Current evidence and opportunities in child and adolescent public mental health: a research review

Background A public mental health lens is increasingly required to better understand the complex and multifactorial influences of interpersonal, community and institutional systems on the mental health of children and adolescents. Methods This research review (1) provides an overview of public mental health and proposes a new interactional schema that can guide research and practice, (2) summarises recent evidence on public mental health interventions for children and adolescents, (3) highlights current challenges for this population that might benefit from additional attention and (4) discusses methodological and conceptual hurdles and proposes potential solutions. Results In our evidence review, a broad range of universal, selective and indicated interventions with a variety of targets, mechanisms and settings were identified, some of which (most notably parenting programmes and various school-based interventions) have demonstrated small-to-modest positive effects. Few, however, have achieved sustained mental health improvements. Conclusions There is an opportunity to re-think how public mental health interventions are designed, evaluated and implemented. Deliberate design, encompassing careful consideration of the aims and population-level impacts of interventions, complemented by measurement that embraces complexity through more in-depth characterisation, or ‘phenotyping’, of interpersonal and environmental elements is needed. Opportunities to improve child and adolescent mental health outcomes are gaining unprecedented momentum. Innovative new methodology, heightened public awareness, institutional interest and supportive funding can enable enhanced study of public mental health that does not shy away from complexity

Partnerships at the interface of education and mental health services: the utilisation and acceptability of the provision of specialist liaison and teacher skills training

Partnerships between school staff and mental health professionals have the potential to improve access to mental health support for students, but uncertainty remains regarding whether and how they work in practice. We report on two pilot projects aimed at understanding the implementation drivers of tailored strategies for supporting and engaging front-line school staff in student mental health. The first project provided regular, accessible mental health professionals with whom school staff could meet and discuss individual or systemic mental health concerns (a school ‘InReach’ service), and the other offered a short skills training programme on commonly used psychotherapeutic techniques (the School Mental Health Toolbox; SMHT). The findings from the activity of 15 InReach workers over 3 years and 105 individuals who attended the SMHT training demonstrate that school staff made good use of these services. The InReach workers reported more than 1200 activities in schools (notably in providing specialist advice and support, especially for anxiety and emotional difficulties), whilst most SMHT training attendees reported the utilisation of the tools (in particular, supporting better sleep and relaxation techniques). The measures of acceptability and the possible impacts of the two services were also positive. These pilot studies suggest that investment into partnerships at the interface of education and mental health services can improve the availability of mental health support to students

Access to and perceived unmet need for mental health services and support in a community sample of UK adolescents with and without experience of childhood adversity

Aims. Children and adolescents with a history of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are more likely than their peers to develop mental health difficulties, but not enough is known about their help-seeking behaviours and preferences. We aimed to determine whether and how ACEs are associated with access to and perceived unmet need for mental health services and support amongst secondary school students. Methods: We used multi-level logistic regression with data from the 2020 OxWell Student Survey to assess whether ACEs were associated with (1) prior access to mental health support and (2) perceived unmet need for mental health services in a community sample of English secondary school students. We assessed ACEs as a cumulative score from the Center for Youth Wellness Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire: Teen Self-Report version and accounted for current mental health difficulties as measured by the 25-item Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS). Results: Our analysis included 2018 students across 64 schools, of whom 29.9% (598/2002) reported prior access to mental health support and 34.1% (469/1377) reported a perceived unmet need for services. In the unadjusted models, the cumulative ACE score was significantly positively associated with both prior access to mental health support (odds ratio (OR)=1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–1.43) and perceived unmet need for mental health services (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.37–1.59), meaning that students who had experienced adversity had a greater chance of having previously accessed support as well as perceiving an unmet need for services. After adjusting for mental health difficulties and other sociodemographic variables, cumulative ACE scores were positively associated with prior access (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.25; 95% CI 1.17–1.34 with a significant interaction between RCADS and ACE scores, aOR=0.88; 95% CI 0.84–0.93) as well as perceived unmet need (aOR=1.32; 95% CI 1.21–1.43 with a significant interaction between RCADS and ACE scores, aOR=0.85; 95% CI 0.78–0.91). Conclusions: Although it is encouraging that adolescents with experience of adversity are more likely than their peers with similar levels of depression and anxiety symptoms to have accessed mental health support, there remains a concern that those who have not accessed support are more likely to perceive an as-yet unmet need for it. Mental health support must be available, accessible, and acceptable to all who need it, especially for those groups that traditionally have not accessed services, including the more marginalised and vulnerable populations

Happier during lockdown: a descriptive analysis of self-reported wellbeing in 17,000 UK school students during Covid-19 lockdown.

