Abstract
Each year the best papers from the previous year have been selected in a variety of ways. Last year the top papers were selected on the basis of citations [1]. Over a period of years, citations are one of the important ways of measuring that a paper has had impact. It is not the only measure, however. The Editorial Board would like to see this Journal contribute to improvement in the quality of care and quality of life for people with mental disorders. The top papers for 2007 were therefore chosen from a perspective of enhancing outcomes. Therefore, papers on epidemiology [2], or basic neuroscience [3], or philosophy [4] were not considered, despite the importance of these domains for the discipline of psychiatry.
Top papers for 2007
A review by a psychiatric registrar, Lucinda Smith, and her colleague, Richard Newton, on case management, which concludes with a key sentence: ‘The debate around how case management works is largely sterile if it is separated from the more important question of what clinical interventions work for a demonstrated illness and how to ensure that these interventions are delivered in an appropriate way to the individual patient’ [5].
The paper by one of Australia's most distinguished research psychiatrists, Gordon Parker, and his research assistant, Joanna Crawford, who asked 3486 people about what treatments for depression worked in real life for them [6]; sobering results and a thoughtful discussion.
A further top paper for 2007 is the review paper by Nickolai Titov, which concludes that computerized cognitive behaviour therapy, particularly guided by a therapist, represents a promising resource [7]. We must just hope that Government agencies, more interested in saving money than delivering high-quality care, note the need for guidance by a therapist, and in rolling out this new technology ensure that it is linked to leading clinical research units with experienced therapists.
Conduct disorder must be one of psychiatry's greatest challenges, yet too often our profession has not taken up this challenge. It was therefore great to see that a positive parenting program may be a cost-effective intervention [8].
‘Recovery’ must be a key objective for mental health services, but how is this to be measured. McNaught et al. provide data on the Recovery Assessment Scale, which is congruent with patient perspectives on recovery [9].
Substance abuse among people with psychosis is a major challenge. A short group intervention consisting of motivation interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy may be effective [10].
The editorial on early intervention in bipolar disorder highlighted an important, but controversial issue [11]. The Journal would love to publish definitive trials on early intervention.
The Journal is also keen to publish the results of psychotherapy trials, even when the intervention does not work [12]. Interpersonal counselling, however, is not alone in not helping people after trauma; perhaps mental health personnel should be carefully researching what interventions, if any, help in situations of acute trauma. Believing that one is doing good is no longer enough; we need evidence for the helpfulness of interventions.
Finally, Kulkarni et al. present data on outcomes in real-world schizophrenia and report on positive health outcomes [13].
At this time of listing our top papers for 2007, it is also relevant to report that the impact factor (IF) and ranking of this Journal improved substantially in the 2007 scoring and ranking. Our new IF is 2.57, up from 1.9 in 2006, 1.6 in 2005 and 1.3 in 2004. We are now also ranked in the top 40 psychiatry journals. This IF is higher than those for Comprehensive Psychiatry or Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease; both very long-established and respected general psychiatry journals.