Search

Many fields of medicine have benefitted from the formation of clinical trials networks, whereby researchers come together on a large scale to identify high-priority questions and implement coordinated clinical trials. Clinical trials networks in the field of mental health, however, have been rare and largely absent from the Australian context. Here, we present an overview of the newly formed Growing Minds Australia Clinical Trials Network, which represents the first comprehensive clinical trials network in child and youth mental health in Australia. The 60 principal members of the Growing Minds Australia Clinical Trials Network represent teams across 19 diverse areas related to specific forms of psychopathology (e.g. internalising, externalising, neurodevelopmental disorders, early psychosis, substance use), specific research methods and processes (e.g. health economics, eHealth, implementation science) and specialised areas of practice (e.g. school-based systems, parenting interventions, Indigenous mental health, refugee families). Core functions of the Growing Minds Australia Clinical Trials Network include collaborative trial protocol development; peer review, prioritisation and endorsement of proposed trials; training; development of clinical guidelines; and consumer representation. The research by the clinical trials network will encompass the populations typically accessing youth mental health services, while placing a key emphasis on the early periods of life, and the role of parents and caregivers as critical partners in the co-design of research and the delivery of intervention and prevention strategies. The structures and processes built into the network are designed to coordinate collaboration between diverse stakeholders and ensure that provisions for translation are integrated into research from the outset. In this paper, we examine the potential for a dedicated clinical trials network to initiate fundamental improvement in child and youth mental health systems, and discuss the unique and complex challenges associated with establishing such an initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rate of transition to psychotic disorder in ultra high risk (UHR) patients has declined in recent cohorts. The reasons for this are unclear, but may include a lead-time bias, earlier intervention, a change in clinical characteristics of cohorts, and treatment changes.Aims: In this paper we examined the two possibilities related to reduction in duration of symptoms prior to clinic entry, i.e., lead-time bias and earlier intervention.Method: The sample consisted of all UHR research participants seen at the PACE clinic, Melbourne between 1993 and 2006 (N=416), followed for a mean of 7.5years (the 'PACE 400' cohort). Duration of symptoms was analysed by four baseline year time periods. Analysis of transition rate by duration of symptoms was restricted to more homogenous sub-samples (pre-1998 and pre-2001) in order to minimize confounding effects of change in patient characteristics or treatments. These cohorts were divided into those with a short and long duration of symptoms using a cut-point approach.Results: Duration of symptoms prior to entry did not reduce significantly between 1993 and 2006 (p=0.10). The group with a short duration of symptoms showed lower transition rates and did not catch up in transition rate compared to the long duration of symptoms group.Discussion: These data suggest that, while earlier intervention or lead-time bias do not fully account for the declining transition rate in UHR cohorts, it appears that earlier intervention may have exerted a stronger influence on this decline than length of follow-up period (lead-time bias). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]