A Prospective Examination of the Interpersonal‐Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior Among Psychiatric Adolescent Inpatients

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111102/1/sltb12125.pd

A cooperative interaction between LPHN3 and 11q doubles the risk for ADHD

In previous studies of a genetic isolate, we identified significant linkage of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to 4q, 5q, 8q, 11q and 17p. The existence of unique large size families linked to multiple regions, and the fact that these families came from an isolated population, we hypothesized that two-locus interaction contributions to ADHD were plausible. Several analytical models converged to show significant interaction between 4q and 11q (P<1 × 10−8) and 11q and 17p (P<1 × 10−6). As we have identified that common variants of the LPHN3 gene were responsible for the 4q linkage signal, we focused on 4q–11q interaction to determine that single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) harbored in the LPHN3 gene interact with SNPs spanning the 11q region that contains DRD2 and NCAM1 genes, to double the risk of developing ADHD. This interaction not only explains genetic effects much better than taking each of these loci effects by separated but also differences in brain metabolism as depicted by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy data and pharmacogenetic response to stimulant medication. These findings not only add information about how high order genetic interactions might be implicated in conferring susceptibility to develop ADHD but also show that future studies of the effects of genetic interactions on ADHD clinical information will help to shape predictive models of individual outcome

Suicidality among adolescents engaging in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and firesetting: The role of psychosocial characteristics and reasons for living

Background: Co-occurrence of problem behaviors, particularly across internalizing and externalizing spectra, increases the risk of suicidality (i.e., suicidal ideation and attempt) among youth. Methods: We examined differences in psychosocial risk factors across levels of suicidality in a sample of 77 school-based adolescents engaging in both nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and repeated firesetting. Participants completed questionnaires assessing engagement in problem behaviors, mental health difficulties, negative life events, poor coping, impulsivity, and suicidality. Results: Adolescents endorsing suicidal ideation reported greater psychological distress, physical and sexual abuse, and less problem solving/goal pursuit than those with no history of suicidality; adolescents who had attempted suicide reported more severe NSSI, higher rates of victimization and exposure to suicide, relative to those with suicidal ideation but no history of attempt. Additional analyses suggested the importance of coping beliefs in protecting against suicidality. Conclusions: Clinical implications and suggestions for future research relating to suicide prevention are discussed

Self-care support for children and adolescents with long-term conditions : the REfOCUS evidence synthesis

Background: Self-care support (e.g. education, training, peer/professional support) is intended to enhance the self-care capacities of children and young people, while simultaneously reducing the financial burden facing health-care systems. Objectives: To determine which models of self-care support for long-term conditions (LTCs) are associated with significant reductions in health utilisation and costs without compromising outcomes for children and young people. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Population: Children and young people aged 0–18 years with a long-term physical or mental health condition (e.g. asthma, depression). Intervention: Self-care support in health, social care, educational or community settings. Comparator: Usual care. Outcomes: Generic/health-related quality of life (QoL)/subjective health symptoms and health service utilisation/costs. Design: Randomised/non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series designs. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, The Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment database, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, IDEAS, reference scanning, targeted author searches and forward citation searching. All databases were searched from inception to March 2015. Methods: We conducted meta-analyses, simultaneously plotting QoL and health utilisation effects. We conducted subgroup analyses for evidence quality, age, LTC and intervention (setting, target, delivery format, intensity). Results: Ninety-seven studies reporting 114 interventions were included. Thirty-seven studies reported adequate allocation concealment. Fourteen were UK studies. The vast majority of included studies recruited children and young people with asthma (n = 66, 68%). Four per cent of studies evaluated ‘pure’ self-care support (delivered through health technology without additional contact), 23% evaluated facilitated self-care support (≤ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact), 65% were intensively facilitated (≥ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact) and 8% were case management (≥ 2 hours’ support with multidisciplinary input). Self-care support was associated with statistically significant, minimal benefits for QoL [effect size (ES) –0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.23 to –0.11], but lacked clear benefit for hospital admissions (ES –0.05, 95% CI –0.12 to 0.03). This finding endured across intervention intensities and LTCs. Statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use were observed (ES –0.11, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04). The total cost analysis was limited by the small number of data. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use for children aged ≤ 13 years (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04), children and young people with asthma (ES –0.12, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.06) and children and young people receiving ≥ 2 hours per four sessions of support (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.03). Preliminary evidence suggested that interventions that include the child or young person, and deliver some content individually, may optimise QoL effects. Face-to-face delivery may help to maximise emergency department effects. Caution is required in interpreting these findings. Limitations: Identification of optimal models of self-care support is challenged by the size and nature of evidence available. The emphasis on meta-analysis meant that a minority of studies with incomplete but potentially relevant data were excluded. Conclusions: Self-care support is associated with positive but minimal effects on children and young people’s QoL, and minimal, but potentially important, reductions in emergency use. On current evidence, we cannot reliably conclude that self-care support significantly reduces health-care costs. Future work: Research is needed to explore the short- and longer-term effects of self-care support across a wider range of LTCs. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014015452. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme