Previous meta-analyses looking at the use of antidepressants during pregnancy and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children were conducted nearly a decade ago and limited by small study numbers and a lack of controlling for additional factors. This new meta-analysis provides the best evidence to date that the small increase in risk of autism or ADHD in the children of women who used antidepressants when pregnant identified in many studies is not caused by the medication.

“We know many parents-to-be worry about the potential impact of taking medication during pregnancy; our study provides reassuring evidence that commonly used antidepressants do not increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and ADHD in children. While all medications carry risks, so too does stopping antidepressants during pregnancy due to an increased risk of relapse. Therefore, for women with moderate-severe depression, doctors and patients must carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits of continuing antidepressant treatment during pregnancy against the potential harms of untreated depression,” says author Dr Wing-Chung Chang, University of Hong Kong.

He continues, “Although our study found a small increase in the risk of autism and ADHD in the children of women who had used antidepressants during pregnancy, it also found that this risk disappeared when we accounted for other factors. The increased risk was also seen in the children of fathers who took antidepressants and of mothers with antidepressant use before, but not during, pregnancy. Together, this suggests that it is not the antidepressants themselves causing an increased risk in autism and ADHD but it is more likely to be due to other factors, including genetic predisposition to conditions such as ADHD, autism, and mental health conditions.”

Authors pooled data from 37 studies which included more than 600,000 pregnant women taking antidepressants and almost 25 million pregnancies with no antidepressant use.

Before controlling for key factors such as mental health conditions, the analysis found that antidepressant use by the mother during pregnancy was associated with a 35% increased risk of ADHD and a 69% increased risk of autism. However, this became greatly reduced or non-significant in analyses that better controlled for confounding factors. Use of antidepressants during pregnancy by the father was associated with a 46% increase in the risk of ADHD and a 28% increase in the risk of autism.

Among studies with analyses restricted to mothers with mental health disorders, all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were found to not be associated, only amitriptyline/nortriptyline remained associated with increased ADHD and autism risk. Amitriptyline/nortriptyline are currently considered second or third options as treatments for depression and are often prescribed for treatment-resistant depression. Therefore, women treated with these may have more severe, chronic, or complex underlying mental health conditions than those receiving more common antidepressants, which could be influencing the association between amitriptyline/nortriptyline and increased ADHD and autism risk.

The study found no difference in risk between high and low doses of antidepressants.

“The evidence suggests a link between either parent having a mental health condition and a slightly higher risk of ADHD or autism. In addition to genetic factors, this link could be explained by the home and social environment as ongoing family stress, changes in how the family functions, and differences in how parents behave and care for their children may influence neurodevelopment. There is a need to ensure both parents have access to support and treatment for mental health conditions; for their own sake and to support neurodevelopment of their child,” says Dr. Joe Kwun-Nam Chan, University of Hong Kong.

The researchers note some limitations of their study, including that data on important factors such as socioeconomic status, lifestyle risk factors and low birth weight was lacking in the studies. Additionally, there was only a small number of studies looking at antidepressant use in specific trimesters or exact doses and dose changes, which makes it harder to draw conclusions about these. Finally, women who are prescribed antidepressants tend to have more severe depression than those who are not, so some bias may remain even after controlling for mental health status.

Writing in a linked Comment, Lisa Vitte, Emmanuel Devouche and Gisele Apter from University Rouen Normandy (France), who were not involved in the study, say, “Chang and colleagues’ study adds knowledge and confirms some of the pre-existing knowledge on the use of antidepressants during pregnancy: that they should continue to be taken as they protect maternal mental health and do not harm fetal development. This result is of considerable impact after many contradictory and controversial studies.”

There was no funding source for this study. The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Hong Kong.

The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office at pressoffice@lancet.com

Quotes from Authors cannot be found in the text of the Article but have been supplied for the press release. The Comment quote is taken directly from the linked Comment.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(26)00089-1/fulltext

Obesity has a wide range of potential underlying causes, including mental and psychosocial factors. These factors include financial difficulties, mental stress and loneliness. This study aimed to examine whether these factors occur differently between people with normal weight, overweight or obesity.

