Search

El presente artículo se centra en la brecha de tratamiento, que se refiere a la discrepancia entre la proporción de la población que necesita servicios y la que los recibe. Actualmente, en México, pero también en el mundo, la mayoría de las personas que necesitan servicios de salud mental no reciben tratamiento. Los autores se centran en el tratamiento de los trastornos mentales en niños y adolescentes porque en su mayoría tales trastornos surgen durante estos periodos de vida. Se discuten las barreras para recibir y prestar servicios de las personas que lo necesitan, y se subraya la importancia de proporcionar tratamientos que sean escalables (o sea, que puedan llegar a un gran número de personas) y que tengan alcance (es decir, que puedan extenderse a los grupos que a menudo se descuidan en la atención de la salud mental). Se identifican múltiples modelos de prestación de tratamiento y se ilustran tres de ellos en detalle: el cambio de tareas, el entretenimiento educativo y las intervenciones de mejor-compra. Estos y otros modelos permiten que los servicios de salud mental lleguen a más personas que los necesitan, y reducir así la brecha de tratamiento en México.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence and predictors of perceived helpfulness of treatment in persons with a history of DSM-IV social anxiety disorder (SAD), using a worldwide population-based sample.METHODS: The World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys is a coordinated series of community epidemiological surveys of non-institutionalized adults; 27 surveys in 24 countries (16 in high-income; 11 in low/middle-income countries; N = 117,856) included people with a lifetime history of treated SAD.RESULTS: In respondents with lifetime SAD, approximately one in five ever obtained treatment. Among these (n = 1322), cumulative probability of receiving treatment they regarded as helpful after seeing up to seven professionals was 92.2%. However, only 30.2% persisted this long, resulting in 65.1% ever receiving treatment perceived as helpful. Perceiving treatment as helpful was more common in female respondents, those currently married, more highly educated, and treated in non-formal health-care settings. Persistence in seeking treatment for SAD was higher among those with shorter delays in seeking treatment, in those receiving medication from a mental health specialist, and those with more than two lifetime anxiety disorders.CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of individuals with SAD do not receive any treatment. Among those who do, the probability that people treated for SAD obtain treatment they consider helpful increases considerably if they persisted in help-seeking after earlier unhelpful treatments.

BackgroundThe most common treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is antidepressant medication (ADM). Results are reported on frequency of ADM use, reasons for use, and perceived effectiveness of use in general population surveys across 20 countries.MethodsFace-to-face interviews with community samples totaling n = 49 919 respondents in the World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys asked about ADM use anytime in the prior 12 months in conjunction with validated fully structured diagnostic interviews. Treatment questions were administered independently of diagnoses and asked of all respondents.Results3.1% of respondents reported ADM use within the past 12 months. In high-income countries (HICs), depression (49.2%) and anxiety (36.4%) were the most common reasons for use. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), depression (38.4%) and sleep problems (31.9%) were the most common reasons for use. Prevalence of use was 2–4 times as high in HICs as LMICs across all examined diagnoses. Newer ADMs were proportionally used more often in HICs than LMICs. Across all conditions, ADMs were reported as very effective by 58.8% of users and somewhat effective by an additional 28.3% of users, with both proportions higher in LMICs than HICs. Neither ADM class nor reason for use was a significant predictor of perceived effectiveness.ConclusionADMs are in widespread use and for a variety of conditions including but going beyond depression and anxiety. In a general population sample from multiple LMICs and HICs, ADMs were widely perceived to be either very or somewhat effective by the people who use them.

Randomized control trials (RCTs) have played a critical role in psychotherapy research. This article discusses RCTs in the context of the criteria for drawing causal inferences in psychotherapy and intervention research more generally. The article also highlights underused variations of RCTs and how they not only establish causal relations but also address critical questions that can improve our intervention portfolio and patient care.Random assignment is discussed in terms of what it can and cannot do in relation to drawing conclusions about the effects of interventions. Finally, RCTs are examined in the context of multiple questions that can guide therapy research, improve patient care, and develop treatments that reach people in need of psychological services.