Funder: The Westminster FoundationRelatively little research has focused on children and young people (CYP) whose mental health and wellbeing improved during Covid-19 lockdown measures. We aimed to (1) determine the proportion of CYP who self-reported improvement in their mental wellbeing during the first Covid-19 lockdown and (2) describe the characteristics of this group in relation to their peers. We conducted a descriptive analysis of data from the 2020 OxWell Student Survey, a self-report, cross-sectional survey of English CYP. A total of 16,940 CYP primarily aged 8-18 years reported on change in mental wellbeing during lockdown. We characterised these CYP in terms of school, home, relational, and lifestyle factors as well as feelings about returning to school. One-third (33%) of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during the first UK national lockdown. Compared with peers who reported no change or deterioration, a higher proportion of CYP with improved mental wellbeing reported improved relationships with friends and family, less loneliness and exclusion, reduced bullying, better management of school tasks, and more sleep and exercise during lockdown. In conclusion, a sizeable minority of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during lockdown. Determining the reasons why these CYP felt they fared better during lockdown and considering how these beneficial experiences can be maintained beyond the pandemic might provide insights into how to promote the future mental health and wellbeing of school-aged CYP. All those working with CYP now have an opportunity to consider whether a systemic shift is needed in order to understand and realise any learnings from experiences during the pandemic.Funding ES is funded by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship (Grant Number: OPP1144). SP is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Post-Doctoral Fellowship award (Grant Number PDF-2017-10-029) and The Westminster Foundation. NC is supported by funding from the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Emerging Minds Network. KLM is funded by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005). PBJ is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. MF was supported by funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The OxWell Student Survey is supported by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, an MRC Pathfinder Award to the University of Oxford, and the Westminster Foundation. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care

Establishing a Theory-Based Multi-Level Approach for Primary Prevention of Mental Disorders in Young People

The increasing prevalence of mental health disorders and psychosocial distress among young people exceeds the capacity of mental health services. Social and systemic factors determine mental health as much as individual factors. To determine how best to address multi-level risk factors, we must first understand the distribution of risk. Previously, we have used psychometric methods applied to two epidemiologically-principled samples of people aged 14−24 to establish a robust, latent common mental distress (CMD) factor of depression and anxiety normally distributed across the population. This was linearly associated with suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm such that effective interventions to reduce CMD across the whole population could have a greater total benefit than those that focus on the minority with the most severe scores. In a randomised trial of mindfulness interventions in university students (the Mindful Student Study), we demonstrated a population-shift effect whereby the intervention group appeared resilient to a universal stressor. Given these findings, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we argue that population-based interventions to reduce CMD are urgently required. To target all types of mental health determinants, these interventions must be multi-level. Careful design and evaluation, interdisciplinary work, and extensive local stakeholder involvement are crucial for these interventions to be effective

Establishing a Theory-Based Multi-Level Approach for Primary Prevention of Mental Disorders in Young People

The increasing prevalence of mental health disorders and psychosocial distress among young people exceeds the capacity of mental health services. Social and systemic factors determine mental health as much as individual factors. To determine how best to address multi-level risk factors, we must first understand the distribution of risk. Previously, we have used psychometric methods applied to two epidemiologically-principled samples of people aged 14−24 to establish a robust, latent common mental distress (CMD) factor of depression and anxiety normally distributed across the population. This was linearly associated with suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm such that effective interventions to reduce CMD across the whole population could have a greater total benefit than those that focus on the minority with the most severe scores. In a randomised trial of mindfulness interventions in university students (the Mindful Student Study), we demonstrated a population-shift effect whereby the intervention group appeared resilient to a universal stressor. Given these findings, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we argue that population-based interventions to reduce CMD are urgently required. To target all types of mental health determinants, these interventions must be multi-level. Careful design and evaluation, interdisciplinary work, and extensive local stakeholder involvement are crucial for these interventions to be effective

REACT study protocol: resilience after the COVID-19 threat (REACT) in adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19-related social isolation and stress may have significant mental health effects, including post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression. These factors are thought to disproportionately affect populations at risk of psychopathology, such as adolescents with a history of childhood adversity (CA). Therefore, examining which factors may buffer the impact of COVID-19-related stress and isolation in vulnerable adolescents is critical. The Resilience After the COVID-19 Threat (REACT) study assesses whether emotion regulation capacity, inflammation and neuroimmune responses to stress induced in the laboratory prior to the pandemic predict responses to COVID-19-related social isolation and stress in adolescents with CA. We aim to elucidate the mechanisms that enable vulnerable adolescents to maintain or regain good mental health when confronted with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We recruited 79 adolescents aged 16-26 with CA experiences from the Resilience After Individual Stress Exposure study in which we assessed emotion regulation, neural and immune stress responses to an acute stress task. Our sample completed questionnaires at the start of the UK lockdown ('baseline'; April 2020) and three (July 2020) and 6 months later (October 2020) providing crucial longitudinal information across phases of the pandemic progression and government response. The questionnaires assess (1) mental health, (2) number and severity of life events, (3) physical health, (4) stress perception and (5) loneliness and friendship support. We will use multilevel modelling to examine whether individual differences at baseline are associated with responses to COVID-19-related social isolation and stress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2020.037). Results of the REACT study will be disseminated in publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals, presentations at scientific conferences and meetings, publications and presentations for the general public, and through social media

