Search

Background: Anxiety and depressive disorders typically emerge in adolescence and can be chronic and disabling if not identified and treated early. School-based universal mental health screening may identify young people in need of mental health support and facilitate access to treatment. However, few studies have assessed the potential harms of this approach. This paper examines some of the potential mental health-related harms associated with the universal screening of anxiety and depression administered in Australian secondary schools. Methods: A total of 1802 adolescent students from 22 secondary schools in New South Wales, Australia, were cluster randomised (at the school level) to receive either an intensive screening procedure (intervention) or a light touch screening procedure (control). Participants in the intensive screening condition received supervised self-report web-based screening questionnaires for anxiety, depression and suicidality with the follow-up care matched to their symptom severity. Participants in the light touch condition received unsupervised web-based screening for anxiety and depression only, followed by generalised advice on help-seeking. No other care was provided in this condition. Study outcomes included the increased risk of anxiety, depression, psychological distress, decreased risk of help-seeking, increased risk of mental health stigma, determined from measures assessed at baseline, 6 weeks post-baseline, and 12 weeks post-baseline. Differences between groups were analysed using mixed effect models. Results: Participants in the intensive screening group were not adversely affected when compared to the light touch screening condition across a range of potential harms. Rather, participants in the intensive screening group were found to have a decreased risk of inhibited help-seeking behaviour compared to the light touch screening condition. Conclusions: The intensive screening procedure did not appear to adversely impact adolescents' mental health relative to the light touch procedure. Future studies should examine other school-based approaches that may be more effective and efficient than universal screening for reducing mental health burden among students. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001539224) https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375821. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary healthcare services have principal responsibility for providing child and youth wellbeing and mental health services, but have lacked appropriate measurement instruments to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth or to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services designed to meet their needs. This review assesses the availability and characteristics of measurement instruments that have been applied in primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States (CANZUS countries) to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. Methods: Fifteen databases and 12 websites were searched in December 2017 and again in October 2021. Pre-defined search terms pertained to Indigenous children and youth, CANZUS country names, and wellbeing or mental health measures. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with eligibility criteria guiding screening of titles and abstracts, and selected full-text papers. Results are presented based on the characteristics of documented measurement instruments assessed according to five desirability criteria: development for Indigenous youth populations, adherence to relational strength-based constructs, administration by child and or youth self-report, reliability and validity, and usefulness for identifying wellbeing or risk levels. Results: Twenty-one publications were found that described the development and or use by primary healthcare services of 14 measurement instruments, employed across 30 applications. Four of the 14 measurement instruments were developed specifically for Indigenous youth populations, four focused solely on strength-based wellbeing concepts but none included all Indigenous wellbeing domains. Conclusion: There is a diversity of measurement instruments available, but few fit our desirability criteria. Although it is possible that we missed relevant papers and reports, this review clearly supports the need for further research to develop, refine or adapt instruments cross-culturally to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]