Human contact with nature is more important than ever before considering the global confinement brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased urbanization of society, and increased rates of mental disorders and threats to human well-being. This article conveys the importance of contact with nature from three perspectives: historical, sociocultural, and scientific. These perspectives convey the many ways in which contact with nature is essential to human life, the multiple ways in which this is expressed, and the broad range of benefits this has. The case for preserving the natural environment continues to be made in light of the dangers of climate change, the deleterious effects of pollution, and the importance of habitats. We add to the case by underscoring how human well-being has depended on contact with natural environments and how the need for this contact is more salient now than ever before. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Nature & Culture is the property of Berghahn Books and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patient-reported helpfulness of treatment is an important indicator of quality in patient-centered care. We examined its pathways and predictors among respondents to household surveys who reported ever receiving treatment for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, specific phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, or alcohol use disorder. Data came from 30 community epidemiological surveys - 17 in high-income countries (HICs) and 13 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) - carried out as part of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Respondents were asked whether treatment of each disorder was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals seen before receiving helpful treatment. Across all surveys and diagnostic categories, 26.1% of patients (N=10,035) reported being helped by the very first professional they saw. Persisting to a second professional after a first unhelpful treatment brought the cumulative probability of receiving helpful treatment to 51.2%. If patients persisted with up through eight professionals, the cumulative probability rose to 90.6%. However, only an estimated 22.8% of patients would have persisted in seeing these many professionals after repeatedly receiving treatments they considered not helpful. Although the proportion of individuals with disorders who sought treatment was higher and they were more persistent in HICs than LMICs, proportional helpfulness among treated cases was no different between HICs and LMICs. A wide range of predictors of perceived treatment helpfulness were found, some of them consistent across diagnostic categories and others unique to specific disorders. These results provide novel information about patient evaluations of treatment across diagnoses and countries varying in income level, and suggest that a critical issue in improving the quality of care for mental disorders should be fostering persistence in professional help-seeking if earlier treatments are not helpful.

Funding Information: The WHO World Mental Health Survey collaborators are Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD; Ali Al-Hamzawi, MD; Mohammed Salih Al-Kaisy, MD; Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD; Yasmin Altwaijri, PhD; Laura Helena Andrade, MD, PhD; Lukoye Atwoli, MD, PhD; Corina Benjet, PhD; Guilherme Borges, ScD; Evelyn J. Bromet, PhD; Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD; Brendan Bunting, PhD; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD; Graça Cardoso, MD, PhD; Somnath Chatterji, MD; Alfredo H. Cia, MD; Louisa Degenhardt, PhD; Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD; Silvia Florescu, MD, PhD; Giovanni de Girolamo, MD; Oye Gureje, MD, DSc, FRCPsych; Josep Maria Haro, MD, PhD; Meredith Harris, PhD; Hristo Hinkov, MD, PhD; Chi-yi Hu, MD, PhD; Peter de Jonge, PhD; Aimee Nasser Karam, PhD; Elie G. Karam, MD; Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc; Ronald C. Kessler, PhD; Andrzej Kiejna, MD, PhD; Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD; Sing Lee, MBBS; Jean-Pierre Lepine, MD; John McGrath, MD, PhD; Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD; Zeina Mneimneh, PhD; Jacek Moskalewicz, PhD; Fernando Navarro-Mateu, MD, PhD; Marina Piazza, MPH, ScD; Jose Posada-Villa, MD; Kate M. Scott, PhD; Tim Slade, PhD; Juan Carlos Stagnaro, MD, PhD; Dan J. Stein, FRCPC, PhD; Margreet ten Have, PhD; Yolanda Torres, MPH, Dra.HC; Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD; Daniel V. Vigo, MD, DrPH; Harvey Whiteford, MBBS, PhD; David R. Williams, MPH, PhD; Bogdan Wojtyniak, ScD. Funding Information: The Argentina survey – Estudio Argentino de Epidemiología en Salud Mental (EASM) – was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación)—(Grant Number 2002–17,270/13 − 5). The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204–3. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5-1999–01,042; SANCO 2,004,123, and EAHC 20,081,308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000–158-CE), Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 452; 2014 SGR 748), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481-01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW) is supported by the WHO (Geneva), the WHO (Nigeria), and the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Romania WMH study projects “Policies in Mental Health Area” and “National Study regarding Mental Health and Services Use” were carried out by National School of Public Health & Health Services Management (former National Institute for Research & Development in Health), with technical support of Metro Media Transilvania, the National Institute of Statistics-National Centre for Training in Statistics, SC Cheyenne Services SRL, Statistics Netherlands and were funded by Ministry of Public Health (former Ministry of Health) with supplemental support of Eli Lilly Romania SRL. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s). Background: Most individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) receive either no care or inadequate care. The aims of this study is to investigate potential determinants of effective treatment coverage. Methods: In order to examine obstacles to providing or receiving care, the type of care received, and the quality and use of that care in a representative sample of individuals with MDD, we analyzed data from 17 WHO World Mental Health Surveys conducted in 15 countries (9 high-income and 6 low/middle-income). Of 35,012 respondents, 3341 had 12-month MDD. We explored the association of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, insurance, and severity with effective treatment coverage and its components, including type of treatment, adequacy of treatment, dose, and adherence. Results: High level of education (OR = 1.63; 1.19, 2.24), private insurance (OR = 1.62; 1.06, 2.48), and age (30–59yrs; OR = 1.58; 1.21, 2.07) predicted effective treatment coverage for depression in a multivariable logistic regression model. Exploratory bivariate models further indicate that education may follow a dose—response relation; that people with severe depression are more likely to receive any services, but less likely to receive adequate services; and that in low and middle-income countries, private insurance (the only significant predictor) increased the likelihood of receiving effective treatment coverage four times. Conclusions: In the regression models, specific social determinants predicted effective coverage for major depression. Knowing the factors that determine who does and does not receive treatment contributes to improve our understanding of unmet needs and our ability to develop targeted interventions. publishersversion published

