The framework addresses a problem that has plagued translational medicine for decades: most drugs that look promising in animal models fail in human trials, and many surprises in human research could have been anticipated if animal evidence had been examined more carefully and systematically. Traditional systematic reviews usually focus on a single evidence stream, applying methods honed for clinical trials to human studies and, less often, adapted checklists to laboratory animal experiments. Rarely are the two streams synthesized together with explicit attention to how they agree, conflict or leave gaps. The GALENOS team argues that this separation is particularly costly in early-stage research, where the goal is not to establish definitive treatment effects but to identify and prioritise promising new directions, therapeutic targets and mechanisms of action. Combining human and animal evidence, they contend, can yield insights neither source alone can provide.

At the heart of the framework is a commitment to living evidence. Rather than producing a static review that is outdated before it is published, GALENOS reviews are designed to be continually updated as new studies appear. This is made feasible through automation: the team employs tools such as the Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator to manage the flood of candidate records, and the Systematic Review Facility, or SyRF, to coordinate screening and data extraction, including crowdsourced contributions. Large language models are also being incorporated to support semi-automated screening and data handling, although the authors are careful to position automation as an aid to, not a replacement for, human judgment. The living approach is coupled with co-production: people with lived experience of anxiety, depression and psychosis help shape research questions, interpret findings and judge which uncertainties matter most to patients, ensuring that prioritisation reflects relevance as well as statistical strength.

Methodologically, the framework builds on established best practices in systematic review methodology while introducing novel components. Research questions are framed using PICO elements, defining population, intervention, comparator and outcome, but with careful translation across species and study designs, since an intervention in a mouse model of psychosis and an antipsychotic trial in humans must be mapped onto a common conceptual structure before their results can be compared. For animal studies, the team applies risk-of-bias tools derived from the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation and reporting standards aligned with the ARRIVE guidelines, addressing the well-documented problems of small sample sizes, publication bias and methodological laxity in preclinical research. Human studies are appraised with conventional Cochrane-style tools, and both streams are assessed for the risk of bias arising from missing evidence using the ROB-ME approach.

Quantitative synthesis within the framework handles the awkward fact that human and animal studies measure outcomes on different scales and with different statistics. The authors describe how effect measures such as mean differences, standardised mean differences, risk ratios and odds ratios can be computed within each evidence stream, and how the normalised mean difference can bridge human and animal outcomes onto a comparable metric. Random-effects meta-analysis, using restricted maximum likelihood estimation, pools studies within each species and design category. Crucially, synthesis is not limited to pairwise comparisons; the framework accommodates networks of interventions and mechanisms, allowing reviewers to ask not only whether a target works but how it performs relative to alternatives across both human and animal data.

The most distinctive innovation is what the team calls the Summary of Evidence Table, or SET. A SET is a structured, transparent container that assembles the synthesized findings from human and animal studies on a given question, alongside appraisals of their credibility, consistency and biological plausibility. On top of the SETs sits the GALENOS Approach to Triangulating Evidence, or GATE, a formal procedure for integrating the streams. Rather than simply averaging across species, GATE asks structured questions: do human and animal findings agree in direction and magnitude, does one stream fill gaps the other cannot, and where they conflict, what biases or translational limitations best explain the discrepancy? The output is a graded judgement about the maturity of the evidence, which in turn feeds directly into research prioritisation decisions about which targets warrant clinical testing, which need better animal work, and which should be deprioritised.

The framework is not merely theoretical. The GALENOS consortium maintains living systematic reviews on concrete therapeutic questions, and the paper illustrates its application with two examples. One concerns trace amine-associated receptor 1, or TAAR1, agonists for psychosis, a target class that has recently progressed to clinical testing; the living review collates animal evidence on receptor mechanisms alongside emerging human trial data to judge whether the translational case remains sound. The other concerns pro-dopaminergic interventions for anhedonia, the blunting of pleasure and motivation that pervades depression and schizophrenia, where animal work on dopaminergic circuitry must be reconciled with early human studies. In both cases, the SET and GATE machinery makes explicit how strong each strand of evidence is, where uncertainty concentrates and what future experiments would be most informative.

