Search

Background: Depression is a common condition among adolescents, with rates continuing to rise. A gap exists between evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of depression and clinical practice. Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) can help address this gap, but to date no study has examined how young people and their caregivers experience ICPs and whether these pathways are an acceptable form of care. This study used focus groups with adolescents, caregivers, and service providers to examine experiences of an ICP. Methods: Six individual interviews with service providers, four focus groups with youth, and two focus groups with caregivers were completed. Data was analyzed consistent with Braun & Clarke's Thematic Analysis Framework within an interpretivist paradigm. Results and Conclusion: The study demonstrated that ICPs are acceptable to youth and their caregivers and that ICPs facilitate shared decision making between youth/caregivers and care providers. Findings also indicated that youth are willing to engage with ICPs particularly when there is a trusted clinician involved who helps interpret and tailor the ICP to the young person's experience. Further questions include how to best integrate these into the overall system and how to further tailor these pathways to support youth with diagnostic complexity and treatment resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors comment on impact of Covid-19 on child and youth anxiety and depression. Topics discussed include reasons health care workers who see young people should remain vigilant when infected with Covid-19, most common mental disorders in children and youth, and how the typical development and expression of mood and anxiety problems will change as the impact of Covid-19 evolves.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: This review critiques published randomized placebo-controlled trials pertaining to the efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents.Method: Medline was searched for articles meeting defined inclusion criteria. The following key terms were used: depressive disorders, antidepressive agents, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, child, and adolescent.Results: Six articles met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies claim efficacy by significant results in primary outcomes; both have since been contested in further analysis. Not one study adequately examines safety, particularly with respect to whether a link exists between antidepressant use and induction of suicidal ideation or attempts.Conclusion: Published studies on SSRI or venlafaxine use in children and adolescents are inconclusive with respect to safety and efficacy, owing to inappropriate claims of efficacy, lack of improvement in global functioning scores, nonstandardized data collection regarding adverse effects, exclusion of suicidal subjects in the recruitment process, grouping of children and adolescents together, small sample sizes, conflict of interest posed by pharmaceutical company sponsorship, and publishing bias. Future investigators should consider these factors when developing study designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]