Background Although widely used, the current evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is limited and conflicting. Aims We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of these medications in people with ASD. Method We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we hand-searched 11 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Results We included 15 randomised controlled trials (13 on antidepressants and two on anti-anxiety medications) for a total of 958 people with ASD. Data showed contradictory findings among the studies, with larger studies mostly showing a non-significant difference in outcomes between the treatment and the placebo groups. Meta-analysis of pooled Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale data from nine studies (60%) did not show any statistically significant inter-group difference on either of the outcome measures. The adverse effects reported were mild and, in most studies, their rates did not show any significant inter-group difference. Conclusions Given the methodological flaws in the most included studies and contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of either antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust, large-scale, randomised controlled trials are needed to address this issue.

PurposeTo explore repetition, service provision and service engagement following presentation of young people to emergency services with self-harm.Methods969 patients who presented to accident and emergency services after self-harm were followed up prospectively for a period of 1 year. Data on rates, method, clinical history, initial service provision, engagement and repetition (defined as re-presenting to emergency services with further self-harm) were gathered from comprehensive electronic records.ResultsYoung people were less likely to repeat self-harm compared to those aged 25 and above. A psychiatric history and a history of childhood trauma were significant predictors of repetition. Young people were more likely to receive self-help as their initial service provision, and less likely to receive acute psychiatric care or a hospital admission. There were no differences in engagement with services between young people and those aged 25 and above.ConclusionYounger individuals may be less vulnerable to repetition, and are less likely to represent to services with repeated self-harm. All young people who present with self-harm should be screened for mental illness and asked about childhood trauma. Whilst young people are less likely to be referred to psychiatric services, they do attend when referred. This may indicate missed opportunity for intervention.

ObjectivesIncentives have been effectively used in several healthcare contexts. This systematic review aimed to ascertain whether incentives can improve antipsychotic adherence, what ethical and practical issues arise and whether existing evidence resolves these issues.DesignSystematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Searches on 13 January 2021 (no start date) found papers on incentives for antipsychotics. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, qualitative research and ethical analyses were included. Papers measuring impact on adherence were synthesised, then a typology of ethical and policy issues was compiled, finally the empirical literature was compared with this typology to describe current evidence and identify remaining research questions.Results26 papers were included. 2 RCTs used contingent financial incentives for long-acting injectable antipsychotic preparations. Over 12 months, there were significantly larger increases in adherence among the intervention groups versus control groups in both RCTs. There were no consistently positive secondary outcomes. 39 ethical and practical issues were identified. 12 of these are amenable to empirical study but have not been researched and for 7 the current evidence is mixed.ConclusionsIn keeping with other areas of healthcare, antipsychotic adherence can be increased with financial incentives. Payments of 2.5 times minimum wage changed behaviour. The typology of issues reported in this systematic review provides a template for future policy and ethical analysis. The persistence of the effect and the impact of incentives on intrinsic motivation require further research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020222702.

Summary Small financial incentives have been proven effective at promoting healthy behaviours across medicine, including in psychiatry. There are a range of philosophical and practical objections to financial incentives. Drawing on the existing literature, specifically attempts to use financial incentives to promote antipsychotic adherence, we propose a ‘patient-centred’ view of evaluating financial incentive regimes. We argue that there is evidence that mental health patients like financial incentives, considering them fair and respectful. The enthusiasm of mental health patients for financial incentives lends support to their use, although it does not invalidate all objections against them.

No abstract