Centre for Youth Mental Health - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8
-
ItemCOVID-19 related innovation in Aotearoa/New Zealand mental health helplines and telehealth providers - mapping solutions and discussing sustainability from the perspective of service providers(FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, 2022-08-30)BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated interventions resulted in changes in both the demand and supply of mental health services and necessitated agile adaptation and innovation from service providers. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore what innovative solutions were adopted in response to COVID-19 and the pandemic control measures, what opportunities and challenges were associated with these innovations, as well as to critically reflect on the longer-term sustainability of the innovations in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand mental healthcare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used thematic analysis to analyse the data from the 23 in-depth interviews with helpline employees and general practitioners from 18 service providers that regularly engage in mental healthcare. RESULTS: Two key themes related to COVID-19 and the pandemic control measures were identified from respondents' accounts. These were "Technological innovations" and "Process innovations" where providers noted types of innovative solutions, and opportunities and challenges associated with those. The themes culminated in a meta theme "Sustainability of changes to service delivery" that appeared consistently in each theme and asks to consider how sustainable these innovative solutions might be in the long-term. Namely, sustainability of innovation was questioned in respect to the (a) innovative solutions being the emergency solutions with little or no impact analysis, (b) "returning back to normal" due to limited future funding and innovation as a sunk cost, and (c) sporadic and inconsistent innovation between service providers that does not contribute to quality and continuity of care from the systems perspective. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 and the measures of pandemic control were associated with an increase in innovative solutions from service providers. There were both opportunities and challenges associated with these innovative efforts and the sustainability of innovation was questioned. Future research about COVID-19 related innovation of service provision should focus on service user experiences and empirically measure the innovation safety and efficacy.
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableInterventions for self-harm in children and adolescents(WILEY, 2021)BACKGROUND: Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of SH in children and adolescents is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions in adults. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of interventions for SH in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of care (e.g. treatment-as-usual, routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care, active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these) for children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) who engage in SH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialized Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing specific psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products with treatment-as-usual (TAU), routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care (EUC), active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these, in children and adolescents with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from 17 trials with a total of 2280 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (87.6%) with a mean age of 14.7 years (standard deviation (SD) 1.5 years). The trials included in this review investigated the effectiveness of various forms of psychosocial interventions. None of the included trials evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in this clinical population. There was a lower rate of SH repetition for DBT-A (30%) as compared to TAU, EUC, or alternative psychotherapy (43%) on repetition of SH at post-intervention in four trials (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; N = 270; k = 4; high-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference for individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based psychotherapy and TAU for repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.24; N = 51; k = 2; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mentalisation based therapy for adolescents (MBT-A) reduces repetition of SH at post-intervention as compared to TAU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.46; N = 85; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial ( I² = 68%). There is probably no evidence of a difference between family therapy and either TAU or EUC on repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07; N = 191; k = 2; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference for compliance enhancement approaches on repetition of SH by the six-month follow-up assessment, for group-based psychotherapy at the six- or 12-month follow-up assessments, for a remote contact intervention (emergency cards) at the 12-month assessment, or for therapeutic assessment at the 12- or 24-month follow-up assessments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the moderate or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding a number of psychosocial interventions in children and adolescents who engage in SH. Further evaluation of DBT-A is warranted. Given the evidence for its benefit in adults who engage in SH, individual CBT-based psychotherapy should also be further developed and evaluated in children and adolescents.