The authors used data from the Dutch version of the online screening tool CheckCausesObesity.com This screening tool identifies possible underlying causes of obesity based on international guideline- and evidence-based algorithms. This is an online screening tool that helps identify the underlying causes of obesity in an individual. It systematically maps lifestyle factors, biological, psychological, social, and medication-related factors, as well as more rare medical (eg genetic) causes and also comorbidities, using guideline-based algorithms. All factors are explored in depth through detailed patient input. As part of a comprehensive assessment of multiple lifestyle factors, hormonal, genetic and medical factors which can contribute to overweight, this tool also includes questions about financial problems, loneliness and stress, as well as sex, weight, height and birthyear, enabling the researchers to calculate BMI and age. Patients complete the questions in this screening tool at home, and the results support a more personalized and medically informed treatment approach.

Statistical modelling was performed to explore the associations between financial problems, loneliness, stress and BMI classes (normal weight (BMI 20-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²), obesity class 1 (BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), obesity class 2 (BMI 35-39.9 kg/m²), and obesity class 3 (BMI ≥40 kg/m2)). Thereafter, statistical analyses were performed, adjusting for age and sex. Finally, potential sex differences in the results were assessed.

The screening tool was completed by 44.407 adults, between June 2024 and November 2025. Mean age was 52 years and the majority were female (76.7%). All the results reported below were statistically significant. The authors looked first at financial difficulties, which were present in 5.4% of the respondents with no difference between men and women. A higher proportion of respondents indicated having financial problems with increasing BMI (normal weight: 4.3%, overweight: 4.7%, obesity class 1: 5.0%, obesity class 2: 6.0% and obesity class 3: 7.2%). Respondents without financial problems had a lower BMI than those indicating they had financial problems (mean BMI: 33.2 kg/m² and 34.5 kg/m²). The association between financial issues and BMI was comparable between men and women.

Secondly, they examined stress, which was reported more frequently by women (34.5%) than by men (22.5%). Respondents experienced more stress with increasing BMI (normal weight: 27.5%, overweight: 28.6%, obesity class 1: 31.2%, obesity class 2: 34.3% and obesity class 3: 37.3%). Accordingly, respondents indicating experiencing stress had a higher mean BMI compared to those without stress (mean BMI: 34.0 kg/m² and BMI: 33.1 kg/m² respectively). This association did not differ between men and women. To explore the reasons underlying respondents’ stress, participants could elaborate on their stress experiences. These qualitative responses were analysed and organised into clusters representing the most frequently reported stress domains. According to these clusters, the three most experienced stress domains were work-related, focused on general well-being or concerns about family-members.

Thirdly, loneliness was more often reported in women (8.7%) than in men (6.3%), and more prevalent among respondents with increasing class of obesity (normal weight: 7.7%, overweight: 7.0%, obesity class 1: 7.6%, obesity class 2: 8.5%, obesity class 3: 11.7%). In addition, individuals who reported loneliness had a higher BMI (mean BMI 34.5 kg/m²) than those without loneliness (mean BMI 33.3 kg/m²). Interestingly, the results suggest that loneliness is more strongly associated with a higher BMI in men than in women.

The authors conclude: “This study shows that higher BMI is associated with more financial problems, loneliness, and stress. These relationships may be bidirectional. On the one hand, higher BMI may contribute to stigma and social isolation, reduced work capacity, and increased healthcare costs. On the other hand, financial strain, chronic stress and social isolation may influence lifestyle coping behaviours, and even biological processes that promote weight gain. Broader environmental factors may further reinforce these patterns. Further research is needed to better understand these mechanisms and to inform prevention and support strategies for individuals facing financial difficulties, mental stress, and loneliness in the context of obesity.

Rates of depression and anxiety have increased worldwide since the COVID-19 pandemic, and more people are pursuing mental health treatment as a result. However, there is limited up-to-date data describing how these individuals seek out and receive care. Detailed, population-level information can help healthcare systems meet this growing population’s needs.

To make a start on gathering this data, Kruk and her colleagues surveyed 32,419 adults in 18 high-, low-, and medium-income countries. More than 1,000 people from each country responded. Participants self-reported data via the People’s Voice Survey in 2022 and 2023.