Background Mental healthcare is delivered across service sectors that differ in level of specialization and intervention modalities typically offered. Little is known about the perceived helpfulness of the combinations of service sectors that patients use. Methods Respondents 18 + years with 12-month DSM-IV mental or substance use disorders who saw a provider for mental health problems in the year before interview were identified from WHO World Mental Health surveys in 17 countries. Based upon the types of providers seen, patients were grouped into nine mutually exclusive single-sector or multi-sector ‘treatment profiles’. Perceived helpfulness was defined as the patient’s maximum rating of being helped (‘a lot’, ‘some’, ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’) of any type of provider seen in the profile. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the joint associations of sociodemographics, disorder types, and treatment profiles with being helped ‘a lot’. Results Across all surveys combined, 29.4% (S.E. 0.6) of respondents with a 12-month disorder saw a provider in the past year (N = 3221). Of these patients, 58.2% (S.E. 1.0) reported being helped ‘a lot’. Odds of being helped ‘a lot’ were significantly higher (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.50–1.89) among the 12.9% of patients who used specialized multi-sector profiles involving both psychiatrists and other mental health specialists, compared to other patients, despite their high comorbidities. Lower odds of being helped ‘a lot’ were found among patients who were seen only in the general medical, psychiatrist, or other mental health specialty sectors (ORs = 0.46–0.71). Female gender and older age were associated with increased odds of being helped ‘a lot’. In models stratified by country income group, having 3 or more disorders (high-income countries only) and state-funded health insurance (low/middle-income countries only) were associated with increased odds of being helped ‘a lot’. Conclusions Patients who received specialized, multi-sector care were more likely than other patients to report being helped ‘a lot’. This result is consistent with previous research suggesting that persistence in help-seeking is associated with receiving helpful treatment. Given the nonrandom sorting of patients by types of providers seen and persistence in help-seeking, we cannot discount that selection bias may play some role in this pattern.

Research Design in Clinical Psychology helps students to achieve a thorough understanding of the entire research process – developing the idea, selecting methods, analyzing the results, and preparing the written scientific report. Drawing examples from clinical research, health, and medicine, author Alan E. Kazdin offers detailed coverage of experimental design, assessment, data evaluation and interpretation, case-control and cohort designs, and qualitative research methods. In addition to new pedagogical tools that guide students through the text, the Fifth Edition offers expanded coverage of key topic areas, such as cultural issues, scientific integrity, and recent changes in the publication and communication of research.

There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.

Single-case designs refer to a methodological approach that can be used to investigate the effectiveness of treatment with the individual client. The designs permit scientifically valid inferences to be drawn about the effects of treatment and hence offer advantages over alternative strategies such as the uncontrolled case study or open study that are used with the individual case. The present article discusses the key features of the methodology, illustrates specific designs and how inferences are drawn, and discusses critical issues (feasibility, generality of results, ethical issues) in the use of the designs. Essential features of the design, including ongoing assessment and drawing on the underlying thinking and logic of the designs can improve the clinical care for individual clients, even when the rigors of experimentation are not feasible or desirable. Lamentably, single-case methods are rarely trained among researchers or practitioners in psychology or related mental health professions. The designs could play a special role by improving individual care and therapeutic change, apart from the strength of the methodology as a purely research tool.

