Objective Parental depression is one of the biggest risk factors for youth depression. This parallel randomized controlled trial evaluates the effectiveness of the German version of the family-group-cognitive-behavioral (FGCB) preventive intervention for children of depressed parents. Methods Families with (i) a parent who has experienced depression and (ii) a healthy child aged 8–17 years (mean = 11.63; 53% female) were randomly allocated (blockwise; stratified by child age and parental depression) to the 12-session intervention (EG; n = 50) or no intervention (CG; usual care; n = 50). Self-reported (unblinded) outcomes were assessed immediately after the intervention (6 months). We hypothesized that CG children would show a greater increase in self-reported symptoms of depression (DIKJ) and internalising/externalising disorder (YSR/CBCL) over time compared to the EG. Intervention effects on secondary outcome variables emotion regulation (FEEL-KJ), attributional style (ASF-KJ), knowledge of depression and parenting style (ESI) were also expected. Study protocol (Belinda Platt, Pietsch, Krick, Oort, & Schulte-Körne, 2014) and trial registration (NCT02115880) reported elsewhere. Results We found significant intervention effects on self-reported internalising ($$\eta_{p}^{2}$$ η p 2  = 0.05) and externalising ($$\eta_{p}^{2}$$ η p 2  = 0.08) symptoms but did not detect depressive symptoms or parent-reported psychopathology. Parental depression severity did not modify these effects. Both groups showed equally improved knowledge of depression ($$\eta_{p}^{2}$$ η p 2  = 0.06). There were no intervention effects on emotion regulation, attributional style or parenting style. Conclusion The German version of the FGCB intervention is effective in reducing symptoms of general psychopathology. There was no evidence that the mechanisms targeted in the intervention changed within the intervention period.

Attention biases (AB) are a core component of cognitive models of depression yet it is unclear what role they play in the transgenerational transmission of depression. 44 children (9–14 years) with a high familial risk of depression (HR) were compared on multiple measures of AB with 36 children with a low familial risk of depression (LR). Their parents: 44 adults with a history of depression (HD) and 36 adults with no history of psychiatric disorder (ND) were also compared. There was no evidence of group differences in AB; neither between the HR and LR children, nor between HD and ND parents. There was no evidence of a correlation between parent and child AB. The internal consistency of the tasks varied greatly. The Dot-Probe Task showed unacceptable reliability whereas the behavioral index of the Visual-Search Task and an eye-tracking index of the Passive-Viewing Task showed better reliability. There was little correlation between the AB tasks and the tasks showed minimal convergence with symptoms of depression or anxiety. The null-findings of the current study contradict our expectations and much of the previous literature. They may be due to the poor psychometric properties associated with some of the AB indices, the unreliability of AB in general, or the relatively modest sample size. The poor reliability of the tasks in our sample suggest caution should be taken when interpreting the positive findings of previous studies which have used similar methods and populations.

The role of negative attention biases (AB), central to cognitive models of adult depression, is yet unclear in youth depression. We investigated negative AB in depressed compared to healthy youth and tested whether AB are more pronounced in depressed than at-risk youth. Negative AB was assessed for sad and angry faces with an eye-tracking paradigm [Passive Viewing Task (PVT)] and a behavioural task [Visual Search Task (VST)], comparing three groups of 9–14-year-olds: youth with major depression (MD; n = 32), youth with depressed parents (high-risk; HR; n = 49) and youth with healthy parents (low-risk; LR; n = 42). The PVT revealed MD participants to maintain attention longer on sad faces compared to HR, but not LR participants. This AB correlated positively with depressive symptoms. The VST revealed no group differences. Our results provide preliminary evidence for a negative AB in maintenance of attention on disorder-specific emotional information in depressed compared to at-risk youth.

Background In a parallel randomized controlled trial the effectiveness of the family- and group-based cognitive-behavioural “Gug-Auf” intervention in preventing depression in children of depressed parents was evaluated. We hypothesized that the intervention would be associated with reduced incidence of depression at 15 months as well as with reduced symptom severity at 6, 9, and 15 months. We also explored the role of a number of mediators and moderators. Methods Families were included if a parent (n = 100, mean age = 46.06, 61% female) had experienced depression and children (n = 135, aged 8–17 years, 53% female) had no mental illness. Families (91.5% German) were randomly allocated (50:50 block-wise; stratified by child age and parental depression) to the 12-session “GuG-Auf” intervention or no intervention. Outcomes were assessed (on an intention-to-treat basis) at 0-(T1), 6-(T2), 9-(T3) and 15-months (T4) after baseline. Primary outcome (onset of depression; T4) was assessed with standardized (blinded) clinical interviews. Secondary (unblinded) outcome was risk of depression (at T2-T4) indicated by self- and parent-reported symptoms of internalizing, externalizing and depressive disorder. Potential mediators were emotion regulation, attributional style, knowledge of depression and parenting style. Potential moderators were parental depression severity and negative life events. Results None of the children who received the intervention developed depression, whereas two of those in the control group did. The intervention significantly reduced depression risk (indicated by severity of self-reported internalizing symptoms) at T3 (p = .027, d = -0.45) and T4 (p = .035, d = -0.44). Both groups showed reduced depressive symptoms (p = .029, d = -0.44). Cognitive problem-solving and negative parenting emerged as mediators. There was no evidence that the intervention was associated with parent-reported internalizing symptoms or externalizing symptoms. No adverse events were observed. Conclusions Children of parents with depression showed an increase in self-reported (but not parent-reported) internalizing symptoms over time. This increase was not present in children who received the GuG-Auf intervention. The intervention was not associated with changes in externalizing symptoms. Conclusions regarding prevention of the onset of depression were not possible. Despite some limitations in the generalizability, these findings contribute to reducing the burden of youth depression. Registration The trial was registered on 16/04/2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02115880) and study protocol published in BMC Psychiatry (https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-014-0263-2).

Background In a parallel randomized controlled trial the effectiveness of the family- and group-based cognitive-behavioural “Gug-Auf” intervention in preventing depression in children of depressed parents was evaluated. We hypothesized that the intervention would be associated with reduced incidence of depression at 15 months as well as with reduced symptom severity at 6, 12, and 15 months. We also made predictions about the role of a number of mediators and moderators. Methods Families were included if a parent (n = 100, mean age = 46.06, 61% female) had experienced depression and children (n = 135, aged 8–17 years, 53% female) without a mental illness. Families (91.5% German) were randomly allocated (50:50 block-wise; stratified by child age and parental depression) to the 12-session “GuG-Auf” intervention or no intervention. Outcomes were assessed (on an intention-to-treat basis) at 0-(T1), 6-(T2), 12-(T3) and 15-months(T4) after baseline. Primary outcome (onset of depression; T4) was assessed with standardized (blinded) clinical interviews. Secondary (unblinded) outcome was risk of depression (at T2-T4) indicated by internalizing, externalizing and symptoms of depression. Potential mediators were emotion regulation, attributional style, knowledge of depression and parenting style. Potential moderators were parental depression severity and negative life events. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Results None of the children who received the intervention developed depression, whereas two of those in the control group did. The intervention significantly reduced internalizing symptoms at T3 (p = .027, d = -0.45) and T4 (p = .035, d=-0.44). Both groups showed reduced depressive symptoms (p = .029, d = -0.44). Cognitive problem-solving and negative parenting emerged as mediators. No adverse events were observed. Conclusions GuG-Auf is effective in reducing children’s risk of depression. Despite some limitations in the generalizability, these findings contribute substantially to reducing the burden of youth depression. Registration: The trial was registered on 16/04/2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02115880) and study protocol published in BMC Psychiatry (https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-014-0263-2).