COVID‐19 lockdown measures have profoundly impacted adolescent’ daily life, with research suggesting an increase in irritability, stress, loneliness, and family conflict. A potential protective factor is parent–child relationship quality; however, no studies have investigated this. We used data from SIGMA, a longitudinal, experience sampling cohort study, in which N = 173 adolescents aged 11 to 20 were tested before and during COVID‐19. Multilevel analyses showed decreased daily‐life irritability and increased loneliness from pre‐ to mid‐pandemic. Daily‐life stress levels were unchanged. Relationship quality was negatively associated with irritability and loneliness and buffered against the increase in loneliness. Effect sizes were small and do not support a strong effect of the first lockdown on irritability, stress, loneliness, and family conflict in adolescents.

Background: Over half of all mental health conditions have their onset in adolescence. Large-scale epidemiological studies have identified relevant environmental risk factors for mental health problems. Yet, few have focused on potential mediating inter- and intrapersonal processes in daily life, hampering intervention development. Objectives: To investigate 1) the impact of environmental risk factors on changes in inter- and intrapersonal processes; 2) the impact of altered inter- and intrapersonal processes on the development of (sub)clinical mental health symptoms in adolescents and; 3) the extent to which changes in inter- and intrapersonal processes mediate the association between environmental risk factors and the mental health outcomes in adolescents.Methods: ‘SIGMA’ is an accelerated longitudinal study of adolescents aged 12 to 18 from across Flanders, Belgium. Using self-report questionnaires, experience sampling, an experimental task, and wearables, we are investigating the relationship between environmental risk factors (e.g. trauma, parenting), inter- and intrapersonal processes (e.g. real-life social interaction and interpersonal functioning) and mental health outcomes (e.g. psychopathology, self-harm) over time. Results: N= 1913 adolescents (63% female) aged 11 – 20, from 22 schools, participated. The range of educational trajectories within the sample was broadly representative of the Flemish general adolescent population.Conclusions: Our findings will enable us to answer fundamental questions about inter- and intrapersonal processes involved in the development and maintenance of poor mental health in adolescence. This includes insights regarding the role of daily-life social and cognitive-affective processes, gained by using experience sampling. The accelerated longitudinal design enables rapid insights into developmental and cohort effects.

Childhood trauma exposure has been associated with a clinically relevant mixed phenotype of psychopathology composed of depressive, anxiety, and psychosis symptoms, across healthy and clinical samples. Altered stress-reactivity after exposure to childhood trauma may be a plausible underlying mechanism explaining this association. In a general population sample of female twins (T0 = 564; T1 = 483), associations between childhood trauma exposure and symptom profile (no symptoms, isolated symptoms, or a mixed phenotype) on the one hand, and daily life stress reactivity on the other were investigated. Daily life stress reactivity was measured using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), and was defined as negative affect reactivity to minor daily life stressors. Individuals exposed to childhood trauma who reported a mixed phenotype of psychopathology showed a significant increase in emotional reactivity to daily life stress (activity and social stress), compared with trauma-exposed individuals without a mixed phenotype. In the trauma-exposed mixed phenotype group, increased emotional reactivity to event-stress predicted more severe symptoms at ± 14 month follow-up. This study found evidence that may link heightened emotional reactivity to stress in individuals with a trauma history to the risk for later comorbid psychopathology.

BackgroundMultiple pathway models of ADHD suggest that multiple, separable biological pathways may lead to symptoms of the disorder. If this is the case, it should be possible to identify subgroups of children with ADHD based on distinct patterns of brain activity. Previous studies have used latent class analysis (LCA) to define subgroups at the behavioral and cognitive level and to then test whether they differ at the neurobiological level. In this proof of concept study, we took a reverse approach. We applied LCA to functional imaging data from two previously published studies to explore whether we could identify subgroups of children with ADHD symptoms at the neurobiological level with a meaningful relation to behavior or neuropsychology.MethodsFifty-six children with symptoms of ADHD (27 children with ADHD and 29 children with ASD and ADHD symptoms) and 31 typically developing children performed two neuropsychological tasks assessing reward sensitivity and temporal expectancy during functional magnetic resonance imaging. LCA was used to identify subgroups with similar patterns of brain activity separately for children with ADHD-symptoms and typically developing children. Behavioral and neuropsychological differences between subgroups were subsequently investigated.ResultsFor typically developing children, a one-subgroup model gave the most parsimonious fit, whereas for children with ADHD-symptoms a two-subgroup model best fits the data. The first ADHD subgroup (n = 49) showed attenuated brain activity compared to the second subgroup (n = 7) and to typically developing children (n = 31). Notably, the ADHD subgroup with attenuated brain activity showed less behavioral problems in everyday life.ConclusionsIn this proof of concept study, we showed that we could identify distinct subgroups of children with ADHD-symptoms based on their brain activity profiles. Generalizability was limited due to the small sample size, but ultimately such neurobiological profiles could improve insight in individual prognosis and treatment options.

Much disagreement exists surrounding the relationship between digital communication and adolescent well-being. Micro-level insight into the direct effect of online interaction on affective experiences in daily life is crucial to advancing this discussion. In this registered study, we used experience sampling in general-population adolescents (n = 1705) to examine different emotional and social experiences, at the moment they engage in online and face-to-face social interactions. Adolescents reported significantly less positive affect when alone compared to when interacting online (B(SE)=-.15(.04), p=.001), but significantly more positive affect (B(SE)=.12(.04), p<.001) and less negative affect (B(SE)=-.12(.03), p<.001) and loneliness (B(SE)=-.65(.05), p<.001) when interacting face-to-face compared to online. Exploratory moderator analyses do not support the hypothesis that those with more social support experience greater benefits from online interaction. This study uniquely highlights both the momentary affective benefits and potential disadvantages of online interaction, thereby bringing clarification and nuance to this highly contentious topic.