-
ItemThe Use of Helplines and Telehealth Support in Aotearoa/New Zealand During COVID-19 Pandemic Control Measures: A Mixed-Methods Study(FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, 2022-01-27)BACKGROUND: Early evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated interventions have affected mental well-being and associated health service use. AIMS: the aim of this study was to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures on helpline and telehealth service demand. METHODS: the study utilized a mixed methods research design. Segmented regression analyses were used first to identify changes in patterns of demand for Aotearoa/New Zealand national helplines (n = 11) from January 2020 until the end of March 2021. Thematic analysis of 23 in-depth interviews was used next to explore the reasons behind the quantitative findings from the perspective of various organizational stakeholders. RESULTS: the data from 1,244,293 Aotearoa/New Zealand national helplines' contacts between January 2020 and March 2021 showed a non-significant (1.4%) upward trend for the full range of observations. Throughout this period, a peak and trough pattern was observed. Significant demand increases were observed in anticipation of containment measures (12.4% increase from January to March 2020) and significant demand decreases coincided with relaxation of restrictions (6.9% decrease from April to June 2020). There were spikes in demand during public health interventions (i.e., mental health promotion, introduction of new helpline services) and regional lockdowns, but these did not result in significant changes in trends. In general, the demand for helplines stabilized at a new higher level. Most of the contacts occurred by telephone calls. Contacts by other methods (webchat, text, email) have shown higher uptake during the periods of lockdowns. Quantitative-qualitative data triangulation showed that youth and populations who were disproportionally negatively affected by unstable economic conditions and underemployment made more frequent contacts. Providers emphasized that increased demand could be viewed positively as a successful outcome of public health messaging; however, greater capacity is needed to better serve higher demand. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19, related interventions, and measures of control were associated with an increase in contacts to helplines. However, the extent of the demand increases was lower than observed internationally. Moreover, in Aotearoa/New Zealand the reasons for increases in demand were often beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and measures of control.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePsychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.(Wiley, 2021-04-22)BACKGROUND: Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most counties, often repeated, and associated with suicide. There has been a substantial increase in both the number of trials and therapeutic approaches of psychosocial interventions for SH in adults. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2016) on the role of psychosocial interventions in the treatment of SH in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for self-harm (SH) compared to comparison types of care (e.g. treatment-as-usual, routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care, active comparator) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions of specific psychosocial treatments versus treatment-as-usual (TAU), routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care (EUC), active comparator, or a combination of these, in the treatment of adults with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from 76 trials with a total of 21,414 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (61.9%) with a mean age of 31.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.7 years). On the basis of data from four trials, individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based psychotherapy may reduce repetition of SH as compared to TAU or another comparator by the end of the intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.02; N = 238; k = 4; GRADE: low certainty evidence), although there was imprecision in the effect estimate. At longer follow-up time points (e.g., 6- and 12-months) there was some evidence that individual CBT-based psychotherapy may reduce SH repetition. Whilst there may be a slightly lower rate of SH repetition for dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) (66.0%) as compared to TAU or alternative psychotherapy (68.2%), the evidence remains uncertain as to whether DBT reduces absolute repetition of SH by the post-intervention assessment. On the basis of data from a single trial, mentalisation-based therapy (MBT) reduces repetition of SH and frequency of SH by the post-intervention assessment (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.73; N = 134; k = 1; GRADE: high-certainty evidence). A group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy may also reduce repetition of SH by the post-intervention assessment based on evidence from two trials by the same author group (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88; N = 83; k = 2; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no effect for different variants of DBT on absolute repetition of SH, including DBT group-based skills training, DBT individual skills training, or an experimental form of DBT in which participants were given significantly longer cognitive exposure to stressful events. The evidence remains uncertain as to whether provision of information and support, based on the Suicide Trends in At-Risk Territories (START) and the SUicide-PREvention Multisite Intervention Study on Suicidal behaviors (SUPRE-MISS) models, have any effect on repetition of SH by the post-intervention assessment. There was no evidence of a difference for psychodynamic psychotherapy, case management, general practitioner (GP) management, remote contact interventions, and other multimodal interventions, or a variety of brief emergency department-based interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there were significant methodological limitations across the trials included in this review. Given the moderate or very low quality of the available evidence, there is only uncertain evidence regarding a number of psychosocial interventions for adults who engage in SH. Psychosocial therapy based on CBT approaches may result in fewer individuals repeating SH at longer follow-up time points, although no such effect was found at the post-intervention assessment and the quality of evidence, according to the GRADE criteria, was low. Given findings in single trials, or trials by the same author group, both MBT and group-based emotion regulation therapy should be further developed and evaluated in adults. DBT may also lead to a reduction in frequency of SH. Other interventions were mostly evaluated in single trials of moderate to very low quality such that the evidence relating to the use of these interventions is inconclusive at present.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePharmacological interventions for self-harm in adults.(Wiley, 2021-01-10)BACKGROUND: Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents and/or natural products in the treatment of SH is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of pharmacological interventions for SH in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of treatment (e.g. placebo or alternative pharmacological treatment) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE. Ovid Embase and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment acceptability, treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. The overall certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from seven trials with a total of 574 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (63.5%) with a mean age of 35.3 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.1 years). It is uncertain if newer generation antidepressants reduce repetition of SH compared to placebo (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.19; N = 129; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a lower rate of SH repetition for antipsychotics (21%) as compared to placebo (75%) (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50; N = 30; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference between antipsychotics compared to another comparator drug/dose for repetition of SH (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; N = 53; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference for mood stabilisers compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; N = 167; k = 1; very low-certainty evidence), or for natural products compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; N = 49; k = 1; lo- certainty) evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding pharmacological interventions in patients who engage in SH. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required, preferably using newer agents. These might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should also include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePharmacological interventions for self‐harm in adults(Wiley, 2020-01)Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents or natural products for self‐harm (SH) compared to comparison types of treatment (e.g. placebo or alternative pharmacological treatment) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePsychosocial interventions for self‐harm in adults(Wiley, 2020-01)Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for self‐harm (SH) compared to comparison types of treatment (e.g. treatment as usual, routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care, active comparator) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH.