Background Given the widespread nature and clinical consequences of self-harm and suicidal ideation among adolescents, establishing the efficacy of developmentally appropriate treatments that reduce both self-harm and suicidal ideation in the context of broader adolescent psychopathology is critical. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Adolescents (DBT-A) literature on treating self-injury in adolescents (12–19 years). We searched for eligible trials and treatment evaluations published prior to July 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials. Twenty-one studies were identified [five randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), three controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and 13 pre-post evaluations]. We extracted data for predefined primary (self-harm, suicidal ideation) and secondary outcomes (borderline personality symptoms; BPD) and calculated treatment effects for RCTs/CCTs and pre-post evaluations. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with OSF: osf.io/v83e7. Results Overall, the studies comprised 1673 adolescents. Compared to control groups, DBT-A showed small to moderate effects for reducing self-harm (g = −0.44; 95% CI −0.81 to −0.07) and suicidal ideation (g = −0.31, 95% CI −0.52 to −0.09). Pre-post evaluations suggested large effects for all outcomes (self-harm: g = −0.98, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.81; suicidal ideation: g = −1.16, 95% CI −1.51 to −0.80; BPD symptoms: g = −0.97, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.63). Conclusions DBT-A appears to be a valuable treatment in reducing both adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation. However, evidence that DBT-A reduces BPD symptoms was only found in pre-post evaluations.

There is great cultural diversity across Europe. This is reflected in the organisation of child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) services and the training of the respective professionals in different countries in Europe. Patients and their parents will want a high quality, knowledgeable, and skillful service from child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) wherever they see them in Europe. A European comparison of training programs allows all stakeholders in different European countries to assess the diversity and to initiate discussions as to the introduction of improvements within national training programs. Major issues to be addressed in comparing child and adolescent psychiatric training programs across Europe include: (1) formal organisation and content of training programs and the relationship to adult psychiatry and paediatrics; (2) flexibility of training, given different trainee interests and that many trainees will have young families; (3) quality of governance of training systems; (4) access to research; and (5) networking. The Child and Adolescent Psychiatry-Study of Training in Europe (CAP-State) is a survey of training for child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) across European countries. It aims to revisit and extend the survey carried out in 2006 by Karabekiroglu and colleagues.The current article is embedded in a special issue of European Child + Adolescent Psychiatry attempting to for the first time address training in CAP at the European and global levels. Structured information was sought from each of 38 European and neighboring countries (subsequently loosely referred to as Europe) and obtained from 31. The information was provided by a senior trainee or recently qualified specialist and their information was checked and supplemented by information from a senior child and adolescent psychiatry trainer. Results showed that there is a very wide range of provision of training in child and adolescent psychiatry in different countries in Europe. There remains very substantial diversity in training across Europe and in the degree to which it is subject to national oversight and governance. Some possible reasons for this variation are discussed and some recommendations made.

In April 2020, the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) Research Academy and the ESCAP Board launched the first of three scheduled surveys to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) services in Europe and to assess the abilities of CAP centers to meet the new challenges brought on by the crisis. The survey was a self-report questionnaire, using a multistage process, which was sent to 168 heads of academic CAP services in 24 European countries. Eighty-two responses (56 complete) from 20 countries, representing the subjective judgement of heads of CAP centers, were received between mid-April and mid-May 2020. Most respondents judged the impact of the crisis on the mental health of their patients as medium (52%) or strong (33%). A large majority of CAP services reported no COVID-19 positive cases among their inpatients and most respondents declared no or limited sick leaves in their team due to COVID-19. Outpatient, daycare, and inpatient units experienced closures or reductions in the number of treated patients throughout Europe. In addition, a lower referral rate was observed in most countries. Respondents considered that they were well equipped to handle COVID-19 patients despite a lack of protective equipment. Telemedicine was adopted by almost every team despite its sparse use prior to the crisis. Overall, these first results were surprisingly homogeneous, showing a substantially reduced patient load and a moderate effect of the COVID-19 crisis on psychopathology. The effect on the organization of CAP services appears profound. COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the adoption of new technologies, including telepsychiatry. Keywords COVID-19 • Child and adolescent psychiatry • Telepsychiatry • EuropeThe members of the COVID-19 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Consortium group are mentioned in "Acknowldgements" section.

Owed to the COVID-19 pandemic, teletherapeutic offers skyrocketed, in the need of the moment seemingly faster that the background technology and training could be provided. This spotlight communication gives an overview of results and ideas on teletherapeutic offers for adolescent psychiatric outpatients and impulses for further investigations. We report insight gained from following up 30 adolescents in weekly outpatient treatment on an interview basis. Therapists’ views were collected via informal discussions and are, although not systematically analyzed, integrated where applicable Although results are not generalizable, we could show that patients overall benefit from teletherapy. Main positives and pitfalls of teletherapy are being reported, as well as ideas for problem-solving and refinement, which seems of utmost importance in light of potential further waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic results in disproportional consequences for psychiatric patients. Due to restraints in physical contacts, providers switched from face-to-face contacts to teletherapy, but prior experiences were mostly limited. The study aimed at assessing symptom dynamics, potentially increased adversities and factors influencing a successful transition into teletherapy in adolescent psychiatric outpatients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: Thirty adolescent psychiatric outpatients participated in an interview-based study. The differential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was measured by integrating patients' and psychiatrists' judgements. Results: Patients who reported deteriorated symptoms and patients who showed (partial) improvement of symptomatology could be separated by feelings of isolation (specific to deterioration) and perceived reduction in school-associated stress (unique to improvement). Patients with worsening symptomatology showed a significantly higher degree of psychosocial disability before lockdown and at the first interview. Patients who deteriorated in their level of psychosocial functioning also reported negatively on teletherapy. These patients were verbally less differentiated concerning emotions and affect, reported introspection and rumination, and stated distinctly lower levels of perceived social support. Concerning adversities, no clear trend could be identified, but some patients reported increased domestic violence and neglect. Conclusions: Patients with a higher degree of psychosocial disability suffer disproportionally from the crisis, so that an assessment of functioning should serve as a triage tool. Also, a screening of the perceived level of social support should be established before offering teletherapy. Additionally, the provision of strategies to enhance verbalisation and differentiation of emotions and affect might be beneficial. Key Practitioner Message• The COVID-19 pandemic entails disproportional consequences for psychiatric patients. According to the literature, teletherapy generally seems to be beneficial. Despite the pre-existing body of literature on teletherapy, many departments of child and adolescent psychiatry were unprepared to use these offers, mainly due to legal restrictions.• Most patients in our sample reported at least partial improvement of symptoms and did not deteriorate in their level of psychosocial functioning. Independent of dynamics in symptomatology and level of psychosocial functioning, most patients reported changes in their structure of thought.• It was possible to hold the therapeutic relationship during teletherapy, albeit the abrupt switch of setting and the limited prior experiences, affecting patients and providers.• Given the reported changes in the structure of thoughts, this domain should be explored explicitly and coping strategies to handle insecurity and irritation should be discussed with patients.• Patients who deteriorated in their level of psychosocial functioning rated teletherapy negatively, so that scre...