Picture two people, both suffering from a serious mental illness requiring hospital admission. One was born in Australia, the other in Asia.

Hopefully, both could be treated on a voluntary basis, taking into account their individual needs, preferences and capacity to consent. If not, you might imagine they should be equally likely to receive treatment against their will (known colloquially as being “sectioned” or “scheduled”).

However, our research published in British Journal of Psychiatry Open suggests this is not the case.

In the largest study globally of its kind, we found Australians are more likely to be treated in hospital for their acute mental illness against their will if they are born overseas, speak a language other than English or are unemployed.

What we did and what we found

We examined more than 166,000 episodes of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric care in New South Wales public hospitals between 2016 and 2021. Most admissions (54%) included at least one day of involuntary care.

Being brought to hospital via legal means, such as by police or via a court order, was strongly linked to involuntary treatment.

While our study does not show why this is the case, it may be due to mental health laws. In NSW, which has similar laws to most jurisdictions in Australia, doctors may treat a person on an involuntary basis if they present with certain symptoms indicating serious mental illness (such as hallucinations and delusions) which cause them to require protection from serious harm, and there is no other less-restrictive care available. Someone who has been brought to hospital by police or the courts may be more likely to meet the legal requirement of requiring protection from serious harm.

The likelihood of involuntary care was also linked to someone’s diagnosis. A person with psychosis or organic brain diseases, such as dementia and delirium, were about four times as likely to be admitted involuntarily compared to someone with anxiety or adjustment disorders (conditions involving a severe reaction to stressors).

However, our data suggest non-clinical factors contribute to the decision to impose involuntary care.

Compared with people born in Australia, we found people born in Asia were 42% more likely to be treated involuntarily.

People born in Africa or the Middle East were 32% more likely to be treated this way.

Overall, people who spoke a language other than English were 11% more likely to receive involuntary treatment compared to those who spoke English as their first language.

Some international researchers have suggested higher rates of involuntary treatment seen in people born overseas might be due to higher rates of psychotic illness. But our research found a link between higher rates of involuntary care in people born overseas or who don’t speak English regardless of their diagnosis.

We don’t know why this is happening. It is likely to reflect a complex interplay of factors about both the people receiving treatment and the way services are provided to them.

People less likely to be treated involuntarily included those who hold private health insurance, and those referred through a community health centre or outpatients unit.

Our findings are in line with international studies. These show higher rates of involuntary treatment among people from Black and ethnic minority groups, and people living in areas of higher socioeconomic disadvantage.

A last resort? Or should we ban it?

Both the NSW and Australian mental health commissions have called involuntary psychiatric care an avoidable harm that should only be used as a last resort.

Despite this, one study found Australia’s rate of involuntary admissions has increased by 3.4% per year and it has one of the highest rates of involuntary admissions in the world.

Involuntary psychiatric treatment is also under increasing scrutiny globally.

When Australia signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it added a declaration noting it would allow for involuntary treatment of people with mental illness where such treatments are “necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards”.

However, the UN has rejected this, saying it is a fundamental human right “to be free from involuntary detention in a mental health facility and not to be forced to undergo mental health treatment”.

Others question if involuntary treatment could ever be removed entirely.

Where to from here?

Our research not only highlights concerns regarding how involuntary psychiatric treatment is implemented, it’s a first step towards decreasing its use. Without understanding how and when it is used it will be difficult to create effective interventions to reduce it.

But Australia is still a long way from significantly reducing involuntary treatment.

We need to provide more care options outside hospital, ones accessible to all Australians, including those born overseas, who don’t speak English, or who come from disadvantaged communities. This includes intervening early enough that people are supported to not become so unwell they end up being referred for treatment via police or the criminal justice system.

More broadly, we need to do more to reduce stigma surrounding mental illness and to ensure poverty and discrimination are tackled to help prevent more people becoming unwell in the first place.

Our study also shows we need to do more to respect the autonomy of someone with serious mental illness to choose if they are treated. That’s whether they are in NSW or other jurisdictions.

And legal reform is required to ensure more states and territories more fully reflect the principal that people who have the capacity to make such decisions should have the right to decline mental health treatment in the same way they would any other health care.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Amy Corderoy, Medical doctor and PhD candidate studying involuntary psychiatric treatment, School of Psychiatry, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Julia J Rucklidge, University of Canterbury; Elena Moltchanova, University of Canterbury; Roger Mulder, University of Otago, and Siobhan A Campbell, University of Canterbury

Antenatal depression affects 15% to 21% of pregnant women worldwide. It can influence birth outcomes and children’s development, as well as increase the risk of post-natal depression.

Current treatments like therapy can be inaccessible and antidepressants can carry risks for developing infants.