Reporting guidelines, such as the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT)statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT extension to non-pharmacological trials (Boutron et al., 2008)provides suitable guidance for reporting betweengroups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015)was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the single-case reporting guideline in behavioural interventions (SCRIBE)2016 to meet this need. This statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 explanation and elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016)that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated.We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the single-case reporting guideline in behavioural interventions (SCRIBE)2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 explanation and elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016)that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Nous avons elabore des normes de presentation (sorte de lignes directrices)servant de guide pratique pour la redaction d'un article a publier dans une revue scientifique, utilisantun design de recherche particulier: le protocole experimental a cas unique. Le present article decrit la procedure utilisee afin d’elaborer ces normes: « single-case reporting guideline in behavioural interventions » (SCRIBE-2016). A l'issue de deux enquetes en ligne et d'une conference de consensus reunissant des experts durant deux jours, une liste de conformite (check-list)SCRIBE-2016 comprenant 26 items que les auteurs devraient considerer lorsqu'ils redigent des travaux utilisant les protocoles a cas unique a ete etablie. Cet article complete ainsi l'article intitule « SCRIBE-2016 explication and elaboration » (Tate et al., 2016)qui detaille et explique chaque item de la liste tout en fournissant, en guise de modele, des illustrations pratiques tires de travaux exemplaires de la litterature. Ces deux ressources aideront les auteurs a rediger avec clarte, exhaustivite, exactitude et transparence des articles de recherche portant sur des cas uniques. Elles fourniront egalement aux experts des revues ainsi qu’a leurs redacteurs en chef une liste de verification pratique qui leur servira de grille de lecture critique de ces articles. Nous recommandons de fait que le SCRIBE-2016 soit utilise aussi bien par les auteurs qui envisagent de publier des manuscrits rendant compte d'une recherche a cas unique, que par les experts et editeurs de revues qui les evaluent.Les normes en matiere de redaction d'articles, a l'instar de celles dediees a l’ecriture de travaux d'essais randomises controles (CONSORT), ameliorent la qualite des comptes rendus de la recherche dans la litterature medicale (Turner et al., 2012). Il existe de nombreuses normes de ce genre parmi lesquelles l'extension du CONSORT pour les essais non-pharmacologiques (Boutron et al., 2008)qui fournit deja un cadre approprie pour rendre compte d’etudes experimentales intergroupes en science du comportement. Une extension du CONSORT pour les essais « N = 1 » (CENT 2015)a egalement bien ete developpee en sciences medicales pour les essais transversaux multiples realises aupres de cas uniques (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015). Toutefois il n'existait pas, jusqu’a lors, de normes de presentation comparables au CONSORTet applicables aux protocoles a cas uniques en sciences du comportement. Pour repondre a ce besoin, nous avons mis au point ces « normes de presentation d'une recherche interventionnelle utilisant un protocole a cas unique » (SCRIBE-2016). Cet article decrit la procedure d’elaboration du SCRIBE-2016, ainsi que les resultats des deux enquetes Delphi et de la conference de consensus d'experts realises dans ce contexte. Nous y presentonsles normes SCRIBE-2016 en 26 items qui en resultent. La presente declaration est un preambule a l'article plus detaille intitule « SCRIBE-2016 explanation and elaboration » (Tate et al., 2016), qui detaille et apporte un eclaircissement pour chacun des items des normes de presentation et les illustre par des exemples de travaux adequats tires de la litterature. Ces deux ressources aideront les auteurs a rediger avec clarte, exhaustivite, exactitude et transparence des travaux de recherche portant sur des cas uniques. Elles fourniront egalement aux experts des revues ainsi qu'aux redacteurs en chef une liste de verification pratique qui leur servira de grille de lecture critique de ces travaux.

AIM: We examined prevalence and factors associated with receiving perceived helpful alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment, and persistence in help-seeking after earlier unhelpful treatment.METHODS: Data came from 27 community epidemiologic surveys of adults in 24 countries using the World Health Organization World Mental Health surveys (n = 93,843). Participants with a lifetime history of treated AUD were asked if they ever received helpful AUD treatment, and how many professionals they had talked to up to and including the first time they received helpful treatment (or how many ever, if they had not received helpful treatment).RESULTS: 11.8% of respondents with lifetime AUD reported ever obtaining treatment (n = 9378); of these, 44% reported that treatment was helpful. The probability of obtaining helpful treatment from the first professional seen was 21.8%; the conditional probability of subsequent professionals being helpful after earlier unhelpful treatment tended to decrease as more professionals were seen. The cumulative probability of receiving helpful treatment at least once increased from 21.8% after the first professional to 79.7% after the seventh professional seen, following earlier unhelpful treatment. However, the cumulative probability of persisting with up to seven professionals in the face of prior treatments being unhelpful was only 13.2%.CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of people with AUDs who sought treatment found treatment helpful; the most important factor was persistence in seeking further treatment if a previous professional had not helped. Future research should examine how to increase the likelihood that AUD treatment is found to be helpful on any given contact.

Background Anxiety and depression are common among university students, and university counseling centers are under pressure to develop effective, novel, and sustainable interventions that engage and retain students. Group interventions delivered via the internet could be a novel and effective way to promote student mental health. Objective We conducted a pragmatic open trial to investigate the uptake, retention, treatment response, and level of satisfaction with a remote group cognitive behavioral therapy intervention designed to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression delivered on the web to university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Preintervention and postintervention self-reported data on anxiety and depression were collected using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Satisfaction was assessed postintervention using the Client Satisfaction with Treatment Questionnaire. Results A total of 175 students were enrolled, 158 (90.3%) of whom initiated treatment. Among those initiating treatment, 86.1% (135/158) identified as female, and the mean age was 22.4 (SD 4.9) years. The mean number of sessions attended was 6.4 (SD 2.8) out of 10. Among participants with clinically significant symptoms at baseline, mean symptom scores decreased significantly for anxiety (t56=11.6; P Conclusions The results of this study serve as a proof of concept for the use of web-based group cognitive behavioral therapy to promote the mental health of university students.

Socially assistive robots (SARs) present a promising intervention for addressing the increasing prevalence of childhood stress. This innovative technology has become increasingly common in practical implementation. However, empirical support has not kept pace with the robots’ growing popularity. The present study set out to provide an empirical test of the stress-buffering capability of this technology. We examined the effects of the presence of an SAR on self-reported measures of stress in a community sample of 70 children (40 girls, 30 boys) between the ages of 7 and 10 years old. Child participants were randomly assigned to either a robot-present or a robot-absent condition during the Trier Social Stress Test for Children. Contrary to our predictions, we did not detect a stress-buffering effect of the presence of the robot. Instead, the primary analysis showed that the robot’s presence led to a larger decrease in positive affect following the task. However, further analyses found no significant difference in positive affect when accounting for baseline group differences. Exploratory analyses of the nature of children’s interactions with the SAR during the stressful task found that higher levels of parent-reported social anxiety were associated with greater prosocial behaviors towards the SAR, thus signifying a potential target for future interventions. Further work on SARs is needed to determine the optimal timing and robotic specifications that would maximize the potential of this developing technology to improve children’s mental health care., Highlights We examined the ability of a socially assistive robot (SAR) to buffer against stress experienced by children. We did not detect expected benefits of the SAR for alleviating children’s stress. We propose future research to examine the optimal use of SARs for children’s stress.

