Abstract
The phrase ‘conflict of interests’ is so prevalent within the medical literature that one could be forgiven for thinking that it is the collective noun for interests. Almost midway through our first year with SAGE, the first six ANZJP issues of 2012 have featured a number of thought-provoking debates that have addressed a broad range of topics from early intervention in psychosis and the role of antidepressants in bipolar disorder to this month’s equally contentious and aptly named quandary – a conflict of interests.
The debates are prefaced by an editorial, directed by Professor Philip Boyce (Boyce and Malhi, 2012), which both sets the stage and identifies why the various concerns that are raised by the contributors to this series are important and how perhaps they can be addressed. Reiterating some of the messages of this editorial in order to underscore their importance, I implore everyone to give this issue serious consideration and share the outcomes of your cogitations by way of correspondence to the Journal.
In addition to our perspectives, we have our usual rich array of articles and begin with two detailed reviews (Coulston et al., 2012; Plakiotis et al., 2012) that between them reflect the breadth of our specialty from psychology and personality to the application of physical treatments – in this case electroconvulsive therapy. Together, these review papers provide a suitable tableau for the thought-provoking research articles that follow.
Conflicting ideas certainly make for interesting reading and it is noteworthy the extent to which there are discrepancies between the views of parents and their children regarding the presentation of psychological problems (Wahlin and Deane, 2012). Associated with this, if only tangentially, is the issue of awareness and mental health literacy and how the awareness of beyondblue is largely unrelated to beliefs regarding treatment (Yap et al., 2012). Together, these two skillfully written papers address important issues; namely, how mental health is perceived and presented, and the perception of individuals who present with mental health problems. Transmuting the latter into understanding and exploring miscomprehension within the context of schizophrenia, Balzan and colleagues (2012) examine the subtleties of the jumping to conclusions bias when making decisions. Even some of the commentaries and correspondence in this issue embrace our theme of contentiousness and offer lively opinion pieces that warrant deliberation. In particular, the reply by Professor Ian Hickie and colleagues (2012) and the challenging views expressed by Dr Christopher Ryan (2012) provide interesting new insights and welcome neuronal fodder.
In addition to providing the usual synopsis and highlights of the issue, this month I have the additional pleasure of introducing new board members, which in itself has been restructured to capture both local and international talent. Our burgeoning statistical expertise has been considerably enhanced with the addition of analytical prowess in the form of Professors Vince Calhoun and Luan Phan from the United States and Drs Pritha Das and Grant Sara from Australia. Collectively they bring knowledge of a variety of analytical methods and expand our statistical ability further to deal with the ever-growing complexity of science within the Journal. Similar augmentation of our Advisory Board has been achieved by the addition of Professors Bernard Carroll, Koen Demyttenaere, John Geddes, Nassir Ghaemi, Michael Gitlin, Ulrich Hegerl and Raymond Lam, and Drs Sumit Anand and Christopher Ryan. Apart from the range of clinical and research interests these new board members bring, they also vitally extend the international reach of the Journal.
Continuing the growth of the Advisory Board, I am also delighted to be able to announce a new initiative – namely that of trainee board members. The first of these appointments are Drs Genevieve Curran and Sandy Kuiper for whom this experience will hopefully provide a useful academic apprenticeship. I am grateful to the College for their support of this initiative and from the Journal’s perspective am confident that the inclusion of these younger minds within the framework of a Trainee Advisory Board will ensure that the Journal remains vibrant and contemporary.