Search

Anxiety and depression are common mental health disorders and have a higher prevalence in females. They are modestly heritable, share genetic liability with other psychiatric disorders, and are highly heterogeneous. There is evidence that genetic liability to neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with anxiety and depression, particularly in females. We investigated sex differences in family history for neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders and neurodevelopmental genetic risk burden (indexed by ADHD polygenic risk scores (PRS) and rare copy number variants; CNVs) in individuals with anxiety and depression, also taking into account age at onset. We used two complementary datasets: 1) participants with a self-reported diagnosis of anxiety or depression (N = 4,178, 65.5% female; mean age = 41.5 years; N = 1,315 with genetic data) from the National Centre for Mental Health (NCMH) cohort and 2) a clinical sample of 13,273 (67.6% female; mean age = 45.2 years) patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC). We tested for sex differences in family history of psychiatric problems and presence of rare CNVs (neurodevelopmental and >500kb loci) in NCMH only and for sex differences in ADHD PRS in both datasets. In the NCMH cohort, females were more likely to report family history of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, but there were no robust sex differences in ADHD PRS or presence of rare CNVs. There was weak evidence of higher ADHD PRS in females compared to males in the PGC MDD sample, particularly in those with an early onset of MDD. These results do not provide strong evidence of sex differences in neurodevelopmental genetic risk burden in adults with anxiety and depression. This indicates that sex may not be a major index of neurodevelopmental genetic heterogeneity, that is captured by ADHD PRS and rare CNV burden, in adults with anxiety and depressi

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in digital technologies to help improve children and young people's mental health, and the evidence for the effectiveness for these approaches is rising. However, there is concern regarding levels of user engagement, uptake and adherence. Key guidance regarding digital health interventions stress the importance of early user input in the development, evaluation and implementation of technologies to help ensure they are engaging, feasible, acceptable and potentially effective. Co-design is a process of active involvement of stakeholders, requiring a change from the traditional approaches to intervention development. However, there is a lack of literature to inform the co-design of digital technologies to help child and adolescent mental health. METHODS: We reviewed the literature and practice in the co-design of digital mental health technologies with children and young people. We searched Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases, guidelines, reviews and reference lists, contacted key authors for relevant studies, and extracted key themes on aspects of co-design relevant to practice. We supplemented this with case studies and methods reported by researchers working in the field. RESULTS: We identified 25 original articles and 30 digital mental health technologies that were designed/developed with children and young people. The themes identified were as follows: principles of co-design (including potential stakeholders and stages of involvement), methods of involving and engaging the range of users, co-designing the prototype and the challenges of co-design. CONCLUSIONS: Co-design involves all relevant stakeholders throughout the life and research cycle of the programme. This review helps to inform practitioners and researchers interested in the development of digital health technologies for children and young people. Future work in this field will need to consider the changing face of technology, methods of engaging with