Independent experts in evidence synthesis are likely to welcome the framework’s insistence on transparency. By laying out, in tabular form, exactly what is known from each species, how credible each finding is, and where the streams converge or diverge, the approach makes prioritisation decisions auditable rather than opaque. This matters in mental health particularly, where the translational failure rate has been devastatingly high and where the DSM-based grouping of patients may obscure biological heterogeneity that animal models capture differently. The authors are candid about the epistemological challenges: animal models are approximations, human diagnostic categories are constructs, and integrating them involves assumptions that must be stated, not hidden. The framework’s contribution is precisely to force those assumptions into the open.

The implications extend beyond psychiatry. The general architecture of co-produced questions, living systematic reviews, source-specific synthesis, and structured triangulation through SETs and GATE could be applied in any field where preclinical and clinical evidence must be weighed together, from neurology to oncology. For funders and research commissioners, the framework offers a defensible mechanism for deciding where scarce research money goes; for scientists at the bench, it offers a clearer picture of which of their findings the clinical world considers robust; for patients and people with lived experience, it offers a seat at the table where research agendas are set. The GALENOS team presents the approach as a working system under continuous refinement, with its living reviews and prioritisation outputs publicly accessible, inviting the research community to test, adapt and challenge it as the evidence accumulates.

Subject of Research: A framework for collating and synthesizing evidence from human and animal studies

Article Title: A framework for collating and synthesizing evidence from human and animal studies: the GALENOS approach

Article References: Chiocchia, V., Higgins, J. P., Siafis, S., Macleod, M., Thomas, J., Furukawa, T. A., Downs, J., Cipriani, A., Egger, M., & Salanti, G. (2026). A framework for collating and synthesizing evidence from human and animal studies: the GALENOS approach. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-05205-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-026-05205-z

Keywords: GALENOS, evidence synthesis, living systematic reviews, triangulation, animal studies, human studies, mental health, research prioritisation, TAAR1, co-production, framework, collating

Central to the study was the Delphi method, a systematic and iterative consensus-building technique widely respected for its robustness in addressing complex topics where empirical clarity is lacking. The researchers engaged 122 experts spanning 11 diverse disciplines integral to mental health—including psychology, psychiatry, social work, public health, and neuroscience—thereby ensuring a comprehensive interdisciplinary perspective. This methodological choice was not accidental but rather a reflection of the study’s ambition to transcend disciplinary silos and foster a truly integrated conceptual framework that resonates across varied domains of mental health research and practice.

The initial phase of the Delphi rounds presented the expert panel with 26 dimensions previously identified in literature reviews as potentially central to positive mental health. These dimensions were comprehensively evaluated for their relevance and suitability to be included in a consolidated taxonomy. Importantly, the study did not stop at academic acceptance but sought to understand how these dimensions function conceptually—as drivers that actively foster mental health or as outcomes indicative of positive psychological states. This distinction is vital as it informs the mechanisms by which interventions could be designed and evaluated.

The iterative process revealed a convergence of expert opinion on 19 dimensions, which met the predefined consensus threshold of 75% agreement for inclusion in the preliminary taxonomy. Notably, six dimensions received overwhelming endorsement, surpassing 90% agreement. These key pillars of positive mental health are ‘meaning and purpose,’ ‘life satisfaction,’ ‘self-acceptance,’ ‘connection,’ ‘autonomy,’ and ‘happiness.’ Each of these constructs holds profound implications for understanding mental well-being not merely as the absence of pathology but as the presence of enriching psychological resources and experiences that enable individuals to thrive.

‘Meaning and purpose’ emerged as a cornerstone reflecting the existential component of mental health, emphasizing the human quest for significance and direction in life. This aligns with existential psychology’s long-standing insights and is increasingly corroborated by neuroscientific findings linking purpose-driven cognition to adaptive brain networks. Similarly, ‘life satisfaction’ encapsulates a cognitive evaluation of one’s overall quality of life, offering a macro-level perspective that integrates subjective well-being with broader life circumstances—a dimension extensively studied within the field of positive psychology.

