Both suicidal and nonsuicidal self-harm persisted in depressed adolescents receiving treatment in the ADAPT study. A history of nonsuicidal self-injury prior to treatment is a clinical marker for subsequent suicide attempts and should be as carefully assessed in depressed youths as current suicidal intent and behavior.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundPsychological treatments for adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder are associated with diagnostic remission within 28 weeks in 65–70% of patients. We aimed to assess the medium-term effects and costs of psychological therapies on maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment.MethodsWe did this multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial (IMPACT) at 15 National Health Service child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinics in three regions in England. Adolescent patients (aged 11–17 years) with a diagnosis of DSM IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a web-based randomisation service, to receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytical therapy versus a reference brief psychological intervention. Randomisation was stochastically minimised by age, sex, self-reported depression sum score, and region. Patients and clinicians were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors. Patients were followed up and reassessed at weeks 6, 12, 36, 52, and 86 post-randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported depression symptoms at weeks 36, 52, and 86, as measured with the self-reported Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ). Because our aim was to compare the two psychological therapies with the brief psychosocial intervention, we first established whether CBT was inferior to short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy for the same outcome. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN83033550.FindingsBetween June 29, 2010, and Jan 17, 2013, we randomly assigned 470 patients to receive the brief psychosocial intervention (n=158), CBT (n=155), or short-term psychoanalytical therapy (n=157); 465 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population. 392 (84%) patients had available data for primary analysis by the end of follow-up. Treatment fidelity and differentiation were established between the three interventions. The median number of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention group (n=6 [IQR 4–11]), CBT group (n=9 [5–14]), and short-term psychoanalytical therapy group (n=11 [5–23]; p<0·0001), but there was no difference between groups in the average duration of treatment (27·5 [SD 21·5], 24·9 [17·7], 27·9 [16·8] weeks, respectively; Kruskal–Wallis p=0·238). Self-reported depression symptoms did not differ significantly between patients given CBT and those given short-term psychoanalytical therapy at weeks 36 (treatment effect 0·179, 95% CI −3·731 to 4·088; p=0·929), 52 (0·307, −3·161 to 3·774; p=0·862), or 86 (0·578, −2·948 to 4·104; p=0·748). These two psychological treatments had no superiority effect compared with brief psychosocial intervention at weeks 36 (treatment effect −3·234, 95% CI −6·611 to 0·143; p=0·061), 52 (−2·806, −5·790 to 0·177; p=0·065), or 86 (−1·898, −4·922 to 1·126; p=0·219). Physical adverse e...

Background: Up to half of Western children and adolescents experience at least one type of childhood adversity. Individuals with a history of childhood adversity have an increased risk of psychopathology. Resilience enhancing factors reduce the risk of psychopathology following childhood adversity. A comprehensive overview of empirically supported resilience factors is critically important for interventions aimed to increase resilience in young people. Moreover, such an overview may aid the development of novel resilience theories. Therefore, we conducted the first systematic review of social, emotional, cognitive and/or behavioral resilience factors after childhood adversity.Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus (e.g., including MEDLINE) for English, Dutch, and German literature. We included cohort studies that examined whether a resilience factor was a moderator and/or a mediator for the relationship between childhood adversity and psychopathology in young people (mean age 13–24). Therefore, studies were included if the resilience factor was assessed prior to psychopathology, and childhood adversity was assessed no later than the resilience factor. Study data extraction was based on the STROBE report and study quality was assessed with an adapted version of Downs and Black's scale. The preregistered protocol can be found at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016051978.Results: The search identified 1969 studies, of which 22 were included (eight nationalities, study sample n range: 59–6780). We found empirical support for 13 of 25 individual-level (e.g., high self-esteem, low rumination), six of 12 family-level (e.g., high family cohesion, high parental involvement), and one of five community-level resilience factors (i.e., high social support), to benefit mental health in young people exposed to childhood adversity. Single vs. multiple resilience factor models supported the notion that resilience factors should not be studied in isolation, and that interrelations between resilience factors should be taken into account when predicting psychopathology after childhood adversity.Conclusions: Interventions that improve individual, family, and/or social support resilience factors may reduce the risk of psychopathology following childhood adversity. Future research should scrutinize whether resilience factors function as a complex interrelated system that benefits mental health resilience after childhood adversity.