BACKGROUND Anxiety and depression are common among university students, and university counseling centers are under pressure to develop effective, novel, and sustainable interventions that engage and retain students. Group interventions delivered via the internet could be a novel and effective way to promote student mental health. OBJECTIVE We conducted a pragmatic open trial to investigate the uptake, retention, treatment response, and level of satisfaction with a remote group cognitive behavioral therapy intervention designed to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression delivered on the web to university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Preintervention and postintervention self-reported data on anxiety and depression were collected using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Satisfaction was assessed postintervention using the Client Satisfaction with Treatment Questionnaire. RESULTS A total of 175 students were enrolled, 158 (90.3%) of whom initiated treatment. Among those initiating treatment, 86.1% (135/158) identified as female, and the mean age was 22.4 (SD 4.9) years. The mean number of sessions attended was 6.4 (SD 2.8) out of 10. Among participants with clinically significant symptoms at baseline, mean symptom scores decreased significantly for anxiety (t56=11.6; P61=7.8; P60=10.7; Pd=1-1.5). Remission rates among participants with clinically significant baseline symptoms were 67.7%-78.9% and were not associated with baseline symptom severity. High overall levels of satisfaction with treatment were reported. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study serve as a proof of concept for the use of web-based group cognitive behavioral therapy to promote the mental health of university students.

Funding Information: The WHO World Mental Health Survey collaborators are Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD; Ali Al-Hamzawi, MD; Mohammed Salih Al-Kaisy, MD; Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD; Yasmin A. Altwaijri, PhD; Laura Helena Andrade, MD, PhD; Lukoye Atwoli, MD, PhD; Corina Benjet, PhD; Guilherme Borges, ScD; Evelyn J. Bromet, PhD; Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD; Brendan Bunting, PhD; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD; Gra?a Cardoso, MD, PhD; Somnath Chatterji, MD; Alfredo H. Cia, MD; Louisa Degenhardt, PhD; Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD; Silvia Florescu, MD, PhD; Giovanni de Girolamo, MD; Oye Gureje, MD, DSc, FRCPsych; Josep Maria Haro, MD, PhD; Meredith G. Harris, PhD; Hristo Hinkov, MD, PhD; Chi-yi Hu, MD, PhD; Peter de Jonge, PhD; Aimee Nasser Karam, PhD; Elie G. Karam, MD; Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc; Ronald C. Kessler, PhD; Andrzej Kiejna, MD, PhD; Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD; Sing Lee, MBBS; Jean-Pierre Lepine, MD; John J. McGrath, MD, PhD; Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD; Zeina Mneimneh, PhD; Jacek Moskalewicz, PhD; Fernando Navarro-Mateu, MD, PhD; Marina Piazza, MPH, ScD; Jose Posada-Villa, MD; Kate M. Scott, PhD; Tim Slade, PhD; Juan Carlos Stagnaro, MD, PhD; Dan J. Stein, FRCPC, PhD; Margreet ten Have, PhD; Yolanda Torres, MPH, Dra.HC; Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD; Daniel V. Vigo, MD, DrPH; Harvey Whiteford, MBBS, PhD; David R. Williams, MPH, PhD; Bogdan Wojtyniak, ScD. Funding Information: The Argentina survey -- Estudio Argentino de Epidemiologia en Salud Mental (EASM) -- was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nacion) - (Grant Number 2002–17270/13–5). The 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The Sao Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204–3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. EPIBUL 2, conducted in 2016–17, is supported by the Ministry of Health and European Economic Area Grants. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellin – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellin. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5–1999-01042; SANCO 2004123, and EAHC 20081308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain (SAF 2000–158-CE), Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 452; 2014 SGR 748), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry were carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481–01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care –EZOP Project (PL 0256) was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw in consortium with Department of Psychiatry - Medical University in Wroclaw and National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene in Warsaw and in partnership with Psykiatrist Institut Vinderen–Universitet, Oslo. The project was funded by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. EZOP project was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Health. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS) is conducted by the King Salman Center for Disability Research. It is funded by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia), and King Saud University. Funding in-kind was provided by King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, and the Ministry of Economy and Planning, General Authority for Statistics. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejeria de Sanidad y Politica Social) and Fundacion para la Formacion e Investigacion Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the World Health Organization, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. Funding Information: In the past 3 years, RCK reports being a consultant for Datastat, Inc., RallyPoint Networks, Inc., Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. FNM reports non-financial support from Otsuka outside and not related to the submitted work. In the past 3 years LD has received untied educational grant funding from Indivior and Seqirus, not related to the submitted work. DJS has received research grants and/or honoraria from Lundbeck, Johnson & Johnson, Servier and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns and predictors of perceived treatment helpfulness for mania/hypomania and associated depression in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys.METHODS: Face-to-face interviews with community samples across 15 countries found n=2,178 who received lifetime mania/hypomania treatment and n=624 with lifetime mania/hypomania who received lifetime major depression treatment. These respondents were asked whether treatment was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals seen before receiving helpful treatment. Patterns and predictors of treatment helpfulness were examined separately for mania/hypomania and depression.RESULTS: 63.1% (mania/hypomania) and 65.1% (depression) of patients reported ever receiving helpful treatment. However, only 24.5-22.5% were helped by the first professional seen, which means that the others needed to persist in help-seeking after initial unhelpful treatments in order to find helpful treatment. Projections find only 22.9% (mania/hypomania) and 43.3% (depression) would persist through a series of unhelpful treatments but that the proportion helped would increase substantially if persistence increased. Few patient-level significant predictors of helpful treatment emerged and none consistently either across the two components (i.e., provider-level helpfulness and persistence after earlier unhelpful treatment) or for both mania/hypomania and depression. Although prevalence of treatment was higher in high-income than low/middle-income countries, proportional helpfulness among treated cases was nearly identical in the two groups of countries.CONCLUSIONS: Probability of patients with mania/hypomania and associated depression obtaining helpful treatment might increase substantially if persistence in help-seeking increased after initially unhelpful treatments, although this could require seeing numerous additional treatment providers. In addition to investigating reasons for initial treatments not being helpful, messages reinforcing the importance of persistence should be emphasized to patients.

