Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42109289›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Mental health in the time of polycrisis: geopolitical determinants and modern psychiatry.

Dinesh Bhugra, Michael Liebrenz, Alexander Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dinesh BhugraInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael LiebrenzDepartment of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alexander SmithDepartment of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychiatry is increasingly being practised in environments affected by geopolitical instabilities, including economic fragmentation, democratic backsliding, and widening inequities. The confluence of these phenomena contributes to what has been described as a contemporary polycrisis, encompassing synchronous disruptions that reinforce one another and threaten collective wellbeing. Nevertheless, psychiatric research and clinical work have generally remained oriented towards immediate determinants and risk factors, overlooking the macro-level political and institutional dynamics that can condition stressor exposure and mental health disparities. Amidst, interconnected crises, this paper advances geopsychiatry as a framework for understanding how distal geopolitical determinants translate into psychiatric vulnerabilities across communities and societies. Focussing on armed conflicts, climate change, and forced migration as emblematic domains of polycrisis, it highlights how these compounding phenomena are generating direct mental health burdens and may amplify harms via secondary pathways. Moreover, it contends that the psychiatric consequences of polycrisis are unlikely to be ameliorated through patient-centred interventions alone, but also require innovative approaches responsive to structural inequalities and material forces that transcend borders. In this context, work from geopsychiatry can offer important implications for modern psychiatry, highlighting a need for a more globally representative evidence base, potential clinical adaptations, and policy engagement that better attends to the geopolitical determinants of mental health.

Indexed as

climate changeconflictgeopolitical determinantsgeopsychiatrymigrationpolycrisis

Identifiers

PMID42109289
PMCPMC13153026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.