Global Psychiatry Congress Reveals Gender, Age, Geographic Representation Patterns

Fostering Inclusivity in Global Mental Health Dialogues

International scientific congresses are primary conduits for translating new evidence into clinical practice, shaping diagnostic standards, and refining therapeutic strategies for physicians worldwide [1]. The value of these gatherings, however, is directly tied to the diversity of their participants. When a broad range of clinical experiences and geographic perspectives are represented, the resulting dialogue is enriched, and the evidence base becomes more robust and globally applicable [2, 3, 4]. A recent analysis of a major international psychiatry congress provides a detailed look at its demographic composition, offering a quantitative measure of progress and highlighting persistent challenges in achieving equitable representation in the field [5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

A Snapshot of the 25th World Congress

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA), a global body representing more than 250,000 psychiatrists from 147 societies across 123 countries, has made diversity a central tenet of its mission. Its 2023-2026 Action Plan is aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, prioritizing equity and inclusivity in clinical practice and research. As part of this commitment, the WPA analyzed participation at its 25th World Congress of Psychiatry, held in Prague, Czech Republic, in 2025. The event, organized with the Czech and Slovak Psychiatric Associations, drew 3,427 attendees, providing a substantial dataset to assess demographic and professional trends, building on earlier findings from the 24th Congress that had already indicated progress toward gender balance.

Attendee Demographics: Gender, Age, and Professional Roles

The analysis of congress attendees revealed a strong presence of women, who constituted 54% of participants, compared to 45% men and 0.3% non-binary individuals. A significant finding was the engagement of the next generation of clinicians: 36% of all attendees were below the age of 35, and 31% were identified as early career psychiatrists. This high level of participation from younger professionals is a key indicator of the field's vitality and its ability to attract new talent. The professional roles of attendees were predominantly clinical, with 73% working in health care settings, reinforcing the congress's relevance to practicing physicians. The remainder worked in research and academia (19%), the public sector (2.5%), or other areas. The study also captured the personal context of attendees, finding that 40% reported having caring responsibilities, most commonly for children (24%), an elderly person (9%), or a person with a disability (4%). This data highlights a practical barrier to professional development that may influence a clinician's ability to attend such events.

Program Scope and Presenter Gender Distribution

The scientific program of the congress was extensive, built from 2,420 abstract submissions, which led to 79 symposia, 17 state-of-the-art symposia, and hundreds of other presentations. A closer look at presenter demographics, however, revealed distinct patterns of gender distribution across different session formats. Women were more represented as presenters in presidential panels (67%), panel discussions (67%), distinguished lectures (63%), and free communication sessions (56%). In contrast, men constituted a significant majority of presenters in formats often perceived as having high authority or specialized focus. This was most pronounced in meet-the-expert sessions, where men comprised 80% of presenters. Men also predominated in continuing medical education (CME) courses (67%), specialist corner sessions (65%), state-of-the-art symposia (61%), and plenary/presidential sessions (56%). These figures suggest that while overall participation is balanced, gender representation varies considerably depending on the type and perceived prestige of the presentation format.

Gendered Patterns in Thematic Content

The study also uncovered gender-based patterns in the topics presented, which may influence the focus of scientific discourse. Women presenters were more concentrated in sessions on personality and behavioral disorders (64%), perinatal and gender-related topics (63%), and neurodevelopmental and childhood disorders (54%). Conversely, men were the predominant speakers in other key clinical and research areas. Most strikingly, men accounted for 100% of presenters in sessions on neurocognitive disorders and ageing. They also represented the majority of speakers on clinical practice and treatment (71%), severe mental illness (63%), and research, neuroscience, and genetics (60%). This thematic segregation, which mirrors trends in other disciplines, has clinical implications. It can inadvertently create knowledge silos and influence which research areas receive visibility and funding, ultimately shaping the evidence base available to all clinicians.

Geographic Diversity and Thematic Focus

A critical finding from the analysis was the significant disparity in the geographic origin of speakers. An overwhelming 77% of speakers were from high-income countries, with only 11% from upper-middle-income, 12% from lower-middle-income, and less than 1% from low-income nations. This imbalance presents a risk of skewing the global mental health agenda toward the priorities and resources of wealthier countries, potentially overlooking the distinct clinical challenges faced elsewhere. Previous research has identified systemic barriers, such as high travel costs and visa restrictions, that limit participation from low- and middle-income countries. However, the congress made targeted efforts to mitigate this, as seen in its original sessions designed for early career psychiatrists, where 42% of speakers were from non-high-income countries. The thematic focus of presentations also varied by geography. While speakers from high-income countries dominated topics like mood disorders (70%) and severe mental illness (60%), there was a much stronger representation from non-high-income countries in sessions on health systems and service delivery (83% of speakers) and physical health and comorbidities (67%). This demonstrates that clinicians from these regions bring essential, system-level perspectives that are critical for a truly global understanding of mental health care.

Advancing Inclusivity in Global Psychiatry

The detailed analysis of the 25th World Congress of Psychiatry highlights the WPA's commitment to using systematic data collection as a tool for change. By moving beyond gender metrics to include socioeconomic and geographic data, the WPA is creating transparent benchmarks to drive meaningful progress toward a more representative global psychiatric community. This practice serves as a model for other medical organizations, demonstrating that tracking diversity is a necessary step for ensuring the evidence disseminated at major congresses is comprehensive and globally relevant. This commitment continues with the 26th World Congress of Psychiatry, scheduled for September 23-26, 2026, in Stockholm, Sweden. Its motto, “Guided by Compassion, Grounded in Science: Psychiatry for our Time,” signals an enduring focus on enriching scientific dialogue through inclusive and culturally informed practice, ultimately strengthening the global mental health community for all physicians and their patients.

References

1. Dedeilia A, Sotiropoulos MG, Hanrahan J, Janga D, Dedeilias P, Sideris M. Medical and Surgical Education Challenges and Innovations in the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review. In Vivo. 2020. doi:10.21873/invivo.11950

2. Storebø OJ, Krogh HB, Ramstad E, et al. Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5203

3. Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck‐Bornholdt H, Bussche HVD. Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer's disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2005. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7512.321

4. Yin J, Jin X, Shan Z, et al. Relationship of Sleep Duration With All‐Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Dose‐Response Meta‐Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2017. doi:10.1161/jaha.117.005947

5. Dowell D, Ragan K, Jones CM, Baldwin G, Chou R. CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain—United States, 2022. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2022. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1

6. Baio J, Wiggins LD, Christensen D, et al. Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. 2018. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6706a1

7. Lieb K, Vӧllm B, Rücker G, Timmer A, Stoffers‐Winterling J. Pharmacotherapy for borderline personality disorder: Cochrane systematic review of randomised trials. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2009. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.062984

8. Strauss C, Cavanagh K, Oliver A, Pettman D. Mindfulness-Based Interventions for People Diagnosed with a Current Episode of an Anxiety or Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS ONE. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096110

9. Li J, Tan L, Wang H, et al. Risk factors for predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2015. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-310095