Child and adolescent therapy has progressed considerably, as reflected in the number of controlled studies, their methodological quality, and identification of evidence-based treatments. The progress is qualified by several characteristics of the therapy research that depart from the characteristics of clinical practice. Key areas of research are being neglected and this neglect greatly limits progress and what we know about treatment. Prominent among these is the neglect of research on the mechanisms of change and the moderators of treatment outcome. This article highlights progress, characteristics, and limitations of current therapy research. In addition, a research plan is offered to advance research by: 1) understanding the mechanisms or processes through which therapeutic change occurs; 2) drawing on developmental psychopathology research to inform treatment; and 3) expanding the range of questions that guide treatment research and the range of outcome domains on which treatment conclusions are based.

COVID-19 presents significant social, economic, and medical challenges. Because COVID-19 has already begun to precipitate huge increases in mental health problems, clinical psychological science must assert a leadership role in guiding a national response to this secondary crisis. In this article, COVID-19 is conceptualized as a unique, compounding, multidimensional stressor that will create a vast need for intervention and necessitate new paradigms for mental health service delivery and training. Urgent challenge areas across developmental periods are discussed, followed by a review of psychological symptoms that likely will increase in prevalence and require innovative solutions in both science and practice. Implications for new research directions, clinical approaches, and policy issues are discussed to highlight the opportunities for clinical psychological science to emerge as an updated, contemporary field capable of addressing the burden of mental illness and distress in the wake of COVID-19 and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Tactics of Scientific Research (Sidman, 1960) provides a visionary treatise on single-case designs, their scientific underpinnings, and their critical role in understanding behavior. Since the foundational base was provided, single-case designs have proliferated especially in areas of application where they have been used to evaluate interventions with an extraordinary range of clients, settings, and target foci. This article highlights core features of single-case experimental designs, how key and ancillary features of the designs have evolved, the special strengths of the designs, and challenges that have impeded their integration in many areas where their contributions are sorely needed. The article ends by placing the methodological approach in the context of other research traditions. In this way, the discussion moves from the specific designs toward foundations and philosophy of science issues in keeping with the strengths of the person and book we are honoring.

