Background Problem-solving training is a common ingredient of evidence-based therapies for youth depression and has shown effectiveness as a versatile stand-alone intervention in adults. This scoping review provided a first overview of the evidence supporting problem solving as a mechanism for treating depression in youth aged 14 to 24 years. Methods Five bibliographic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and the grey literature were systematically searched for controlled trials of stand-alone problem-solving therapy; secondary analyses of trial data exploring problem-solving-related concepts as predictors, moderators, or mediators of treatment response within broader therapies; and clinical practice guidelines for youth depression. Following the scoping review, an exploratory meta-analysis examined the overall effectiveness of stand-alone problem-solving therapy. Results Inclusion criteria were met by four randomized trials of problem-solving therapy (524 participants); four secondary analyses of problem-solving-related concepts as predictors, moderators, or mediators; and 23 practice guidelines. The only clinical trial rated as having a low risk of bias found problem-solving training helped youth solve personal problems but was not significantly more effective than the control at reducing emotional symptoms. An exploratory meta-analysis showed a small and non-significant effect on self-reported depression or emotional symptoms (Hedges’ g = − 0.34; 95% CI: − 0.92 to 0.23) with high heterogeneity. Removing one study at high risk of bias led to a decrease in effect size and heterogeneity (g = − 0.08; 95% CI: − 0.26 to 0.10). A GRADE appraisal suggested a low overall quality of the evidence. Tentative evidence from secondary analyses suggested problem-solving training might enhance outcomes in cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy, but dedicated dismantling studies are needed to corroborate these findings. Clinical practice guidelines did not recommend problem-solving training as a stand-alone treatment for youth depression, but five mentioned it as a treatment ingredient. Conclusions On its own, problem-solving training may be beneficial for helping youth solve personal challenges, but it may not measurably reduce depressive symptoms. Youth experiencing elevated depressive symptoms may require more comprehensive psychotherapeutic support alongside problem-solving training. High-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of problem-solving training as a stand-alone approach and as a treatment ingredient.

No abstract

Background While interventions have been developed and tested to help youth who have become disconnected from work and school, there is a paucity of research on young people’s intervention preferences. This study aims to understand young people’s preferred intervention outcomes and approaches for youth who are out of work and school. Methods Thirty youth participated in virtual focus groups. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Youth want interventions and approaches that support them in (1) vocational readiness, (2) securing a job, and (3) mental health and well-being, while providing them with (4) high-contact, individualized, and integrated support. Conclusions Young people want interventions to be individualized and integrated, providing a high level of support for their educational and employment pursuits as well as their mental health and well-being. Incorporating youth's perspectives when designing interventions can increase intervention relevance and potentially service uptake, helping youth continue to pursue their educational and vocational goals.

Background To co‐ordinate a multidisciplinary team in the delivery of guideline recommendations using a measurement‐based care framework, our group previously developed a care pathway for the treatment of depression in adolescents. Core components of the pathway were: assessment, education, cognitive‐behavioural therapy, a caregiver intervention group, a medication algorithm, and monthly measurement‐based care “team reviews” with the adolescent present. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of conducting a controlled clinical trial of the pathway. Method We conducted a 20‐week pilot controlled clinical trial of the care pathway relative to treatment as usual. Participants were adolescents (age 14–18) with a primary diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder recruited from one of two outpatient psychiatric clinics at academic hospitals. Site of presentation was the method of allocation. Thirty‐five youth were allocated to the pathway and 31 were allocated to treatment as usual. As this is a pilot study, trial feasibility outcomes were of primary interest, including clinician fidelity to the care pathway. Results Our target sample size was recruited over a 15‐month time interval. Clinician fidelity and adolescent engagement in the care pathway components on a priori checklists were high (95% and 80%, respectively). We collected baseline and 20‐week endpoint data for our primary outcome of the Children's Depression Rating Scale – Revised (CDRS‐R) for 83% of the sample. On linear mixed effects modelling, we observed a linear decrease in CDRS‐R across 4‐week intervals up to the 20‐week endpoint in both groups (β = −2.07; 95% CI −3.14 to −1.01). Conclusion A controlled clinical trial of a complex, multi‐component intervention for the treatment of depression in adolescents is feasible. Given the need to find optimal strategies to deliver effective care for adolescents with depression, a definitive randomized controlled trial of the pathway is warranted. Trial is registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03428555

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public’s understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). Methods and analysis This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population’s results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. Ethics and dissemination Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990. Registered on May 3, 2022