Study protocol: the OxWell school survey investigating social, emotional and behavioural factors associated with mental health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION: Improving our understanding of the broad range of social, emotional and behavioural factors that contribute to mental health outcomes in adolescents will be greatly enhanced with diverse, representative population samples. We present a protocol for a repeated self-report survey assessing risk and protective factors for mental health and well-being in school pupils aged 8-18 years with different socioeconomic backgrounds in England. The survey will provide a comprehensive picture of mental health and associated risks at the community level to inform the development of primary and secondary prevention and treatment strategies in schools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is for a large-scale online repeated self-report survey, representative of children and adolescents aged 8-18 years attending schools or further education colleges in participating counties in England. The survey consists of around 300 questions, including validated measures of mental health and well-being, risk and protective factors, and care-seeking behaviour and preferences. Additional questions each year vary to address current events and novel hypotheses, developed by the research team, collaborators and stakeholders. Primary analyses will investigate current and changing risk and protective factors, care-seeking behaviour and attitudes to allowing linkage of their sensitive data to other databases for research, and will compare measures of mental health to measures of well-being. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Oxford Research Ethics Committee (Reference: R62366). Tailored data summaries will be provided to participating schools and stakeholders within 3 months of data collection. The main findings will be presented at scientific meetings, published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via digital and social media channels. At the end of the study, other researchers will be able to apply for access to anonymous data extracts

Feasibility of School-Based Identification of Children and Adolescents Experiencing, or At-risk of Developing, Mental Health Difficulties: a Systematic Review

Funder: Gates Cambridge Trust; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005370Abstract: Under-identification of mental health difficulties (MHD) in children and young people contributes to the significant unmet need for mental health care. School-based programmes have the potential to improve identification rates. This systematic review aimed to determine the feasibility of various models of school-based identification of MHD. We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, British Education Index, and ASSIA using terms for mental health combined with terms for school-based identification. We included studies that assessed feasibility of school-based identification of students in formal education aged 3–18 with MHD, symptomatology of MHD, or exposed to risks for MHD. Feasibility was defined in terms of (1) intervention fit, (2) cost and resource implications, (3) intervention complexity, flexibility, manualisation, and time concerns, and (4) adverse events. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The majority focused on behavioural and socioemotional problems or suicide risk, examined universal screening models, and used cross-sectional designs. In general, school-based programmes for identifying MHD aligned with schools’ priorities, but their appropriateness for students varied by condition. Time, resource, and cost concerns were the most common barriers to feasibility across models and conditions. The evidence base regarding feasibility is limited, and study heterogeneity prohibits definitive conclusions about the feasibility of different identification models. Education, health, and government agencies must determine how to allocate available resources to make the widespread adoption of school-based identification programmes more feasible. Furthermore, the definition and measurement of feasibility must be standardised to promote any future comparison between models and conditions

Determinants of patient-reported outcome trajectories and symptomatic recovery in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence for the general effectiveness of psychological therapies, there exists substantial heterogeneity in patient outcomes. We aimed to identify factors associated with baseline severity of depression and anxiety symptoms, rate of symptomatic change over the course of therapy, and symptomatic recovery in a primary mental health care setting. METHODS: Using data from a service evaluation involving 35 527 patients in England's psychological and wellbeing [Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)] services, we applied latent growth models to explore which routinely-collected sociodemographic, clinical, and therapeutic variables were associated with baseline symptom severity and rate of symptomatic change. We used a multilevel logit model to determine variables associated with symptomatic recovery. RESULTS: Being female, younger, more functionally impaired, and more socioeconomically disadvantaged was associated with higher baseline severity of both depression and anxiety symptoms. Being older, less functionally impaired, and having more severe baseline symptomatology was associated with more rapid improvement of both depression and anxiety symptoms (male gender and greater socioeconomic disadvantage were further associated with rate of change for depression only). Therapy intensity and appointment frequency seemed to have no correlation with rate of symptomatic improvement. Patients with lower baseline symptom severity, less functional impairment, and older age had a greater likelihood of achieving symptomatic recovery (as defined by IAPT criteria). CONCLUSIONS: We must continue to investigate how best to tailor psychotherapeutic interventions to fit patients' needs. Patients who begin therapy with more severe depression and/or anxiety symptoms and poorer functioning merit special attention, as these characteristics may negatively impact recovery.NIHR, Gates Cambridge Trus