Depression in youth is prevalent and disabling and tends to presage a chronic and recurrent course of illness and impairment in adulthood. Clinical trial research in youth depression has a 30 year history, and evidence-based treatment reviews appeared in 1998 and 2008. The current review of 42 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) updates these reviews to include RCTs published between 2008 and 2014 (N = 14) and re-evaluates previously reviewed literature. Given the growing maturity of the field, this review utilized a stringent set of methodological criteria for trial inclusion, most notable for excluding trials based in sub-clinical samples of youth that had been included in previous reviews (N = 12) and including well-designed RCTs with null and negative findings (N = 8). Findings from the current review suggest that evidence for child treatments is notably weaker than for adolescent interventions, with no child treatments achieving well-established status and the evidentiary basis of treatments downgraded from previous reports. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for clinically depressed children appears to be possibly efficacious, with mixed findings across trials. For depressed adolescents, both CBT and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) are well-established interventions, with evidence of efficacy in multiple trials by independent investigative teams. This positive conclusion is tempered by the small size of the IPT literature (N = 6) and concern that CBT effects may be attenuated in clinically complicated samples and when compared against active control conditions. In conclusion, data on predictors, moderators, and mediators are examined and priorities for future research discussed.

No abstract

Purpose: Sexual minority (SM) individuals are more likely to experience mental health concerns than heterosexual individuals. However, little is known to date about the psychological needs of SM cancer survivors. The objective of this systematic review was to identify whether SM cancer survivors experience disparate psychological outcomes compared with heterosexual cancer survivors. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched systematically to identify studies that compared mental health outcomes between SM and heterosexual survivors. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract data from eligible articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies was used to assess study quality. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and assessed distress, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and mental and emotional quality of life (QOL). Most studies enrolled survivors diagnosed either with female breast cancer or with prostate cancer. Most studies reporting on mental health among women found no differences between SM and heterosexual survivors. Studies conducted among men found that SM survivors experienced higher distress, depression, and anxiety, and lower emotional/mental QOL than heterosexual survivors. Conclusion: The findings of the present synthesis suggest that mental health disparities may exist among SM men diagnosed with cancer, particularly prostate cancer. More research is required to identify mental health disparities among SM survivors diagnosed with other cancers, as well as predisposing and protective factors. In addition, mental health screening and interventions are needed for SM men after cancer diagnosis.