Importance The perceived helpfulness of treatment is an important patient-centered measure that is a joint function of whether treatment professionals are perceived as helpful and whether patients persist in help-seeking after previous unhelpful treatments. Objective To examine the prevalence and factors associated with the 2 main components of perceived helpfulness of treatment in a representative sample of individuals with a lifetime history ofDSM-IVmajor depressive disorder (MDD). Design, Setting, and Participants This study examined the results of a coordinated series of community epidemiologic surveys of noninstitutionalized adults using the World Health Organization World Mental Health surveys. Seventeen surveys were conducted in 16 countries (8 surveys in high-income countries and 9 in low- and middle-income countries). The dates of data collection ranged from 2002 to 2003 (Lebanon) to 2016 to 2017 (Bulgaria). Participants included those with a lifetime history of treated MDD. Data analyses were conducted from April 2019 to January 2020. Data on socioeconomic characteristics, lifetime comorbid conditions (eg, anxiety and substance use disorders), treatment type, treatment timing, and country income level were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures Conditional probabilities of helpful treatment after seeing between 1 and 5 professionals; persistence in help-seeking after between 1 and 4 unhelpful treatments; and ever obtaining helpful treatment regardless of number of professionals seen. Results Survey response rates ranged from 50.4% (Poland) to 97.2% (Medellin, Columbia), with a pooled response rate of 68.3% (n = 117 616) across surveys. Mean (SE) age at first depression treatment was 34.8 (0.3) years, and 69.4% were female. Of 2726 people with a lifetime history of treatment of MDD, the cumulative probability (SE) of all respondents pooled across countries of helpful treatment after seeing up to 10 professionals was 93.9% (1.2%), but only 21.5% (3.2%) of patients persisted that long (ie, beyond 9 unhelpful treatments), resulting in 68.2% (1.1%) of patients ever receiving treatment that they perceived as helpful. The probability of perceiving treatment as helpful increased in association with 4 factors: older age at initiating treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), higher educational level (low: AOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.70; low-average: AOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89; high average: AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91 vs high educational level), shorter delay in initiating treatment after first onset (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), and medication received from a mental health specialist (AOR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.04-4.15). Decomposition analysis showed that the first 2 of these 4 factors were associated with only the conditional probability of an individual treatment professional being perceived as helpful (age at first depression treatment: AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; educational level: low: AOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.70; low-average: AOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89; high-average: AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91 vs high educational level), whereas the latter 2 factors were associated with only persistence (treatment delay: AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; treatment type: AOR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.51-4.70). Conclusions and Relevance The probability that patients with MDD obtain treatment that they consider helpful might increase, perhaps markedly, if they persisted in help-seeking after unhelpful treatments with up to 9 prior professionals.

COVID-19 presents humanity with one of the greatest health and economic crises of the 21st Century. Because COVID-19 has already begun to precipitate a huge increase in mental health problems, we believe that clinical science must also play a leadership role in guiding a national response to this secondary crisis. In this article, we explain why COVID-19 is a game-changer, as a unique, compounding, multi-dimensional stressor that will create a vast need for intervention, and necessitate new paradigms for mental health service delivery and training. We highlight the most urgent challenge areas for clinical science, including managing potential spikes in depression, anxiety, and suicide, and address the unique COVID-19-related needs across the lifespan and the challenges that COVID-19 places on families and relationships. Clinical science also will need to address the mental health of medical care workers, mitigate health disparities, and address stigma among the most vulnerable as the pandemic unfolds. For each challenge area, we suggest research directions, clinical approaches, and policy issues that need to be considered. We then discuss how to enable multi-level deployment of potential solutions and how clinical science must itself adapt to identify and deliver these solutions. We conclude by highlighting new areas for clinical science discovery and additional funding needs. Advances in clinical science implementation—propelled by COVID-19—will likely endure long beyond the pandemic.

Interactions with animals represent a promising way to reduce the burden of childhood mental illness on a large scale. However, the specific effects of child-animal interactions are not yet well-established. This study provides a carefully controlled demonstration that unstructured interactions with dogs can improve clinically relevant symptoms in children. Seventy-eight children (55.1% female, 44.9% male) ages 10 to 13 (

The question of whether physical punishment is helpful or harmful to the development of children has been subject to hundreds of research studies over the past several decades. Yet whether causal conclusions can be drawn from this largely nonexperimental research and whether the conclusions generalize across contexts are issues that remain unresolved. In this article, the authors summarize the extent to which the empirical research on physical punishment meets accepted criteria for causal inference. They then review research demonstrating that physical punishment is linked with the same harms to children as is physical abuse and summarize the extant research that finds links between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes for children are consistent across cultural, family, and neighborhood contexts. The strength and consistency of the links between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes lead the authors to recommend that parents should avoid physical punishment, psychologists should advise and advocate against it, and policymakers should develop means of educating the public about the harms of and alternatives to physical punishment. (PsycINFO Database Record

The article describes my research on the development and evaluation of psychosocial treatments for children who engage in extremes of antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression, property destruction, theft). I begin with my “story” of how the focus on interventions started as I worked in various settings (rehabilitation facilities, schools, hospitals, and outpatient clinical services) and with children, adolescents, and adults. The main stream of treatment research and findings with antisocial child behavior is highlighted along with tributaries that led naturally from the outcome research. Our trials are complemented by tribulations that apply to evidence-based psychosocial interventions more broadly. Most individuals in need of psychological services in the United States and worldwide receive no treatment. Much can be done right now with novel models of treatment delivery that draw on multiple disciplines (e.g., public health, business, entertainment, economics, robotics and artificial intelligence, and law and social policy). More research on interventions that do not or cannot reach most people in need is quite limited in value to me. Finally (and belatedly) my attention has turned to ways of exerting impact, and for that, evidence-based interventions are necessary but hardly sufficient.

Individuals with overweight and obesity are subject to enormous bias and discrimination across domains. This bias constitutes a considerable public health problem beyond the effects of excess weigh...