First, survey respondents self-assessed their physical and mental health (the latter including “poor,” “fair,” “good,” “very good,” and “excellent”). Then, they quantified their overall confidence in the healthcare system, their own use of healthcare services, the typical quality of care received, and their ability to manage their own mental health (a metric called patient activation).

Across all countries, respondents reporting poor mental health were more likely to report chronic illness, poorer overall health, lower patient activation, worse care quality and lower confidence in the healthcare system. Between 0.9% (Lao PDR) and 52.4% (UK) of these respondents reported receiving mental health care in the last year. Respondents in Nigeria reported the best overall mental health (4.7% people reported the lowest proportion of “poor” or “fair” mental health (4.7%), while respondents in China had the highest proportion (39.6%).

The researchers hope these results can help the countries in question — and individual healthcare systems — better serve the needs of those with poor mental health. While this is a descriptive study, the researchers posit patient activation as a potential target for elevating overall health and wellness.

The authors acknowledge that big-picture data doesn’t describe individuals’ specific experiences within the healthcare system. They suggest comparison across similar health systems and tracking system performance over time to continuously improve health services.

The authors add, “What stands out from this study is that poor mental health doesn’t exist in isolation. People reporting poor mental health were nearly twice as likely to have a chronic illness and far less likely to feel empowered to manage their own health. Health systems need to stop treating mental health in a silo and recognize that these patients are showing up across all areas of care — and often with more complex needs.”

Kruk adds, “As a research consortium working across very different health systems, we expected to find variation, and we did, in treatment access. But the experience gap was remarkably consistent: people with poor mental health had worse care, more unmet needs, and less trust in the system, regardless of where they lived. Health systems globally need to rethink how they serve this growing group, not just whether they can reach them.”

Freely available paper in PLOS Medicine: https://plos.io/3O045Xd

Citation: Kruk ME, Kapoor NR, Arsenault C, Carai S, Daray FM, Doubova SV, et al. (2026) Health system use and experience among people with poor mental health: A cross-sectional analysis of the People’s Voice Survey in 18 countries. PLoS Med 23(5): e1004745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004745

Author countries: United States of America, Greece, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Italy, China

Funding: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ INV-005254) to MEK; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home.html; 81067262) to MEK; Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (https://www.merck.com) to MEK; the Inter-American Development Bank (https://www.iadb.org/en; Project No. RG-T3768) to EGE; and the Taejae Research Foundation (https://taejaefoundation.or.kr/en) to JO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

But there are few evidence-based interventions to help this age group problem-solve and reduce stress. To address the gap, Rutgers University researchers tested the efficacy of Bright IDEAS, a problem-solving skills training intervention based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, in reducing depression and anxiety and improving their overall health-related quality of life in people ages 18 to 39, which the National Cancer Institute defines as “young adults.”

Their study, published in JAMA Network Open, found young adults who participated in the Bright IDEAS program showed significant reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms and improvements in their quality of life compared with members of the control group.

“Bright IDEAS participants felt less overwhelmed and more empowered,” said Katie Devine, Associate Director of the New Jersey Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Research Center of Excellence at Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Jersey’s only National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center together with RWJBarnabas Health. “This shows that a relatively brief intervention delivered by trained professionals can have a profound impact on patient well-being.”

Bright IDEAS teaches a five-step tactical approach to problem solving (IDEAS is an acronym standing for the steps of problem-solving: Identify the problem, Define your options, Evaluate options, Act and See if it worked) in a positive context (as in “bright”).

“The goal is by improving problem-solving skills, young adults will be better equipped to identify and act on problems and thus reduce symptoms of distress and improve quality of life,” said Devine, an author of the study who also is an associate professor at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

The Bright IDEAS intervention is completed over six video sessions by licensed mental health professionals or supervised trainees who are trained to deliver the Bright IDEAS program.

“In each session, they address challenges and walk through the problems to identify solutions,” Devine says. “Instead of feeling overwhelmed about how to manage what is happening to them, they become empowered to manage their stressors.”

The study included 344 young adults between 18 and 39 who were within four months of a first cancer diagnosis and who were undergoing systemic therapy such as chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy or stem cell transplant at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J., Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa.

Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial, with half the participants receiving Bright IDEAS and the other half receiving usual psychosocial care of visits with a social worker and provided resources. The participants were surveyed to measure their symptoms at three and six months after enrollment.

“We are next planning a trial in community oncology settings, where most young adults receive their treatment, to make Bright IDEAS more accessible to patients who may not have access to large urban cancer centers,” Devine said.

Other Rutgers authors involved in the study are Sharon Manne, Kristine Levonyan-Radloff, Shengguo Li and Pamela Ohman Strickland.

The team analyzed data from the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). This was the first year the large‑scale, nationally representative survey asked psilocybin‑specific questions, enabling the researchers to gain a more accurate picture of past‑year use among the 58,633 respondents. Previous national surveys have grouped psilocybin with other hallucinogens and have focused on lifetime use rather than its use during the past 12 months.

“Prior surveys only captured lifetime use, which tells us little about current use patterns; someone who tried psilocybin once in college a decade ago and someone using it regularly today look identical in that data. Past-year gives us a much more clinically relevant picture of who is using psilocybin right now and what factors are associated with their use,” said first author Kevin Yang, MD, resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

The research found:

• 18–25 year-olds had 1.4x the odds of psilocybin use compared to those ages 35–49, while those over 50 had about one-third lower odds
• Males had 1.7x the odds compared to females and white respondents had 2.5x the odds of Black respondents and 1.4x the odds of Hispanic respondents
• The use of cannabis and hallucinogens like LSD, MDMA and ketamine was strongly associated with past-year psilocybin use.
• Alcohol use disorder and prescription stimulant misuse were also correlated with psilocybin use.
• Individuals with a major depressive episode in the past year had higher odds of psilocybin use.

The findings have implications for clinical practice. Over the past decade, clinical trials have revealed that psilocybin has promising therapeutic effects for depression and treatment‑resistant depression, but the safety profile of unsupervised, naturalistic use remains unclear. Unlike controlled clinical settings where participants are carefully screened, doses are standardized, and psychological support is provided, naturalistic use lacks these safeguards.

“When psilocybin is used outside of a clinical setting, the risks look very different. We’ve seen reports of anxiety, paranoia and prolonged psychological distress, and there are also potential interactions with antidepressants that clinicians need to look out for,” said Yang.

He says the findings highlight the need for clinicians to be aware of psilocybin use among their patients, particularly those with depression.

“With 8 million Americans using psilocybin in the past year, this is something that psychiatrists and other clinicians should be asking about, including why patients are using it and what benefits they perceive, as well as being prepared to counsel them on harm reduction and potential risks,” said Yang.

Looking forward, Yang says longitudinal studies that track the mental health of people over time as they use psilocybin are needed, as well as increased public health surveillance as de‑criminalization and potential FDA approval of the substance progress.

Additional co-authors on the study include: Avery Eun, UC San Diego School of Medicine; Joseph J. Palamar, NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Read the full study here.

Diabetes and obesity have long been linked to an increased risk of mental health symptoms. Similarly, individuals with mental disorders have an elevated risk of metabolic diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Researchers have working to disentangle the connections between these conditions.

Previous evidence on the effects of GLP-1 medications on anxiety and depressive disorders has been somewhat inconsistent, but it has been largely based on small studies. The new paper, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, includes data from nearly 100,000 participants, over 20,000 of whom had used GLP-1 medications to treat diabetes and obesity. Participants were followed through Swedish national registers between 2009 and 2022.

The results showed that the use of GLP-1 medications – particularly semaglutide – was associated with a reduction in workplace absence and in lower rates of hospital care for psychiatric issues. During periods of semaglutide use, the reduction was 42% compared with periods when GLP-1 medications were not used. For depression, the risk was 44% lower, and for anxiety disorders, 38% lower.

In addition, semaglutide use was associated with a lower risk of substance use disorders: hospital care and sickness absence related to substance use were 47% lower during periods of semaglutide use compared with periods without GLP-1 medication. The use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was also associated with a reduced risk of suicidal behaviour.

One of the study’s authors, Professor Mark Taylor from Griffith University, says such results were to be expected: ‘An earlier study examining Swedish registers found the use of GLP-1 medications to be associated with a reduced risk of alcohol use disorder. Alcohol-related problems often have downstream effects on mood and anxiety, so we expected the effect to be positive on these as well.’

However, the magnitude of the association surprised the researchers. ‘Because this is a registry-based study, we cannot determine exactly why or how these medications affect mood symptoms, but the association was quite strong,’ says Prof Markku Lähteenvuo from the University of Eastern Finland. ‘It is possible that, in addition to factors such as reduced alcohol consumption, weight loss-related improvements in body image, or relief associated with better glycaemic control in diabetes, there may also be direct neurobiological mechanisms involved – for example, through changes in the functioning of the brain’s reward system.’

“When we negatively interpret a situation, it impacts how we feel and respond—especially in people experiencing anxiety and depression,” said senior author Courtney Beard, PhD,  director of the Cognition and Affect Research Education (CARE) Laboratory at McLean Hospital, a member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system. “By providing a simple, game-like exercise through an app, we have shown that we can help individuals gain insight into their thinking patterns in a more accessible and engaging way, that leads to meaningful improvements.”

Access to evidence-based treatments for anxiety and depression remains a significant challenge for many individuals due to provider shortages, high costs, and stigma surrounding mental health care. Digital tools have the potential to bridge these gaps; however, most available apps are not rigorously studied, resulting in a wide variance in quality and effectiveness. In addition, users often drop off these apps shortly after download. The researchers designed HabitWorks with these limitations in mind, working with an advisory board of individuals with lived experience of anxiety and depression.

In their new study, the investigators enrolled 340 adults across 44 states, who were randomized to use the HabitWorks app for four weeks or to a control condition that involved self-assessment surveys tracking symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Participants using HabitWorks reported significantly greater improvements in interpretation bias, functioning, and overall mental health symptom severity after one month compared to the control group. HabitWorks also achieved excellent retention rates with 77.8% of participants still using the app in week 4 and 84.4% of participants completing the post-intervention assessment.

“One thing that makes our approach unique in digital mental health is its focus on short, five-minute exercises,” said lead author Alexandra Silverman, PhD, a clinical investigator in the CARE Laboratory. “Unlike traditional interventions that mimic long therapy sessions, HabitWorks aligns with how people use their phones in short bursts, creating an approach that fits into daily life.”

HabitWorks is currently not available to the public. Further research is needed to identify which populations would benefit most from HabitWorks, the longevity of its effects and methods for delivering the intervention beyond a research setting. For more information on HabitWorks and to sign up for its waitlist, visit this website.

Authorship: In addition to Silverman and Beard, Mass General Brigham authors include Gabriela Kovarsky Rotta and Doah Shin.
Disclosures: None.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH12937) and by Harvard Medical School’s Livingston Fellowship and McLean Hospital’s Pope-Hintz Endowed Fellowship.
Paper cited: Silverman, A. et al. “Randomized Controlled Trial of Smartphone-Based Interpretation Bias Intervention for Anxiety and Depression” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology DOI: xxx

Research led by the University of Southampton and King’s College London examined the experiences of parents navigating waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the UK.

NHS data for the end of September 2025 shows that of those children (up to 17 years old) waiting for an assessment with the service, over 63 percent spent more than a year on the list, and a third of these were waiting over two years.

“CAMHS are experiencing  enormous demand to offer timely support to young people. Staff working in these services are under huge pressure, and in-turn, parents and their children, are also suffering – with some concern that long wait times could exacerbate ADHD symptoms,” explains lead author Dr Ellen Hedstrom.

She adds: “Through our study, we wanted to better understand how parents experience the time between their child’s referral, an ADHD assessment, and a diagnostic outcome. Also, what impact this has on them and their child.”

Study findings are published in the journal Health Expectations.

The researchers conducted anonymised interviews with a total of 41 parents of children aged between five and 11 years old. Their wait times ranged between seven months and over two years. Thirty percent of participants fell between an 18 and 24 month wait, and ten percent over two years. About 50 percent of children hadn’t had their initial ADHD assessment at the time of interview.