‘Self-acceptance’ represents an intrapersonal dimension involving acceptance of one’s own strengths and weaknesses. This facet resonates with therapeutic models that promote self-compassion and resilience, foundational for mental health recovery and maintenance. The ‘connection’ dimension foregrounds the social embeddedness of mental health, echoing decades of research emphasizing the protective effects of social support, belongingness, and community integration against mental illness and distress.

‘Autonomy’ captures the capacity for self-governance and agency—central to humanistic views of psychological well-being, which posit that the ability to make choices aligned with one’s values is a marker of thriving mental health. Finally, ‘happiness,’ often conflated with transient positive emotions, here takes a broader lens encompassing sustained affective experiences that contribute to a fulfilling life. Together, these dimensions provide a multidimensional matrix that articulates the richness of positive mental health.

Beyond conceptual clarity, the study’s taxonomy holds tangible implications for the design and evaluation of mental health interventions. By establishing agreed-upon dimensions, researchers can standardize measurement tools, improving comparability across studies and enabling meta-analyses that inform best practices. Clinicians can tailor intervention targets based on well-defined constructs, thereby enhancing efficacy and patient-centered care. For policymakers, this consensus provides a language and framework to guide resource allocation and program development, ensuring that initiatives address critical facets of mental well-being rather than fragmented or inconsistent goals.

Furthermore, the study’s interdisciplinary approach encourages cross-pollination of ideas among fields that have historically operated in isolation. This is crucial given the complex, multi-layered nature of mental health, which intersects biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. The taxonomy opens up pathways for integrated research agendas that combine insights from different specialties, advancing a holistic understanding of what it means to be mentally healthy.

While the consensus presents a significant advance, the authors underscore that this taxonomy is preliminary and dynamic. It serves as a foundation upon which future work can build, refine, and adapt. The rapidly evolving nature of mental health science, coupled with cultural and contextual variations globally, means that ongoing dialogue and research are necessary to ensure the taxonomy remains relevant and comprehensive. Nonetheless, by crystallizing agreement on key dimensions, the study marks a pivotal step toward unifying the field.

Significantly, the findings arrive at a historical moment when the global burden of mental disorders continues to climb, intensified by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, socio-political upheavals, and environmental crises. Amid these challenges, fostering positive mental health is increasingly recognized as not just a medical or psychological imperative but a societal one. The taxonomy’s emphasis on positive dimensions rather than focusing solely on pathology aligns with a strengths-based paradigm, which promotes resilience, empowerment, and flourishing.

From a technological perspective, the taxonomy also dovetails with emerging digital health tools designed to assess and promote mental well-being. Apps, wearable devices, and AI-driven platforms can harness the standardized dimensions to deliver personalized feedback and interventions, ensuring that technological advances are grounded in robust conceptual frameworks. This intersection of technology and taxonomy promises to democratize access to mental health support and drive innovation.

Moreover, the study’s methodological rigor, particularly the use of the Delphi method with a large, multidisciplinary panel, sets a benchmark for future consensus efforts in mental health research. The structured feedback loops and iterative refinement ensure that the final taxonomy is not an artifact of an individual viewpoint but a collective wisdom that reflects diverse expert insights. Such robust methodological approaches are crucial to overcoming historical challenges in the mental health field, where terminological ambiguity has often impeded progress.

In conclusion, the 2026 Delphi consensus study on positive mental health dimensions signals a transformative moment in mental health science and practice. By achieving expert agreement on fundamental constructs such as meaning and purpose, life satisfaction, self-acceptance, connection, autonomy, and happiness, the study articulates a coherent framework that captures the essence of flourishing mental health. This contribution is poised to harmonize conceptualization across disciplines, optimize intervention strategies, and inform policy development worldwide.

As mental health continues to ascend on the global health agenda, this unified taxonomy illuminates a pathway toward a future where mental well-being is not merely the absence of illness but the presence of thriving psychological states and capacities. The implications ripple through clinical care, research innovation, public health initiatives, and societal well-being, underscoring the indispensable value of consensus and collaboration in addressing one of humanity’s most pressing challenges.

Subject of Research:
Dimensions and conceptualization of positive mental health using expert consensus methods.

Article Title:
A Delphi consensus study on the dimensions of positive mental health.

