ObjectivesComputer-administered cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT) may be a promising treatment for adolescents with depression, particularly due to its increased availability and accessibility. The feasibility of delivering a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a CCBT program (Stressbusters) with an attention control (self-help websites) for adolescent depression was evaluated.DesignSingle centre RCT feasibility study.SettingThe trial was run within community and clinical settings in York, UK.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 12–18) with low mood/depression were assessed for eligibility, 91 of whom met the inclusion criteria and were consented and randomised to Stressbusters (n=45) or websites (n=46) using remote computerised single allocation. Those with comorbid physical illness were included but those with psychosis, active suicidality or postnatal depression were not.InterventionsAn eight-session CCBT program (Stressbusters) designed for use with adolescents with low mood/depression was compared with an attention control (accessing low mood self-help websites).Primary and secondary outcome measuresParticipants completed mood and quality of life measures and a service Use Questionnaire throughout completion of the trial and 4 months post intervention. Measures included the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (primary outcome measure), Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ), Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS), the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (youth) (EQ-5D-Y) and Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI-2). Changes in self-reported measures and completion rates were assessed by treatment group.ResultsFrom baseline to 4 months post intervention, BDI scores and MFQ scores decreased for the Stressbusters group but increased in the website group. Quality of life, as measured by the EQ-5D-Y, increased for both groups while costs at 4 months were similar to baseline. Good feasibility outcomes were found, suggesting the trial process to be feasible and acceptable for adolescents with depression.ConclusionsWith modifications, a fully powered RCT is achievable to investigate a promising treatment for adolescent depression in a climate where child mental health service resources are limited.Trial registration numberISRCTN31219579.

There has been recent interest in the relationship between socioeconomic status and the diagnosis of autism in children. Studies in the US have found lower rates of autism diagnosis associated with lower socioeconomic status, while studies in other countries report no association, or the opposite. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of this relationship in the UK. Using data from the Born in Bradford cohort, comprising of 13,857 children born between 2007 and 2011, it was found that children of mothers educated to A-level or above had twice the rate of autism diagnosis, 1.5% of children (95% CI: 1.1%, 1.9%) compared to children of mothers with lower levels of education status 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5%, 0.9%). No statistically significant relationship between income status or neighbourhood material deprivation was found after controlling for mothers education status. The results suggest a substantial level of underdiagnosis for children of lower education status mothers, though further research is required to determine the extent to which this is replicated across the UK. Tackling inequalities in autism diagnosis will require action, which could include increased education, awareness, further exploration of the usefulness of screening programmes, and the provision of more accessible support services.

PurposeDepression is currently the leading cause of illness and disability in young people. Evidence suggests that behavioural activation (BA) is an effective treatment for depression in adults but less research focuses on its application with young people. This review therefore examined whether BA is effective in the treatment of depression in young people.MethodsA systematic review (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews reference: CRD42015020453), following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, was conducted to examine studies that had explored behavioural interventions for young people with depression. The electronic databases searched included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsychINFO, and Scopus. A meta‐analysis employing a generic inverse variance, random‐effects model was conducted on the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine whether there were overall effects of BA on the Children's Depression Rating Scale – Revised.ResultsTen studies met inclusion criteria: three RCTs and seven within‐participant designs (total n = 170). The review showed that BA may be effective in the treatment of depression in young people. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Moncrieff scale used to assess the quality of the included studies revealed a variety of limitations within each.ConclusionsDespite demonstrating that BA may be effective in the treatment of depression in young people, the review indicated a number of methodological problems in the included studies meaning that the results and conclusions should be treated with caution. Furthermore, the paucity of studies in this area highlights the need for further research.Practitioner points Currently BA is included within National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2009) guidelines as an evidence‐based treatment for depression in adults with extensive research supporting its effectiveness. It is important to investigate whether it may also be effective in treating young people.Included studies reported reductions in depression scores across a range of measures following BA.BA may be an effective treatment of depression in young people.

No abstract

In a special issue that focuses on complex presentations related to Autism, we ask the question in this editorial whether an Autism Spectrum Condition without complexity is a disorder, or whether it represents human diversity? Much research into Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASCs) over the years has focused on comparisons between neuro-typical people and people with Autism Spectrum Conditions. These comparisons have tended to draw attention to 'deficits' in cognitive abilities and descriptions of behaviours that are characterised as unwanted. Not surprisingly, this is reflected in the classification systems from the World Health Organisation and the American Psychiatric Association. Public opinion about ASC may be influenced by presentations in the media of those with ASC who also have intellectual disability. Given that diagnostic systems are intended to help us better understand conditions in order to seek improved outcomes, we propose a more constructive approach to descriptions that uses more positive language, and balances descriptions of deficits with research finding of strengths and differences. We propose that this will be more helpful to individuals on the Autism Spectrum, both in terms of individual self-view, but also in terms of how society views Autism Spectrum Conditions more positively. Commentary has also been made on guidance that has been adjusted for people with ASC in relation to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Various interventions are used in clinical practice to address insecure or disorganized attachment patterns and attachment disorders. The most common of these are parenting interventions, but not all have a robust empirical evidence base. We undertook a systematic review of randomized trials comparing a parenting intervention with a control, where these used a validated attachment instrument, in order to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve attachment in children with severe attachment problems (mean age <13 years). This article aims to inform clinicians about the parenting interventions included in our systematic review that were clinically effective in promoting secure attachment. For completeness, we also briefly discuss other interventions without randomized controlled trial evidence, identified in Patient Public Involvement workshops and expert groups at the point our review was completed as being used or recommended. We outline the key implications of our findings for clinical practice and future research.