Strong feedback was given to the research team by parents. Many of felt that:

• Communication about wait time status was either non-existent or unsatisfactory.

• Lengthy wait times negatively impacted the mental health and wellbeing of both themselves and their child.

• Uncertainty led them to feelings of powerlessness, anxiety and being forgotten.

• Finding a crisis care contact was a struggle, or that support they’d accessed was inadequate.

• There’s pressure to get a diagnosis because it can be essential to access support or treatment, for example at school.

Many parents believed there was a disparity between the support they felt they needed and the support they received.

As one parent, Jayne, put it: “It’s hard because there is no support, at the moment, until you get that diagnosis and you’re forever in limbo.”

Another, Jaz, said: “We’ve wasted over 2 years of her education, it is a huge percentage. And in that time, she was just getting further and further behind.”

Others were grappling with whether they should try and find the money to go private, as in the case of Sarah: “We are struggling a bit and it would be nice to know whether we should be trying to save up to get him seen privately, if it’s gonna be years and years, then that’s what we’d do. If it’s gonna be another 6 months, then we’ll wait.”

At the same turn, there was also empathy for health care staff and understanding that clinical services are under enormous strain. Some parents said they wanted to place as few demands as possible on staff, due to this.

Parents’ suggestions for improvement included regular updates of their status on the waiting list, including confirmation of wait times; a digitised system where parents could logon, check any progress, or book appointments; also, the idea of a named key-worker who they could turn to for help and support while waiting. Parents also expressed the need for help with skills and strategies for themselves to manage the behaviour of their children.

Meanwhile, the authors of the study point to a recent successful local authority scheme which piloted a neurodiversity tool – offering early profiling from trained professionals. This gave parents and schools  knowledge for early intervention to help children while they wait for formal diagnosis.

“Many tools and platforms already exist, or could be developed to meet the needs of CAMHS,” concludes Dr Hedstrom. “This would not only give parents more autonomy in the way that they manage their time on a wait list and how they access much-needed information, but also alleviate the burden on mental health services, resulting in a more efficient service.”

1. The paper, ‘Until You Get the Diagnosis You’re Forever in Limbo’—Parents’ Experiences of Waiting for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Assessment With Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, is published in the journal Health Expectations – DOI: 10.1111/hex.70569 and can be read here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70569
2. For interviews contact, Steve Williams, Media Manager, University of Southampton. +44 23 80593 212
3. The University of Southampton drives original thinking, turns knowledge into action and impact, and creates solutions to the world’s challenges. We are among the top 100 institutions globally (QS World University Rankings 2026). Our academics are leaders in their fields, forging links with high-profile international businesses and organisations, and inspiring a 25,000-strong community of exceptional students, from over 135 countries worldwide. Through our high-quality education, the University helps students on a journey of discovery to realise their potential and join our global network of over 300,000 alumni. www.southampton.ac.uk
4. For more about KCL visit: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/

Past scholarly research has found that most Americans say they support mental health policies. Jake Haselswerdt, an associate professor of political science in Mizzou’s College of Arts and Science, wanted to take the topic a step further by asking whether mental health policies actually matter when people choose to vote for a political candidate.

Drawing on a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults from the 2024 Cooperative Election Study, Haselswerdt asked participants to choose between competing priorities. The results showed that even small differences could sway voters, and mental health was often the issue that tipped the scale in a candidate’s favor.

The results indicate mental health issues influence political decision making in substantive ways, Haselswerdt said.

“I assumed mental health would rank below topics that typically dominate public discussion, like border security,” he said. “But that’s not what I found. I found that people consider this to be as important as other issues that get a lot more news coverage.”

Mizzou’s study comes during a time when concerns about Americans’ mental well-being remain elevated across the country. Recent polling from the National Alliance on Mental Illness shows one in six adults reporting poor mental health, largely influenced by the cost of living, personal health concerns and the demands of daily life.

Haselswerdt said the findings point to a significant and often under-recognized opportunity for policymakers to take stronger action on mental health policies.

“If there’s one takeaway, it’s that political leaders should pay more attention to addressing the deepening mental health crisis in America,” he said.