Article References:
Iasiello, M., van Agteren, J., Ali, K. et al. A Delphi consensus study on the dimensions of positive mental health. Nat. Mental Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00617-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00617-5

A recent study led by Connors, Ouellette, and Selino sheds light on the clinician-reported determinants crucial for the implementation of MBC within school mental health frameworks. Their findings aim to drive a deeper understanding of the multifaceted barriers and enablers that influence the integration of these methods across school districts. As mental health issues surge among adolescents, exploring these dynamics has never been more vital.

The study meticulously navigates through various clinician perspectives, revealing their insights into the practicalities of employing measurement tools in school settings. Many clinicians argue that an evidence-based approach can significantly enhance treatment outcomes. Regularly assessing student mental health can lead to timely interventions, which can prevent severe emotional crises and promote stability and success within educational systems.

However, as illuminating as these findings may be, they also highlight a number of obstacles faced in the implementation of such frameworks. A recurrent theme among the respondents was the inherent stigma surrounding mental health in educational institutions. Clinicians pointed out that both students and parents often resist discussing emotional difficulties, which can result in missed opportunities for intervention and support.

Moreover, logistical concerns also surfaced in the study. Many clinicians acknowledged the constraints of time and resources when it comes to collecting and analyzing data. Schools are inherently busy environments, and integrating consistent MBC practices requires a shift in current paradigms of workload and operational routines. This adds a layer of complexity to the already demanding roles of educators and health professionals operating within these institutions.

In addition to practical hurdles, the study also explored the necessity for training and professional development. Clinicians expressed a strong desire for increased education focused on MBC methodologies. Knowledgeable staff members equipped with the right tools can significantly facilitate and expedite the implementation of MBC, ultimately enhancing student care. This training is essential not only for delivering effective support but also for fostering a culture of openness and acceptance regarding mental health issues among all stakeholders.

Importantly, the research draws attention to the benefits of collaboration among school staff, mental health professionals, and families. A united front can not only reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness but also create a supportive network that champions proactive care. When parents and educators work hand in hand with clinicians, the outcomes for students can vastly improve, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s journey through mental health challenges.

Furthermore, the role of technology in promoting Measurement-Based Care was another focal point in Connors et al.’s research. Digital platforms and mobile applications present valuable avenues for data collection, providing a more convenient and accessible means for monitoring students’ mental health in real-time. Such advancements can mitigate some logistical barriers posed by traditional methods of data collection, as technology allows for easier tracking of symptoms and outcomes, while also empowering students to engage in their own care.

As the conversation around mental health continues to evolve, the implications of the findings presented by Connors and colleagues stretch beyond evidence-based practices for clinicians. They highlight the imperative to reframe mental health conversation in schools, shifting from a reactive framework to a proactive, data-empowered approach. This shift could very well redefine how schools understand, address, and ultimately support their students’ mental health.

The conversation initiated by this study is not just confined to clinicians or educational staff. It engages parents, public health officials, and policymakers who play a pivotal role in facilitating mental health services in educational institutions. It signals a robust call to action for all stakeholders to recognize mental health as a priority and to champion systems that integrate MBC into the fabric of school culture.

In conclusion, the research conducted by Connors, Ouellette, and Selino presents not just a blueprint for implementation but also a movement towards advancing mental health resources in schools. As educational environments increasingly recognize the impact of mental wellbeing on student success, the integration of MBC stands to reshape the future of mental health care in schools as we know it.

With the ongoing challenges posed by mental illness in our youth, the wake-up call issued by this study cannot be disregarded. Embracing a measurement-based approach not only addresses the urgency of today’s mental health crises but also paves the way for a brighter, more supportive future for generations to come.

Subject of Research:

Article Title:

Article References:

Connors, E.H., Ouellette, R.R., Selino, S. et al. Clinician-Reported Determinants for District-Wide Measurement-Based Care Implementation in School Mental Health.
School Mental Health (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-025-09809-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords:

The study, published in JAMA Network Open in August 2025, employed a rigorous, multi-site, double-blind randomized controlled trial involving 339 psychiatric inpatients from six diverse U.S. hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the OTX-202 app or a control app, both in addition to their standard clinical care. Unlike the control app, which focused on safety planning and psychoeducation, OTX-202 delivered evidence-based suicide-specific therapy modules designed to sustain therapeutic gains beyond the hospital setting.