BackgroundThere are an estimated 125,000 deaf people in the UK who use British Sign Language (BSL) as their main form of communication, but there are no child mental health screening instruments that are accessible to deaf children whose first or main language is BSL (or to deaf adults reporting on children). This study sought to develop a new BSL translation of a commonly used mental health screening tool (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ), with versions available for deaf young people (aged 11–16 years), parents and teachers. The psychometric properties of this translation, and its validity for use with the deaf signing UK population, were also investigated.Objectives(1) To translate the SDQ into BSL; and (2) to use this new version with a cohort of deaf children, deaf parents and deaf teachers fluent in BSL across England, and validate it against a ‘gold standard’ clinical interview.MethodsThis study was split into two broad phases: translation and validation. The BSL SDQ was developed using a rigorous translation/back-translation methodology with additional checks, and we have defined high-quality standards for the translation of written/oral to visual languages. We compared all three versions of the SDQ (deaf parent, deaf teacher and deaf young person) with a gold standard clinical interview by child mental health clinicians experienced in working with deaf children. We also carried out a range of reliability and validity checks.ResultsThe SDQ was successfully translated using a careful methodology that took into account the linguistic and cultural aspects of translating a written/verbal language to a visual one. We recruited 144 deaf young people (aged 11–16 years), 191 deaf parents of a child aged either 4–10 or 11–16 years (the child could be hearing or deaf) and 77 deaf teachers and teaching assistants. We sought deaf people whose main or preferred language was BSL. We also recruited hearing participants to aid cross-validation. We found that the test–retest reliability, factor analysis and internal consistency of the three new scales were broadly similar to those of other translated versions of the SDQ. We also found that using the established multi-informant SDQ scoring algorithm there was good sensitivity (76%) and specificity (73%) against the gold standard clinical interview assessment. The SDQ was successfully validated and can now be used in clinical practice and research. Factor analysis suggests that the instrument is good for screening for mental health problems but not for the identification of specific disorders, and so should be used as a screening instrument. It will also enable outcomes to be monitored.ConclusionsA BSL version of the SDQ can now be used for national studies screening for mental health problems in deaf children. This will help us better understand the needs of deaf children and will enable earlier detection of mental health difficulties. It can also be used within clinical settings to monitor outcomes.Future workFuture work may focus on using the SDQ in epidemiological research, and developing new assessment instruments for deaf children to improve assessment methods in the deaf population.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundDisorganised attachment patterns in infants have been linked to later psychopathology. Services have variable practices for identifying and providing interventions for families of children with disorganised attachment patterns, which is the attachment pattern leading to most future psychopathology. Several recent government reports have highlighted the need for better parenting interventions in at risk groups.ObjectivesThe objective of this review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of available parenting interventions for families of children at high risk of developing, or already showing, a disorganised pattern of attachment.MethodsPopulation: Studies were included if they involved parents or caregivers of young children with a mean age under 13 years who had a disorganised classification of attachment or were identified as at high risk of developing such problems.Included interventions were aimed at parents or caregivers (e.g. foster carers) seeking to improve attachment.Comparators included an alternative intervention, an attention control, treatment as usual or no intervention.The primary outcome was a disorganised pattern in childhood measured using a validated attachment instrument.Studies that did not use a true Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) design were excluded from the review. Both published and unpublished papers were included, there were no restrictions on years since publication and foreign language papers were included where translation services could be accessed within necessary timescales.ResultsA comprehensive search of relevant databases yielded 15,298 papers. This paper reports a systematic review as part of an NIHR HTA study identifying studies pre-2012, updated to include all papers to October 2016. Two independent reviewers undertook two stage screening and data extraction of the included studies at all stages. A Cochrane quality assessment was carried out to assess the risk of bias. In total, fourteen studies were included in the review. In a meta-analysis of these fourteen studies the interventions saw less disorganised attachment at outcome compared to the control (OR = 0.50, (0.32, 0.77), p = 0.008). The majority of the interventions targeted maternal sensitivity. We carried out exploratory analyses to examine factors that may influence treatment outcome but these should be treated with caution given that we were limited by small numbers of studies.ConclusionsParenting interventions that target parental sensitivity show promise in reducing disorganised attachment. This is limited by few high quality studies and the fact that most studies are with mothers. More high quality randomised controlled trials are required to elucidate this further.