Over the past two decades, research has highlighted that poor nutrition is a contributing risk factor to mental health challenges. Most pregnant women in New Zealand aren’t adhering to nutritional guidelines, according to a longitudinal study. Only 3% met the recommendations for all food groups.

Another cohort study carried out in Brazil shows that ultra-processed foods (UPF) accounted for at least 30% of daily dietary energy during pregnancy, displacing healthier options.

UPFs are chemically manufactured and contain additives to improve shelf life, as well as added sugar and salt. Importantly, they are low in essential micronutrients (vitamins and minerals).

The consumption of these foods is concerning because a nutrient-poor diet during pregnancy has been linked to poorer mental health outcomes in children. This includes depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and inattention.

Increasing nutrients in maternal diets and reducing consumption of UPFs could improve the mental health of the mother and the next generation. Good nutrition can have lifelong benefits for the offspring.

However, there are multiple factors that mean diet change alone may not in itself be sufficient to address mental health challenges. Supplementing with additional nutrients may also be important to address nutritional needs during pregnancy.

Micronutrients as treatment for depression

Our earlier research suggests micronutrient supplements for depression have benefits outside pregnancy.

But until now there have been no published randomised controlled trials specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of broad-spectrum micronutrients on antenatal depression and overall functioning.

The NUTRIMUM trial, which ran between 2017 and 2022, recruited 88 women in their second trimester of pregnancy who reported moderate depressive symptoms. They were randomly allocated to receive either 12 capsules (four pills, three times a day) of a broad-spectrum micronutrient supplement or an active placebo containing iodine and riboflavin for a 12-week period.

Micronutrient doses were generally between the recommended dietary allowance and the tolerable upper level.

Based on clinician ratings, micronutrients significantly improved overall psychological functioning compared to the placebo. The findings took into account all noted changes based on self-assessment and clinician observations. This includes sleep, mood regulation, coping, anxiety and side effects.

Both groups reported similar reductions in symptoms of depression. More than three quarters of participants were in remission at the end of the trial. But 69% of participants in the micronutrient group rated themselves as “much” or “very much” improved, compared to 39% in the placebo group.

Participants taking the micronutrients also experienced significantly greater improvements in sleep and overall day-to-day functioning, compared to participants taking the placebo. There were no group differences on measures of stress, anxiety and quality of life.

Importantly, there were no group differences in reported side effects, and reports of suicidal thoughts dropped over the course of the study for both groups. Blood tests confirmed increased vitamin levels (vitamin C, D, B12) and fewer deficiencies in the micronutrient group.

Micronutrients were particularly helpful for women with chronic mental health challenges and those who had taken psychiatric medications in the past. Those with milder symptoms improved with or without the micronutrients, suggesting general care and monitoring might suffice for some women.

The benefits of micronutrients were comparable to psychotherapy but with less contact. There are no randomised controlled trials of antidepressant medication to compare these results.

Retention in the study was good (81%) and compliance excellent (90%).

Beyond maternal mental health

We followed the infants of mothers enrolled in the NUTRIMUM trial (who were therefore exposed to micronutrients during pregnancy) for 12 months, alongside infants from the general population of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This second group of infants from the general population contained a smaller sub-group who were exposed to antidepressant medication for the treatment of antenatal depression.

We assessed the neuro-behavioural development of each infant within the first four weeks of life, and temperament up to one year after birth.

These observational follow-ups showed positive effects of micronutrients on the infants’ ability to regulate their behaviour. These results were on par with or better than typical pregnancies, and better than treatments with antidepressants.

Infants exposed to micronutrients during pregnancy were significantly better at attending to external stimuli. They were also better able to block out external stimuli during sleep. They showed fewer signs of stress and had better muscle tone compared to infants not exposed to micronutrients.

They also displayed greater ability to interact with their environment. They were better at regulating their emotional state and had fewer abnormal muscle reflexes than infants exposed to antidepressant medication in pregnancy.

Reassuringly, micronutrients had no negative impact on infant temperament.

These findings highlight the potential of micronutrients as a safe and effective alternative to traditional medication treatments for antenatal depression.

The prenatal environment sets the foundation for a child’s future. Further investigation into the benefits of micronutrient supplementation would gives us more confidence in their use for other perinatal (from the start of pregnancy to a year after birth) mental health issues. This could provide future generations with a better start to life.

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Hayley Bradley to this research project.

Julia J Rucklidge, Professor of Psychology, University of Canterbury; Elena Moltchanova, Professor of Statistics, University of Canterbury; Roger Mulder, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Otago, and Siobhan A Campbell, Intern Psychologist, Researcher – Te Puna Toiora (Mental Health and Nutrition Research Lab), University of Canterbury

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.