We examined two emergent processes in treatment (parent-therapist alliance and perceived barriers to treatment participation) in parent management training for children (N = 234, 55 girls and 179 boys, ages 4–14) referred clinically for oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behavior. We predicted that two parent characteristics (interpersonal relationships and quality of daily life) evaluated prior to treatment would predict quality of the therapeutic alliance and perceived barriers during treatment. Alliance and perceived barriers were significantly related to treatment outcome. Stronger alliance and fewer perceived barriers were associated with greater therapeutic change. Interpersonal relationships and quality of daily life, each represented with multiple measures, predicted quality of the therapeutic alliance and perceived barriers during treatment. Alliance and barriers continued to predict therapeutic change even after controlling for pretreatment predictors of these emergent processes.

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) reflect an extraordinary opportunity to improve mental health given the special role that animals (pets) occupy in everyday life and general public receptivity to animals. To enhance the evidence-base for AAIs, four recommendations are discussed: (a) conduct more well-designed studies, including the use of a broader array of methodologies; (b) make explicit “small theories” about precisely why and how human-animal interaction changes health and well-being; (c) increase laboratory-based studies of processes likely to underlie therapeutic applications; and (d) develop a strategic plan to guide AAI research, a means of implementing that plan, and ways of monitoring progress to ensure implementation has had impact on AAI research. There is enormous potential for AAI to overcome many obstacles of more traditional physical and mental health services, but developing that potential depends on establishing a stronger evidence base.

Remarkable progress has been made in developing psychosocial interventions for eating disorders and other mental disorders. Two priorities in providing treatment consist of addressing the research-practice gap and the treatment gap. The research-practice gap pertains to the dissemination of evidence-based treatments from controlled settings to routine clinical care. Closing the gap between what is known about effective treatment and what is actually provided to patients who receive care is crucial in improving mental health care, particularly for conditions such as eating disorders. The treatment gap pertains to extending treatments in ways that will reach the large number of people in need of clinical care who currently receive nothing. Currently, in the United States (and worldwide), the vast majority of individuals in need of mental health services for eating disorders and other mental health problems do not receive treatment. This article discusses the approaches required to better ensure: (1) that more people who are receiving treatment obtain high-quality, evidence-based care, using such strategies as train-the-trainer, web-centered training, best-buy interventions, electronic support tools, higher-level support and policy; and (2) that a higher proportion of those who are currently underserved receive treatment, using such strategies as task shifting and disruptive innovations, including treatment delivery via telemedicine, the Internet, and mobile apps.

Remarkable progress has been made in developing psychosocial interventions for a broad range of psychiatric disorders for children, adolescents, and adults. In addition many efforts are well underway to address the research-practice gap, which refers to the dissemination evidence-based treatments from controlled settings to clinical care. The present article focuses on the treatment gap, which refers to the discrepancy in the proportion of the population in need of services and the proportion that actually receives them. Currently, in the United States (and worldwide), the vast majority of individuals in need of mental health services receive no treatment. Although there are many reasons, the dominant model of delivering psychosocial interventions in both research and clinical practice makes it difficult to scale treatment to reach the large swaths of individuals in need. That model includes one-to-one, in person treatment, with a trained mental health professional, and provided in clinical setting (e.g., clinic, private practice office, health-care facility). The article discusses the development of delivery models that would permit reaching more individuals in need, highlights criteria for developing such models, and illustrates novel models already available. The article proposes that our next challenge is to reach individuals in need with the many excellent interventions we have developed but through a diversified set of delivery models.

The question of whether physical punishment is helpful or harmful to the development of children has been subject to hundreds of research studies over the past several decades. Yet whether causal conclusions can be drawn from this largely nonexperimental research and whether the conclusions generalize across contexts are issues that remain unresolved. In this article, the authors summarize the extent to which the empirical research on physical punishment meets accepted criteria for causal inference. They then review research demonstrating that physical punishment is linked with the same harms to children as is physical abuse and summarize the extant research that finds links between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes for children are consistent across cultural, family, and neighborhood contexts. The strength and consistency of the links between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes lead the authors to recommend that parents should avoid physical punishment, psychologists should advise and advocate against it, and policymakers should develop means of educating the public about the harms of and alternatives to physical punishment. (PsycINFO Database Record

The intervention work of our clinical-research team has focused on the treatment of children and young adolescents referred for Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder.We have evaluated two interventions: parent management training (PMT) and cognitive problem-solving skills training in several randomized controlled clinical trials.Our findings have indicated the treatments, alone or in combination, produce reliable and significant reductions in oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behaviour and increases in prosocial behaviour among children. Parent dysfunction (depression, multiple symptom domains) and stress decline and family relations improve as well. Apart from outcome studies, we have studied the therapeutic alliance, factors that influence dropping out and retaining cases, and variations of treatment delivery (e.g., computer based, reduced therapist contact).The article considers challenges in conducting controlled trials in clinic settings (e.g., recruiting cases, maintaining treatment integrity, securing funding) and activities related to implementation that are not easily covered within the confines of research articles. The article ends with a discussion of one of the treatments (PMT) and the broad role it can play in treatment, prevention, and help with many parenting challenges of everyday life.

We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts. Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated.