A randomised controlled trial of treatments of childhood anxiety disorder in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes

Background: This study evaluated whether clinical and economic outcomes from CBT for child anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders are improved by adding treatment focused on (i) maternal anxiety disorders, or (ii) mother-child interactions. Methods: 211 children (7 – 12 years, 85% White British, 52% female) with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had a current anxiety disorder, were randomised to receive (i) child-focused CBT with non-specific control interventions (CCBT+Con), (ii) CCBT with CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder (CCBT+MCBT), or (iii) CCBT with an intervention targeting the mother-child interaction (CCBT+MCI). A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective was conducted using mother/child combined Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). [Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN19762288]. Results: MCBT was associated with immediate reductions in maternal anxiety compared to the non-specific control; however, after children had also received CCBT, maternal outcomes in the CCBT+MCI and CCBT+Con arms improved and CCBT+MCBT was no longer superior. Neither CCBT+MCBT nor CCBT+MCI conferred a benefit over CCBT+Con in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses post-treatment [primary outcome] (adj RR: 1.22 (95% CI 0.88, 1.67), p = .23; adj RR: 1.21 (95% CI 0.88, 1.65), p = .24 respectively) or global improvement ratings (adj RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.99, 1.57), p = .06; adj RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.93, 1.50), p = .17) or six and 12 months later. No significant differences between the groups were found on the main economic outcome measures (child/mother combined QALY mean difference: CCBT+MCBT vs CCBT+Con: -0.04 (95% CI -0.12, 0.04), p = 0.29; CCBT+MCI vs CCBT+Con: 0.02 (95% CI -0.05, -0.09), p = 0.54). CCBT+MCI was associated with non-significantly higher costs than CCBT (mean difference: £154 (95% CI -£1239, £1547), p = 0.83) but, when taking into account sampling uncertainty, it may be cost-effective compared with CCBT alone. Conclusions: Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment arms. There was no evidence of significant clinical benefit from supplementing CCBT with either CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder or treatment focussed on mother-child interactions, but the addition of MCI (and not MCBT) may be cost-effective. Keywords: Child; anxiety; mother; parent-child interaction; CBT

School-based targeted prevention compared to specialist mental health treatment for youth anxiety

Background The ‘FRIENDS for life’ program (FRIENDS) is a 10-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program used for prevention and treatment of youth anxiety. There is discussion about whether FRIENDS is best applied as prevention or as treatment. Methods We compared FRIENDS delivered in schools as targeted prevention to a previous specialist mental health clinic trial. The targeted prevention sample (N = 82; Mage = 11.6 years, SD = 2.1; 75.0% girls) was identified and recruited by school nurses in collaboration with a community psychologist. The clinical sample (N = 88, Mage = 11.7 years, SD = 2.1; 54.5% girls) was recruited for a randomized controlled trial from community child- and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics and was diagnosed with anxiety disorders. Results Both samples showed significantly reduced anxiety symptoms from baseline to postintervention, with medium mean effect sizes across raters (youths and parents) and timepoints (post; 12-months follow-up). Baseline youth-reported anxiety symptom levels were similar between the samples, whereas parent-reported youth anxiety was higher in the clinical sample. Conclusions The study suggests that self-reported anxiety levels may not differ between youth recruited in schools and in clinic settings. The results indicate promising results of the FRIENDS program when delivered in schools by less specialized health personnel from the school health services, as well as when delivered in clinics by trained mental health professionals.publishedVersio

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of youths and parents seeking psychological treatment for school attendance problems

Background: Knowledge of school attendance problems (SAPs) is needed to inform treatments targetingSAPs and protecting youths from negative outcomes associated with SAPs. Objectives: This study examined the school absence, absence categories (i.e., absence due to illness, excused, non-excused), sociodemographic characteristics, and mental health problems among youths seeking psychological treatment for SAPs. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 152 help-seeking youths with SAPs (i.e., >10% absenteeism) and their parents were examined. The data were derived from the baseline assessment conducted before treatmentstart. Results: Older youths, youths with mental health problems, and youths whose parents had mentalhealth problems exhibited higher levels of absence. Lower levels of non-excused absence were found among youths with highly educated fathers, and youths living with both parents. Many youths had clinical levels of anxiety, depression, or ‘emotional and behavioral difficulties’. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for early intervention, addressing a broad range of mental health problems.Pathways through Adolescenc

Anxiety disorders in children and young people: assessment and treatment

Despite significant advancements in our knowledge of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, they continue to be under-recognised and under-treated. It is critical that these disorders are taken seriously in children and young people as they are highly prevalent, have a negative impact on educational, social and health functioning, create a risk of ongoing anxiety and other mental health disorders across the lifespan and are associated with substantial economic burden. Yet very few children with anxiety disorders access evidence-based treatments and there is an urgent need for widespread implementation of effective interventions. This review aims to provide an overview of recent research developments that will be relevant to clinicians and policymakers, particularly focusing on the development and maintenance of child anxiety disorders and considerations for assessment and treatment. Given the critical need to increase access to effective support we hope this review will contribute to driving forward a step change in treatment delivery for children and young people with anxiety disorders and their families

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75,000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems

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