Search

Objectives: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a well-evidenced relapse-prevention intervention for depression with a growing evidence-base for use in other clinical populations. The UK initiatives have outlined plans for increasing access to MBCT in clinical settings, although evidence suggests that access remains limited. Given the increased popularity and access to MBCT, there may be deviations from the evidence-base and potential risks of harm. We aimed to understand what clinicians believe should be best clinical practice regarding access to, delivery of, and adaptations to MBCT. Methods: We employed a two-stage Delphi methodology. First, to develop statements around best practices, we consulted five mindfulness-based experts and reviewed the literature. Second, a total of 59 statements were taken forward into three survey rating rounds. Results: Twenty-nine clinicians completed round one, with 25 subsequently completing both rounds two and three. Forty-four statements reached consensus; 15 statements did not. Clinicians agreed with statements regarding sufficient preparation for accessing MBCT, adherence to the evidence-base and good practice guidelines, consideration of risks, sufficient access to training, support, and resources within services, and carefully considered adaptations. The consensus was not reached on statements which reflected a lack of evidence-base for specific clinical populations or the complex decision-making processes involved in delivering and making adaptations to MBCT. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the delicate balance of maintaining a client-centred and transparent approach whilst adhering to the evidence-base in clinical decisions around access to, delivery of, and adaptations in MBCT and have important wide-reaching implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of general mental health and wellbeing is important within child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for both clinicians and policy makers. Measurement tools are routinely relied upon to aid assessment and to monitor and evaluate treatment and service effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review using the COSMIN checklist to identify measures of general mental health and wellbeing for an adolescent mental health population. A systematic database search was performed using PsychINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Database searching produced 9587 records, with 27 papers meeting eligibility criteria and 16 measures identified and critically appraised. The Y-QOL-R and the Y-QOL.30.1 had the most robust psychometric properties. When considering the clinical utility of measures alongside psychometric properties of measures, the GHQ-12, ORS and YP CORE had the greatest clinical utility. The psychometric quality of measures reviewed overall, however, were generally poor in quality. Measuring outcomes in CAMHS and ensuring appropriate treatment pathways for young people is important. This review highlights the need for more robust testing of the psychometric properties of adolescent measures. When selecting measurement tools, clinicians should not only consider the purpose of the measure, (i.e., discriminative, predictive, and evaluative) and characteristics of the instrument (e.g., intended population, measure length), but should also the quality of the psychometric properties of the instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prevailing model for mental health care for youth and families is to provide services within a "psychopathology" focused framework. This approach can compound problems for youth by imparting negative labels on them, and may be associated with iatrogenic impacts of interventions (e.g., stigmatization, lowered self-efficacy, dependency). This study assessed perceptions of the term "psychopathology" among 486 youth aged 18–25, with 39% of these youth receiving prior mental health services. Results indicated statistically significant differences in perception of the term, with youth who had received mental health services perceiving it more negatively than youth who had not. Findings suggest receipt of mental health services among young people may sensitize them to negative aspects of the term psychopathology, indicating the need for caution in using this term and other terms that may have negative impacts on mental health service use among youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]