Search

The author discusses the need for balanced interpretation of data and outcome measures and mentions relation between school closure and student mental health. Topics discussed include elaboration of aspects of commentary benefiting from additional clarity, reanalysis intended to challenge generalization of youth mental health during the pandemic, and rising rates of youth mental health deterioration.

The COVID-19 pandemic arrived with significant hardship. The secondary impacts of the pandemic and our response with respect to pediatric mental health has been a subject of significant discussion in the lay public, media, and decision-maker groups. The initiatives to control SARS-CoV-2 have become politicized. A narrative emerged early that strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus were harming children’s mental health. Position statements from professional organizations in Canada have been used to support this claim. The aim of this commentary is to provide a reanalysis of some of the data and research methodology used to support these position statements. Some of the direct claims such as “online learning is harmful,” should be supported by a strong evidence base with significant consensus that speaks directly to causality. We find that the quality of the studies and the heterogeneity of the results does not support the strength of the unequivocal claims made by these position statements. In a sample of the current literature examining the issue, we find that outcomes range from improvements to deteriorations. Earlier studies relying on cross-sectional surveys typically have shown stronger negative effects than longitudinal cohort studies, which often have also shown groups of children experiencing no changes to measured mental health characteristics or groups that have experienced improvements. We argue it is imperative that policymakers use the highest quality evidence in making the best decisions. We as professionals must avoid discussing only one side of heterogeneous evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the paediatric emergency department and identify post-screening barriers to accessing mental health care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study during the 30-day follow-up period of a larger prospective cohort study. Eligible youth and their accompanying parent/guardian first completed psychosocial self/proxy-screening using the MyHEARTSMAP tool and then received a standardized clinical mental health assessment. If the MyHEARTSMAP assessment provided youth with mental health resources recommendations, their parents were invited to a follow-up session. Thirty days (±5 days) after their ED visit, parents participated in a virtual interview to reflect and share their attitudes, perceptions and thoughts around the screening and mental health care-seeking process. Results: Of the 171 participants who received resource recommendations during their ED visit, 124 parents (72.5%; 95% CI 65.2–79.1%) completed the follow-up interview. Most parents endorsed positive perceptions of the screening process, describing it as an 'eye-opening' process that 'sparked conversation'. Most participants (74.2%; 95% CI 65.6–81.6) agreed with the resource recommendations they received. In terms of resources-seeking, only 41 participants (33.1%; 95% CI 24.9–42.1) attempted to access recommended supports. Families generally felt identified concerns were mild and 'not serious enough' to warrant resource-seeking, though many expressed an intention to seek care if concerns escalated. Conclusion: Perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED were favourable and encouraging among participating parents of youth screened positive for psychosocial issues. Despite positive attitudes, only a fraction of the families invited to follow-up attempted to access care. Mental health may be perceived as low priority for many families, signifying the need for improved education and awareness building on the importance of early intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate clinical utility and feasibility of universal somatization screening in the pediatric emergency department (ED) using a standardized approach of (1) identifying potential somatizing symptoms within the ED, (2) introducing these patients and their caregivers to the concept of the 'mind-body connection', (3) corroborating the likelihood of a somatization diagnosis via brief psychiatric assessment, and (4) inviting families to a psychoeducational follow-up session. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to carry out this approach with families visiting a pediatric ED. Our primary outcome of screening utility was measured as the proportion of youth who screened positive for somatization by the ED clinician. Our secondary outcome of screening feasibility was measured as the proportion of patients with positives who (1) agreed to meet with the study psychiatrist, (2) consented to an ED psychiatric assessment, (3) were assessed by the study psychiatrist as likely experiencing somatization, and (4) were invited for follow-up and attended. Results: Of the 344 screened patients, 27 (7.8%) screened positive for somatization. Of these, 25 (92.6%) families verbally consented to meet the study psychiatrist to learn about the mind-body connection, and 21 (77.8%) consented to further psychiatric assessment. Upon assessment, the somatization likelihood was supported for all 21 youth. Twenty families were invited to follow-up and ultimately two (10%) attended. Conclusions: Somatization can be detected through ED-based universal screening. Few families attended psychoeducational follow-up. Further research is needed to determine appropriate ED-initiated pediatric somatization intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective HEARTSMAP is a tool developed to facilitate assessment and management of paediatric mental health (MH) patients by emergency department (ED) clinicians. We evaluate the inter-rater reliability of HEARTSMAP when administered by clinicians of various backgrounds. Methods In a cross-sectional study initiated in 2016, collaborating clinician evaluators (n=16) applied the HEARTSMAP tool to evaluate a set of 50 fictional clinical vignettes, digitally in an approach consistent with the anticipated tool's access and usage in clinical settings. Evaluators came from different types of health centres from across the province of British Columbia (Canada), including remote/rural, regional and urban academic health centres. Results We report moderate to near excellent agreement, overall among clinicians for all 10 of the tool's psychosocial sections (κ=0.43 to 0.93) and domain scores (κ=0.75 to 0.90), with acceptable agreement across all tool-triggered service recommendations (κ=0.36 to 0.65). Conclusions Our findings show that HEARTSMAP may be reliably used by ED clinicians in assessing MH issues among youth. Results from this study will assist in informing the wider clinical implementation of HEARTSMAP as a standard assessment tool, in diverse emergency care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]