Editorial Statement About JCCAP’s 2023 Special Issue on Informant Discrepancies in Youth Mental Health Assessments: Observations, Guidelines, and Future Directions Grounded in 60 Years of Research

Issue 1 of the 2011 Volume of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP) included a Special Section about the use of multi-informant approaches to measure child and adolescent (i.e., hereafter referred to collectively as “youth”) mental health (De Los Reyes, 2011). Researchers collect reports from multiple informants or sources (e.g., parent and peer, youth and teacher) to estimate a given youth’s mental health. The 2011 JCCAP Special Section focused on the most common outcome of these approaches, namely the significant discrepancies that arise when comparing estimates from any two informant’s reports (i.e., informant discrepancies). These discrepancies appear in assessments conducted across the lifespan (Achenbach, 2020). That said, JCCAP dedicated space to understanding informant discrepancies, because they have been a focus of scholarship in youth mental health for over 60 years (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Glennon & Weisz, 1978; Kazdin et al., 1983; Kraemer et al., 2003; Lapouse & Monk, 1958; Quay et al., 1966; Richters, 1992; Rutter et al., 1970; van der Ende et al., 2012). Thus, we have a thorough understanding of the areas of research for which they reliably appear when clinically assessing youth. For instance, intervention researchers observe informant discrepancies in estimates of intervention effects within randomized controlled trials (e.g., Casey & Berman, 1985; Weisz et al., 2017). Service providers observe informant discrepancies when working with individual clients, most notably when making decisions about treatment planning (e.g., Hawley & Weisz, 2003; Hoffman & Chu, 2015). Scholars in developmental psychopathology observe these discrepancies when seeking to understand risk and protective factors linked to youth mental health concerns (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Hou et al., 2020; Ivanova et al., 2022). Thus, the 2011 JCCAP Special Section posed a question: Might these informant discrepancies contain data relevant to understanding youth mental health? Suppose none of the work in youth mental health is immune from these discrepancies. In that case, the answer to this question strikes at the core of what we produce―from the interventions we develop and implement, to the developmental psychopathology research that informs intervention development

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research