Remarkably, the trial revealed that among patients who had attempted suicide prior to hospitalization, use of OTX-202 reduced the rate of subsequent suicide attempts by an impressive 58.3%. This drop represents a critical breakthrough in the field, especially as post-discharge periods typically see high rates of suicide attempt recurrence. By targeting this vulnerable window, OTX-202 addresses a dire need for scalable and accessible interventions that can extend the reach of specialized therapeutic support.

Beyond reducing suicide attempts, patients using the OTX-202 app also experienced sustained reductions in suicidal ideation for up to 24 weeks after discharge. In stark contrast, those who engaged with the control app initially demonstrated some improvement in suicidal thoughts but saw those gains dissipate by the 24-week mark. This divergence highlights the app’s potential to preserve long-term mental health improvements when traditional therapy access is limited.

OTX-202’s development by Oui Therapeutics aims to fill a glaring void in mental health treatment infrastructure. Suicide-specific therapy, while well-established as an effective approach, faces barriers due to limited therapist availability post-hospitalization. The app offers a standardized and continuously available digital solution capable of delivering intervention with high fidelity and consistency across diverse patient populations and healthcare settings.

The study utilized the Clinical Global Impression for Severity of Suicide-Change (CGI-SSC) scale to objectively measure symptom severity and treatment response over time. Patients using the OTX-202 app showed statistically significant improvements on this clinician-rated scale compared to control app users. This consistent and clinically meaningful improvement underscores OTX-202’s therapeutic efficacy and potential utility as an adjunct to standard psychiatric care.

Suicide remains a formidable public health crisis in the United States, ranked among the top ten causes of death nationwide. It is notoriously the second leading cause of death among young populations aged 10–14 and 25–34, intensifying the urgency for innovations that effectively mitigate suicide risk. Rates have climbed by over 33% since 1999, reflecting a persistent and growing challenge for healthcare systems and societies alike.

Economic analyses estimate that suicide and suicide attempts cost the U.S. economy upwards of $500 billion annually, encompassing healthcare expenditures, lost productivity, and broader social impacts. Despite this burden, suicide prevention has lacked scalable and economically viable prescription-level interventions. OTX-202 represents a hopeful bridge toward closing this profound treatment gap.

Dr. Craig Bryan, PsyD, professor and director of the Suicide Prevention Program at Ohio State’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, emphasized the app’s significance. He noted that the immediate months following hospital discharge are high-risk periods with limited access to trained therapists. OTX-202 offers a novel, scalable platform that could revolutionize suicide-specific intervention accessibility and continuity of care.

Co-first author Patricia Simon, PhD, from Yale School of Medicine, also highlighted the critical importance of addressing this vulnerable post-discharge window. She underscored that the app’s digital delivery model is particularly suited to meet the urgent demands for scalable mental health solutions that can be deployed widely and rapidly.

While OTX-202 is not intended to replace human clinicians, it serves as a powerful supplement that can extend evidence-based therapy beyond traditional settings. Its integration into treatment regimens could alleviate barriers related to therapist shortages, geographical limitations, and stigma associated with seeking mental health care.

The trial’s success was bolstered by funding support from Oui Therapeutics and a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Importantly, the study’s authors caution that while results are promising, ongoing research is necessary to further validate the app’s long-term impact and scalability across broader clinical populations.

This study not only opens doors for innovative digital therapeutics in psychiatry but also sets a precedent for how technology can be harnessed to save lives in critical, high-risk mental health contexts. As healthcare systems grapple with demands for cost-effective and accessible interventions, OTX-202’s evidence-backed approach offers a beacon of hope for patients, clinicians, and policymakers striving to reduce suicide’s devastating toll.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: A Digital Therapeutic Intervention for Inpatients with Elevated Suicide Risk

News Publication Date: 8-Aug-2025

Web References:

• JAMA Network Open Article
• Oui Therapeutics
• Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
• Yale School of Medicine

References:

