Depression is one of the most common mental health problems in childhood and adolescence. Although data consistently show it is associated with self-reported negative cognitive styles, less is known about the mechanisms underlying this relationship. Cognitive biases in attention, interpretation and memory represent plausible mechanisms and are known to characterise adult depression. We provide the first structured review of studies investigating the nature and causal role of cognitive biases in youth depression. Key questions are (i) do cognitive biases characterise youth depression? (ii) are cognitive biases a vulnerability factor for youth depression? and (iii) do cognitive biases play a causal role in youth depression? We find consistent evidence for positive associations between attention and interpretation biases and youth depression. Stronger biases in youth with an elevated risk of depression support cognitive-vulnerability models. Preliminary evidence from cognitive bias modification paradigms supports a causal role of attention and interpretation biases in youth depression but these paradigms require testing in clinical samples before they can be considered treatment tools. Studies of memory biases in youth samples have produced mixed findings and none have investigated the causal role of memory bias. We identify numerous areas for future research in this emerging field.

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.

No abstract

Background Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials suggest that psychological interventions to reduce children’s risk of depression are effective. Nevertheless, these effects are modest and diminish over time. The Medical Research Council recommends a mixed-methods approach to the evaluation of complex interventions. By gaining a more thorough understanding of participants’ perspectives, qualitative evaluations of preventive interventions could improve their efficacy, longevity and transfer into clinical practice. Methods 18 parents and 22 children who had received a 12-session family- and group-based cognitive-behavioural intervention to prevent youth depression as part of a randomised controlled trial took part in semi-structured interviews or a focus group about aspects which had been perceived as helpful, elements they were still using after the intervention had ended, and suggestions they had for improving the intervention. Results The chance to openly share and discuss their experiences of depression within and between families was considered helpful by both children and parents. Children benefitted the most from learning coping strategies for dealing with stress and many still used them in everyday life. Parents profited mostly from increasing positive family time, but noted that maintaining new routines after the end of the intervention proved difficult. Participants were generally content with the intervention but commented on how tiring and time consuming it was. Conclusions Managing parents’ expectations of family-based interventions in terms of their own mental health needs (versus those of their children) and leaving more room for open discussions may result in interventions which are more appealing to participating families. Increasing intervals between sessions may be one means of improving the longevity of interventions. Trial registration The original RCT this evaluation is a part of was registered under NCT02115880.

No abstract