Abstract
At the recent RANZCP Annual Congress in Perth, somewhat to my surprise, a College Fellow approached me after I had delivered a lecture on publishing and, referring to the ANZJP, stated, ‘I enjoy the Journal immensely, and especially now because it often addresses hot topics’. She then went on to say, separately, ‘but there is so much to read these days, I am often not sure what I should be reading’. Alongside this informal feedback the Journal Office has been collating feedback from reader questionnaires administered over the past few months and, in general, I am happy to report that the majority of readers find the Journal interesting and almost everyone seems to have a favourite section or sections reflecting their own reading priorities.
This month’s issue certainly has its fair share of topical and compelling articles. So where to begin? What are the must-reads? Whilst all the articles in ANZJP are a worthy investment of your precious time, you cannot go wrong by starting with this month’s Editors Choice (Bryant et al., 2014). This important research study, conducted by an Australian group of international standing, reports on the psychological sequelae of the Black Saturday bushfires that took place in February 2009 in the state of Victoria. If you are severely pressed for time, then at least read the introduction of this paper and turn to the last paragraph of the discussion, which outlines a number of key outcomes. Then, once you have grasped the gist of this paper, turn back to the two Viewpoints by Ferguson and Boden (2014) and McFarlane and Van Hooff (2014), who together provide further interesting insights into disaster research and its broader implications.
‘Disaster research’ should not be confused with a ‘research disaster’. The first thing that comes to mind when considering the latter is a serious side effect of treatment (see Correspondence and later in this article), but, in psychiatry research, perhaps the most common and far-reaching disaster is a lack of research in the first place. One such area bereft of inquiry, until recently, is women’s mental health. As by now (if you have been following my suggestions) you will have benefitted from two illuminating perspectives, you may as well venture a third. This sapient article by Wilhelm (2014) discusses thoughtfully gender differences in mental health.
Turning our attention briefly to putting out fires, a detailed systematic review examines the topical and clinically complex issue of smoke-free hospitalisation and its impact (Stockings et al., 2014). Sitting alongside this article is another systematic review that carefully examines changes in the mental health of children over time (Bor et al., 2014). Echoing our clinical observations and impressions, the article suggests that adolescent girls are indeed experiencing increases in internalising symptoms when compared to previous cohorts. As a parent myself of two adolescent girls, I find this essential reading.
Returning to research articles, this issue of ANZJP also presents a novel volumetric neuroimaging study of body dysmorphic disorder (Buchanan et al., 2014). This sophisticated investigation reveals discernible structural differences in the brains of patients with this disorder. Specifically, it notes that the right orbitofrontal cortex and left anterior cingulate cortex are diminished in size. Interest in this new finding will hopefully inspire further research that corroborates and builds on these findings.
Continuing with unique investigations, this issue also reports the findings from a meta-analysis of comparisons between agomelatine and other antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder (Huang et al., 2014). This is a potentially important paper because it suggests that there may be a difference in efficacy, which perhaps stems from the different mechanisms of action of various antidepressants.
In addition to other interesting research papers (Bird et al., 2014; Marie et al., 2014), there are two illustrated commentaries (Mauras et al., 2014; Yeh et al., 2014) depicting the side effects of medication and another that addresses the hidden issue of domestic squalor (Snowdon, 2014).
Finally, whilst writing the preamble to this issue of the Journal and re-reading the varied contributions as preparation, I realised that I should not have been surprised by the appreciative comments of the psychiatrist at the Congress, because, thanks to the continuing efforts of our authors, reviewers and editorial team, the Journal is indeed burgeoning with thought-provoking articles that will certainly repay the time invested in reading them.