Search

Objectives Many adolescents and young adults with emerging mood disorders do not achieve substantial improvements in education, employment, or social function after receiving standard youth mental health care. We have developed a new model of care referred to as ‘highly personalised and measurement-based care’ (HP&MBC). HP&MBC involves repeated assessment of multidimensional domains of morbidity to enable continuous and personalised clinical decision-making. Although measurement-based care is common in medical disease management, it is not a standard practice in mental health. This clinical effectiveness trial tests whether HP&MBC, supported by continuous digital feedback, delivers better functional improvements than standard care and digital support.Method and analysis This controlled implementation trial is a PROBE study (Prospective, Randomised, Open, Blinded End-point) that comprises a multisite 24-month, assessor-blinded, follow-up study of 1500 individuals aged 15–25 years who present for mental health treatment. Eligible participants will be individually randomised (1:1) to 12 months of HP&MBC or standardised clinical care. The primary outcome measure is social and occupational functioning 12 months after trial entry, assessed by the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. Clinical and social outcomes for all participants will be monitored for a further 12 months after cessation of active care.Ethics and dissemination This clinical trial has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District (HREC Approval Number: X22-0042 & 2022/ETH00725, Protocol ID: BMC-YMH-003-2018, protocol version: V.3, 03/08/2022). Research findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, presentations at scientific conferences, and to user and advocacy groups. Participant data will be deidentified.Trial registration number ACTRN12622000882729.

Objectives Early developmental assessment is crucial for effective support and intervention. This study examined factors that contribute to (a) older child age when caregivers first became concerned about their child’s development and (b) older child age at the point of entry into developmental and diagnostic assessment. We also quantified how factors contributed to risk of children not receiving an assessment by 5 years and considered the acceptability of electronic data capture for families.Design This cross-sectional study collected information about caregiver developmental concerns, family history and child characteristics.Setting Children and families entered a large, publicly funded hospital-based paediatric developmental assessment service.Participants Consecutively enrolled children (N=916) aged 6 months to 17 years with neurodevelopmental concerns and their caregivers.Main outcomes and measures A developmental history questionnaire completed by caregivers.Results The average age that caregivers identified developmental concerns was 3.0 years of age but the average age of a receiving a developmental assessment was 6.6 years. Only 46.4% of children received a diagnostic assessment by 5 years of age, even though 88.0% of caregivers were concerned about their child’s development by that age. Parental age, relationship status, education level, prior use of support services and being from a culturally and linguistically diverse background contributed to age at identification of concern, age at diagnostic assessment and the likelihood of receiving a diagnostic assessment by 5 years. Electronic data capture had high acceptability, with 88.2% of caregivers reporting a preference for electronic completion of questionnaires.Conclusions The study shows a substantial delay in diagnostic assessments that leaves most vulnerable children without an assessment by school age and highlights contributors to delays. These delays highlight the complexity of delivering early intervention and support policies that rely on swift and appropriate developmental assessment to vulnerable families.

Introduction Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder which affects 5% of children globally. In Australia, it is estimated that 4.1% of children and adolescents have ADHD. While research has examined the treatment and outcomes of children with ADHD attending public mental health services during their time in the public system in Australia, it is not known what treatment they received before and after these treatment episodes, which will provide a more complete understanding of these children’s treatment journey.Methods and analysis We will link clinical data from cohorts of children and adolescents treated in the public child and youth mental health and/or child development services in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and National Death Index. MBS data will demonstrate the treatment journey with respect to clinicians seen, and treatment episodes from the public health service data sets will be examined to assess if the type and intensity of treatment are related to treatment outcomes. PBS data will reveal all psychotropic medications prescribed, allowing an examination of not just ADHD medications, but also other psychotropics which may indicate co-occurring conditions (eg, anxiety and mood disorders). Statistical analyses will include descriptive statistics to describe the rates of specific medications and clinician specialties seen. Linear and logistic regression will be used to model how treatment and sociodemographic variables relate to routinely collected outcome measures in the public health system while controlling for covarying factors.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the following institutional ethics committees: (1) Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service (HREC/21/QCHQ/76260), (2) The University of Queensland (2021/HE002143) and (3) The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (EO2021/4/1300). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, professional associations and to public mental health services that treat ADHD.

Introduction There are no well-established biomedical treatments for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A small number of studies suggest that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, may improve clinical and cognitive outcomes in ASD. We describe here the protocol for a funded multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial to investigate whether a course of rTMS to the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), which has demonstrated abnormal brain activation in ASD, can improve social communication in adolescents and young adults with ASD.Methods and analysis This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 4-week course of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS, a variant of rTMS) in ASD. Participants meeting criteria for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ASD (n=150, aged 14–40 years) will receive 20 sessions of either active iTBS (600 pulses) or sham iTBS (in which a sham coil mimics the sensation of iTBS, but no active stimulation is delivered) to the rTPJ. Participants will undergo a range of clinical, cognitive, epi/genetic, and neurophysiological assessments before and at multiple time points up to 6 months after iTBS. Safety will be assessed via a structured questionnaire and adverse event reporting. The study will be conducted from November 2020 to October 2024.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Monash Health (Melbourne, Australia) under Australia’s National Mutual Acceptance scheme. The trial will be conducted according to Good Clinical Practice, and findings will be written up for scholarly publication.Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000890932).

PurposeThe Brain and Mind Centre (BMC) Optymise cohort assesses multiple clinical and functional domains longitudinally in young people presenting for mental health care and treatment. Longitudinal tracking of this cohort will allow investigation of the relationships between multiple outcome domains across the course of care. Subsets of Optymise have completed detailed neuropsychological and neurobiological assessments, permitting investigation of associations between these measures and longitudinal course.ParticipantsYoung people (aged 12–30) presenting to clinics coordinated by the BMC were recruited to a research register (n=6743) progressively between June 2008 and July 2018. To date, 2767 individuals have been included in Optymise based on the availability of at least one detailed clinical assessment.MeasuresTrained researchers use a clinical research proforma to extract key data from clinical files to detail social and occupational functioning, clinical presentation, self-harm and suicidal thoughts and behaviours, alcohol and other substance use, physical health comorbidities, personal and family history of mental illness, and treatment utilisation at the following time points: baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, and time last seen.Findings to dateThere is moderate to substantial agreement between raters for data collected via the proforma. While wide variations in individual illness course are clear, social and occupational outcomes suggest that the majority of cohort members show no improvement in functioning over time. Differential rates of longitudinal transition are reported between early and late stages of illness, with a number of baseline factors associated with these transitions. Furthermore, there are longitudinal associations between prior suicide attempts and inferior clinical and functional outcomes.Future plansFuture reports will detail the longitudinal course of each outcome domain and examine multidirectional relationships between these domains both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, and explore in subsets the associations between detailed neurobiological measures and clinical, social and functional outcomes.