ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Mental health service coverage and gaps among adults in Europe: a systematic review.
Review in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Depression or Anxiety by Region, Small-Area Deprivation, and Health Care Level in Sweden.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Subjective aging and psychological well-being in older adults: a narrative review and multilevel framework integrating perceptual, behavioral, and sociocultural pathways.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the psychologist's toolkit: Psypilot as a case study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Immersive metaverse art as a psychological intervention for depression and anxiety: a narrative review and multilevel model integrating engagement, cultural identity, and neurocognitive mechanisms.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Building unified, resilient mental health systems in a diverse Europe.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring the right to the highest attainable standard of mental healthcare requires a clear understanding of the current state of service coverage and gaps across Europe. Given the wide heterogeneity of health systems and resources, systematically assessing these gaps is crucial in order to identify inequities, inform policy and guide efforts to strengthen care at regional and national levels. In this Series paper, we systematically reviewed 45 studies reporting 198 national or sub-national estimates of adult mental health service coverage and treatment gaps in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. Data were scarce for many countries and conditions, heterogeneous in definitions, and rarely longitudinal, limiting comparability and trend analysis. Coverage for psychotic disorders was generally higher, often exceeding 90% in some countries but varied widely. For major depressive disorder, minimally adequate treatment ranged from below 10% in Bulgaria, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan to over 35% in Germany and Czechia. Anxiety disorder coverage ranged from 7% in Bulgaria to 47% in Sweden; most substance use disorder estimates were under 15%, and adult ADHD coverage was typically below 10%, based on outdated data. Trend analyses indicated minimal increases in depression coverage over two decades and mixed patterns for psychosis. Marginalised groups, including refugees, homeless populations and sexual minorities, faced the largest gaps, sometimes exceeding 80%. The lack of standardised, repeated measures hampers tracking of progress toward WHO's 2030 goal of a 50% increase in coverage. We advocate that harmonised monitoring systems, with attention to treatment adequacy and equity, are urgently needed to close persistent mental health care gaps across Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.