Search

Background: Much is not known about the efficacy of interventions to prevent poor mental health outcomes in young people by targeting either the general population (universal prevention) or asymptomatic individuals with high risk of developing a mental disorder (selective prevention)., Methods: We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of Web of Science to identify studies comparing post-test efficacy (effect size [ES]; Hedges' g) of universal or selective interventions for poor mental health outcomes versus control groups, in samples with mean age <35 years (PROSPERO: CRD42018102143). Measurements included random-effects models, I2 statistics, publication bias, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, quality assessments, number needed to treat, and population impact number., Results: 295 articles (447,206 individuals; mean age = 15.4) appraising 17 poor mental health outcomes were included. Compared to control conditions, universal and selective interventions improved (in descending magnitude order) interpersonal violence, general psychological distress, alcohol use, anxiety features, affective symptoms, other emotional and behavioral problems, consequences of alcohol use, posttraumatic stress disorder features, conduct problems, tobacco use, externalizing behaviors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder features, and cannabis use, but not eating-related problems, impaired functioning, internalizing behavior, or sleep-related problems. Psychoeducation had the highest effect size for ADHD features, affective symptoms, and interpersonal violence. Psychotherapy had the highest effect size for anxiety features., Conclusion: Universal and selective preventive interventions for young individuals are feasible and can improve poor mental health outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 President and Fellows of Harvard College.)

Background: Suicidality in people with intellectual disability has not been extensively researched., Aim: To identify the nature of the research that has actually been conducted on this topic., Method: A search of research databases was conducted according to predefined criteria. Key information was extracted and rated for methodological merit., Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The aspects of suicidality investigated, which varied among studies, included suicidal attempts, behavior, ideation, and completed suicide. Thirteen studies highlighted risk factors for suicidality in this population. The most frequently noted risk factors were a concurrent mental health difficulty and the level of intellectual disability. Eight studies referred to people with intellectual disabilities' understanding of the concept of death or suicide. Various methodological issues were identified in the studies included., Conclusions: In what we believe to be first systematic review of suicidality in people with intellectual disabilities, it was apparent that well-designed, standardized research studies on the topic are scarce. There is consequently limited evidence to guide prevention and intervention strategies for suicidality in this population.

Learning Objectives: After participating in this educational activity, the physician should be better able to 1. Identify the risk factors associated with persistence of postpartum depression. 2. Evaluate the limitations of the literature. 3. Determine the implications of the findings on women with postpartum depression and their children.This article aims to critically review studies published between 1985 and 2012 concerning the course of postpartum depression (PPD), as well as factors implicated in PPD with a chronic course. We provide a systematic, qualitative review of studies on the course of PPD, following PRISMA guidelines. The results show that although the majority of women recover from PPD, it becomes chronic in a relatively large subgroup of women. Several studies have identified risk factors predicting a chronic course of PPD. This review also emphasizes and discusses important conceptual and methodological limitations in existing research, which preclude drawing strong conclusions. Finally, the implications of these findings and suggestions for future research and clinical intervention are outlined.