Search

Summary: Adolescents with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often experience greater sleep difficulties compared to those without. However, findings are mixed, and other mental health conditions are often overlooked. This study aimed to examine the relationship between sleep problems, ADHD, and other mental health conditions in a sample of adolescents. Data from 373 adolescents aged 10–19 years was used as part of the wider 'Healthy Brain Network' study, which targets children and adolescents experiencing mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Mental health conditions were assessed via a comprehensive assessment. Sleep was measured by self‐ and parent‐report, as well as via up to a month of actigraphy data. Actigraphy data were analysed using mixed‐methods modelling, while subjective sleep data were analysed using multiple regression. Subjectively‐reported sleep was generally worse in adolescents who had ADHD and other mental health conditions compared to those with ADHD but no other conditions. There were no associations between ADHD status and objective sleep measures or self‐reported measures, but a significant association was found between ADHD status and parent‐reported sleep difficulties, even when accounting for other conditions. Parent‐reported sleep problems were associated not only with ADHD, but also with anxiety, depression, and externalising disorders. The strength of association between ADHD and sleep problems is potentially not as strong as previously thought when considering the role of other mental health conditions. Clinicians should consider the role of other mental health conditions when sleep problems are present, and vice versa. The study also highlights the importance of comprehensive, multi‐informant assessment of mental health conditions, including sleep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationships between temporal self-regulation theory (TST) constructs (intention, behavioural prepotency and self-regulatory capacity) and medication adherence should be established before further applying the theory to adherence. Searches of PsychINFO, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were conducted in 2019 (updated November 2021). Studies had to be original quantitative research, assessed the relationship between one of the constructs and adherence in one illness, and used an adult population. The risk of bias was assessed using the NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Three meta-analyses were conducted using R. Moderation analyses were also conducted. A total of 57 articles (60 studies) with 13,995 participants were included, with 7 studies included in more than one analysis. Results identified significant correlations between intention (r = .369, [95% CI: .25, .48]), behavioural prepotency (r = .332, [95% CI: .18, .48]), self-regulatory capacity (r = .213, [95% CI: .10, .32]) and adherence. There was some evidence of publication bias and no significant moderators. No studies explored the interactions in the theory, so whilst the constructs adequately predict adherence, future research should apply the theory to adherence in a specific illness to assess these relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant challenges for frontline healthcare workers’ (FHW), raising many mental health and wellbeing concerns for this cohort. To facilitate identification of risk and protective factors to inform treatment and interventions, this study investigated key predictors of psychological distress and subjective wellbeing in FHWs. Methods: During the Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2022), Victorian (Australia) doctors, nurses, allied health and non-medical staff from Emergency Departments, Intensive Care units, Aged Care, Hospital In The Home, and COVID Wards completed a cross-sectional survey consisting of the Kessler 6 item (Psychological Distress), Personal Wellbeing Index (Subjective Wellbeing), Coronavirus Health Impact Survey tool (COVID-19 related factors) and occupational factors. Multivariable linear regressions were used to evaluate unadjusted and adjusted associations. Relative weight analysis was used to compare and identify key predictors. Results: Out of 167 participants, 18.1% screened positive for a probable mental illness and a further 15.3% screened positive for low wellbeing. Key risk factors for greater psychological distress included COVID infection worries, relationship stress and younger age. For both psychological distress and lower wellbeing, health status and supervisor support were key protective factors, while infection risks were key risk factors. Only positive changes in relationship quality was protective of lower wellbeing. Conclusion: This study highlights the significance of social determinants and individual level factors alongside work related factors, in influencing FHWs’ mental health and wellbeing during public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest that future interventions and supports should take a more holistic approach that considers work, social and individual level factors when supporting FHWs’ mental health and wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]