The study, “Who cares about mental health? Benchmarking the issue importance of mental health for American voters” was published in PLOS One.

The study comes amid more than one million prescription approvals and a tripling of sales of cannabinoid medications (including both cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products) in Australia over the past four years, often for the treatment of mental health and substance-use disorders.

The study’s lead author, Dr Jack Wilson at the University of Sydney’s The Matilda Centre, said the results call into question the approval of medicinal cannabis for the treatment of depression, anxiety and PTSD.

“Though our paper didn’t specifically look at this, the routine use of medicinal cannabis could be doing more harm than good by worsening mental health outcomes, for example a greater risk of psychotic symptoms and developing cannabis use disorder, and delaying the use of more effective treatments,” he said.

More than 700,000 Australians have reported using medicinal cannabis to treat over 250 different health conditions. The research found evidence to suggest that medicinal cannabis could potentially be beneficial for some conditions – such as the treatment of cannabis use disorder (otherwise known as cannabis dependency), autism, insomnia, and tics or Tourette’s syndrome.

Dr Wilson said: “But the overall quality of evidence for these other conditions, such as autism and insomnia, was low. In the absence of robust medical or counselling support, the use of medicinal cannabis in these cases are rarely justified.

“There is, however, evidence that medicinal cannabis may be beneficial in certain health conditions, such as reducing seizures associated with some forms of epilepsy, spasticity among those with multiple sclerosis, and managing certain types of pain, but our study shows the evidence for mental health disorders falls short.

“In the case of autism specifically, while the study showed some evidence medicinal cannabis could assist with a reduction in symptoms, it is worth noting that there is no one – or universal – experience of autism, so this finding should be treated with caution.”

The study found that medicinal cannabis was not effective for every type of substance-abuse disorder. While medicinal cannabis may help with cannabis dependence, it was found to increase cocaine cravings among people with cocaine-use disorder

“Similar to how methadone is used to treat opioid-use disorder, cannabis medicines may form part of an effective treatment for those with a cannabis-use disorder. When administered alongside psychological therapy, an oral formulation of cannabis was shown to reduce cannabis smoking,” Dr Wilson said.

“However, when medicinal cannabis was used to treat people with cocaine-use disorder, it increased their cravings. This means it should not be considered for this purpose and may, in fact, worsen cocaine dependence,” he said.

Researchers urge greater regulation for prescribing of medicinal cannabis 

The rapid expansion in medicinal cannabis use and prescribing rates has raised concerns among major medical bodies, including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, about the largely unregulated growth in prescribing and the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy and safety of these products.

In response, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) initiated a review of the regulatory oversight of medicinal cannabis, with more than 500 responses published in February.

“Our study provides a comprehensive and independent assessment of the benefits and risks of cannabis medicines, which may support the TGA and clinicians to make evidence-based decisions, helping to ensure patients receive effective treatments while minimising harm from ineffective or unsafe cannabis products,” Dr Wilson said.

The systematic review and meta-analysis included results from 54 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 45-year period (1980-2025) worldwide.

Research: Wilson, J et al, ‘The efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis’ (The Lancet Psychiatry, 2026)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(26)00015-5

The large register-based retrospective study was carried out in collaboration between the University of Eastern Finland, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Griffith University in Australia.

As background, the authors noted that, “People with diabetes have an elevated risk of developing depression, anxiety, and suicide. GLP-1 receptor agonists are licensed to treat diabetes and obesity, but data on whether these medications alleviate or exacerbate anxiety, depression, and self-harm are mixed. We studied the risk of worsening mental illness in people already diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or both who were prescribed antidiabetic medications including GLP-1 receptor agonists.”

The investigators identified people from national Swedish electronic health registries who had received a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder and who had used any antidiabetic medication between the years 2009 and 2022.

They compared the psychiatric effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists, individually and as a class of drugs, to non-use of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The primary outcome was worsening of mental illness, defined as a composite of psychiatric hospitalization, sick leave from work for more than 14 days for psychiatric reasons and hospitalization due to self-harm or death by suicide.