• National Institute of Mental Health grant number R42MH123357
• Economic cost estimate study: https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(24)00081-3/fulltext

Image Credits: The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

Keywords: Suicide, Behavioral psychology, Clinical psychology, Neuropsychology

Subthreshold depression represents a clinical grey area that often remains undetected and untreated, yet considerably elevates the risk of progression to major depressive episodes. Recognizing the critical gap in evidence-based interventions tailored to this population, the researchers have developed a 12-week online exercise program aimed to modulate mood and psychological resilience. This digital modality facilitates broad accessibility, especially valuable in primary care environments where resource limitations and patient stigma frequently hinder conventional mental health treatment uptake.

The study enrolls a total of 260 participants exhibiting subthreshold depression symptoms, who will be randomized equally to either the experimental group receiving twice-weekly, one-hour virtual exercise classes or to a control group continuing with usual care. The exercises, devised and conducted by certified instructors, emphasize aerobic and resistance training principles previously associated with mood improvements. By contrasting these groups, investigators intend to isolate the specific contribution of this online intervention to mental health outcomes.

Measurement of depressive symptoms will be closely monitored using the validated Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), serving as the primary outcome metric. Assessment points are strategically scheduled at baseline, immediately post-intervention, then at three and nine months follow-up to capture both immediate and sustained effects. Secondary outcomes will encompass anxiety reduction, enhancement of quality of life indices, physical activity levels, medication usage, healthcare service patterns, and a comprehensive cost analysis, thereby providing multidimensional insight into intervention efficacy and practicality.

This trial harnesses the power of intention-to-treat analysis, preserving the randomized design integrity despite potential dropouts or deviations, thus optimizing reliability and generalizability of findings. Additionally, the virtual nature of intervention delivery overcomes geographical and logistical constraints, potentially demonstrating a scalable, cost-effective model adaptable across diverse healthcare systems globally.

Beyond its clinical ramifications, the trial also addresses feasibility and participant acceptability, crucial parameters for real-world adoption. The digital exercise classes incorporate interactive components and real-time instructor feedback, elements postulated to enhance engagement and adherence, aspects often challenging in remote interventions. Findings here could reshape how behavioral health interventions are integrated within primary care workflows.

The overarching aim of this carefully crafted study is to fill a vital knowledge gap concerning non-pharmacological management of subthreshold depression. Existing literature has identified exercise as a potent adjunct for major depressive disorder, yet equivalent data for subthreshold cases remain sparse. By generating high-quality evidence, this research will empower clinicians to recommend exercise as a frontline preventive strategy rather than a last resort.

Moreover, the implications for health policy could be transformative. Should the intervention prove successful, it may spur revisions in clinical guidelines and public health directives, favoring preventive digital behavior modification tools that mitigate the onset of full depressive syndromes. Such shifts could ultimately reduce healthcare utilization and economic burdens attributed to untreated subthreshold depression progression.

The trial is officially registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under ChiCTR2400087923, ensuring transparency and methodological rigor. Its results, anticipated in the coming years, promise to advance mental health paradigms by validating an innovative, technology-enhanced therapeutic option within the pressing context of primary care.

In an era increasingly cognizant of mental health’s critical role, this study exemplifies the intersection of behavioral science, digital innovation, and primary healthcare delivery. It stands poised to influence not only patient outcomes but also the structural design of mental health prevention frameworks worldwide.

Ultimately, this research transcends conventional boundaries, proposing a scalable solution leveraging exercise physiology and digital connectivity to confront a pervasive yet often overlooked mental health condition. Its success could herald a new epoch in accessible, non-pharmacological interventions that empower at-risk populations to reclaim their mental wellness before deeper clinical deterioration ensues.

Subject of Research: Efficacy of an online exercise intervention for improving depressive symptoms among patients with subthreshold depression in primary care.

Article Title: The efficacy of an online exercise intervention for improving depressive symptoms among patients with subthreshold depression in primary care: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Article References:
Yu, K.O.T., Lee, E.K.P., Yip, B.H.K. et al. The efficacy of an online exercise intervention for improving depressive symptoms among patients with subthreshold depression in primary care: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 25, 354 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06663-0

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06663-0