiring, compensation, and promotion practices. Several of these approaches have empirically proven best practices and models for dissemination. If implemented alongside outcome measurement, they have the potential to reverse decades of structural bias in psychiatry and psychiatric research.

OBJECTIVE:Racial and ethnic disparities in exposure to COVID-19-related stressors, pandemic-related distress, and adverse mental health outcomes were assessed among health care workers in the Bronx, New York, during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS:The authors analyzed survey data from 992 health care workers using adjusted logistic regression models to assess differential prevalence of outcomes by race/ethnicity and their interactions. RESULTS:Compared with their White colleagues, Latinx, Black, Asian, and multiracial/other health care workers reported significantly higher exposure to multiple COVID-19-related stressors: redeployment, fear of being sick, lack of autonomy at work, and inadequate access to personal protective equipment. Endorsing a greater number of COVID-19-related stressors was associated with pandemic-related distress in all groups and with adverse mental health outcomes in some groups; it was not related to hazardous alcohol use in any of the groups. These associations were not significantly different between racial and ethnic groups. Latinx health care workers had significantly higher probabilities of pandemic-related distress and posttraumatic stress than White colleagues. Despite greater exposure to COVID-19-related stressors, Black, Asian, and multiracial/other health care workers had the same, if not lower, prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes. Conversely, White health care workers had a higher adjusted prevalence of moderate to severe anxiety compared with Asian colleagues and greater hazardous alcohol use compared with all other groups. CONCLUSIONS:Health care workers from racial and ethnic minority groups reported increased exposure to COVID-19-related stressors, suggestive of structural racism in the health care workforce. These results underscore the need for increased support for health care workers and interventions aimed at mitigating disparities in vocational exposure to risk and stress.