The investigators enrolled 95,490 subjects, 56,976 female and 38,514 male, with a mean age of 50.6 years.

GLP-1 receptor agonists were used by 22,480 of these subjects during the study period.

Treatment with GLP-1 medications, especially semaglutide, was associated with a reduction in sickness absence and hospital care due to psychiatric reasons. When semaglutide was used, the reduction was 42% compared with periods when GLP-1 medications were not used. For worsening depression, the risk was 44% lower when GLP-1 medications were used. And for worsening anxiety disorders it was 38% lower.

The investigators reported that hospital care and sickness absence related to substance use were 47% lower during periods of semaglutide use compared with periods without GLP-1 use.

Investigator Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD Research Director, Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Eastern Finland, said, “Because this is a registry-based study, we cannot determine exactly why or how these medications affect mood symptoms, but the association was quite strong. It is possible that, in addition to factors such as reduced alcohol consumption, weight loss-related improvements in body image, or relief associated with better glycaemic control in diabetes, there may also be direct neurobiological mechanisms involved – for example, through changes in the functioning of the brain’s reward system.”

The research, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, established a significant and consistent association between Problematic Smartphone Use (PSU) – whereby an individual becomes behaviorally or psychologically reliant on their smartphone – and eating disorder symptom severity. Researchers argue this highlights the need for early intervention strategies specific to excessive phone use for young people displaying eating disorder symptoms.

While there has been research conducted into the negative impact that problematic internet usage, exposure to social media, and harmful online content can have on body image and body dysphoria in both clinical and non-clinical populations, none have specifically examined PSU.

Researchers identified 35 studies in which to include in this systematic review. The studies were from across the globe and provided researchers with a sample size of 52,584 participants with an average age of 17.

Their analysis of the data found that higher daily smartphone use was also related to greater food addiction symptoms, broader disordered eating behaviours like uncontrolled eating or emotional overeating, and body dissatisfaction in people with no diagnosis of an eating disorder. The association was particularly strong in those who use their phones for more than seven hours a day.

Ben Carter, Professor of Medical Statistics at King’s IoPPN and the study’s senior author said, “Smartphones have become ubiquitous in our everyday lives. It is apparent from our study that, even for people without a diagnosis of an eating disorder, the overuse of a smartphone is associated with poor body satisfaction and altered eating behaviours, and is a potential source of distress”

Dr Johanna Keeler, a Visiting Lecturer at King’s IoPPN and the study’s first author said, “Adolescence is a key stage of development as individuals evolve their sense of self by observing others. While smartphones might present an easy way for this to happen, being consistently exposed to idealised images can lead them to compare their own appearance with these “standards”, leading to poor self-esteem and appearance dissatisfaction – both risk factors for the development of an eating disorder.”

For more information, please contact Patrick O’Brien (Media Manager) on +44 020 7848 5377.

Problematic smartphone use and smartphone screen time are associated with eating disorder psychopathology in non-clinical samples: a systematic review (DOI )(Keeler, Carter et al) was published in the Journal of Internet Medical Research.

1. “Problematic Smartphone Use” is not “smartphone addiction” and should not be used interchangeably. While smartphone users can demonstrate addictive behaviours, significantly more research is required before the “addiction” moniker can be applied.

About King’s College London and the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

King’s College London is amongst the top 35 universities in the world and 5th best in the UK (QS World University Rankings 2026), and one of England’s oldest and most prestigious universities. With an outstanding reputation for world-class teaching and cutting-edge research, King’s maintained its sixth position for ‘research power’ in the UK (2021 Research Excellence Framework).

King’s has more than 42,000 students (including more than 12,800 postgraduates) from some 190 countries worldwide, and 8,500 staff.

For nearly 200 years, King’s students and staff have used their knowledge and insight to make a positive impact on people, society and the planet. Focused on delivering positive change at home in London, across the UK and around the world, King’s is building on its history of addressing the world’s most urgent challenges head on to accelerate progress, make discoveries and pioneer innovation. Visit the website to find out more about Vision 2029, which sets out bold ambitions for the future of King’s as we look towards our 200th anniversary. World-changing ideas. Life-changing impact: kcl.ac.uk/news