Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry最新文献

Background: Many studies show that both callous-unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., low empathy, lack of guilt) and cognitive difficulties increase risk for externalizing psychopathology across development. However, other work suggests that some aggression (e.g., relational, proactive) may rely on intact cognitive function, which could vary based on the presence of CU traits. Moreover, no prior research has adequately accounted for common risk factors shared by CU traits, cognitive difficulties, and externalizing problems, which confounds conclusions that can be drawn about their purported relationships. The current study addressed these knowledge gaps by leveraging rigorous propensity matching methods to isolate associations between CU traits and different dimensions of cognitive function and externalizing problems.

Methods: Associations between CU traits, cognitive functioning, and externalizing outcomes were tested within dimensional (n = 11,868) and propensity-matched group-based (n = 1,224) models using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study®, with rigorous statistical control for shared sociodemographic risk factors. Cross-sectional outcomes were parent-reported symptoms of conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Longitudinal outcomes were child-reported overt and relational aggression.

Results: CU traits were uniquely related to more parent-reported CD, ODD, ADHD symptoms, as well as more child-reported aggressive behaviors. Effects of cognitive difficulties were domain specific and were not consistent across dimensional and propensity matched models. There was minimal evidence for divergent associations between CU traits and externalizing outcomes as a function of cognition (i.e., no moderation).

Conclusions: Rigorous control for sociodemographic factors within propensity-matched models establish CU traits as a robust and unique risk factor for externalizing psychopathology, over and above difficulties with cognitive functioning.

Background: The mechanisms linking early-life adversity with psychopathology over the life-course are complex. In this prospective study, we collectively examined cognitive, affective, and developmental mediators previously found to individually link childhood threat and deprivation experiences to adolescent psychopathology to identify the most potent mechanisms.

Methods: Data came from a community sample of 227 children (mean child age 11.5 ± 0.5 years, 48.5% female) from the Seattle metro area with recruitment designed to reflect diversity in family income. Candidate mechanisms included self-rated pubertal development and task-measured attention bias to threat, emotion regulation, theory of mind, fear learning, inhibitory control, language ability, reasoning, and reward sensitivity. Using a high-dimensional mediation approach, we determined which mediating pathways linking threat and deprivation to psychopathology persisted after controlling for all candidate mechanisms associated with psychopathology. Models additionally controlled for the child's age, sex, early-childhood emotional and behavioral symptoms, poverty, and maternal depression.

Results: Blunted reward sensitivity mediated the prospective relationship between threat and internalizing psychopathology, explaining 17.25% (95% CI 1.08%, 69.96%) of this association. Advanced pubertal development was associated with increases in internalizing and externalizing symptoms (standardized associations of 0.16 (95% CI 0.03, 0.29) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.05, 0.29), respectively), but not with adversity. Although deprivation was strongly related to psychopathology, no mechanisms were empirically identified.

Conclusions: In a well-characterized community sample, we isolated reward sensitivity as a robust mediator of the prospective association between early-life threat and adolescent internalizing psychopathology. Interventions aimed at bolstering reward sensitivity may mitigate the impact of early-life threat experiences on internalizing problems.

Background: Adolescence is a critical developmental period for the study of anorexia nervosa (AN), an illness characterized by extreme restriction of food intake. The maturation of the reward system during adolescence combined with recent neurobiological models of AN led to the hypothesis that early on in illness, restrictive food choices would be associated with activity in nucleus accumbens reward regions, rather than caudate regions identified among adults with AN.

Methods: Healthy adolescents (HC, n = 41) and adolescents with AN or atypical AN (atypAN, n = 76) completed a Food Choice Task during fMRI scanning. Selection of high-fat foods and choice-related activation in nucleus accumbens and anterior caudate regions-of-interest (ROIs) were compared between individuals with AN/atypAN and HC. Associations were examined between choice-related activation and choice preferences among the AN group. Exploratory analyses examined associations between choice-related activation and psychological assessments among the patient group.

Results: Adolescents with AN or atypAN selected fewer high-fat foods than HC (t = -5.92, p < .001). Counter to predictions, there were no significant group differences in choice-related activation in the ROIs. Among individuals with AN or atypAN, choice-related neural activity in the anterior caudate was significantly negatively associated with high-fat food selections in the task (r = -.32, p = .024). In exploratory analyses, choice-related anterior caudate activation was positively associated with psychological measures of illness severity among patients (p's < .05, uncorrected).

Conclusions: In this large cohort of adolescents with AN/atypAN, there was no evidence of altered reward system engagement during food choice. While there was no group difference in choice-related caudate activation, the associations with choices and psychological measures continue to suggest that this neural region is implicated in illness. Longitudinal analyses will clarify whether neural variability relates to longer-term course.

Background: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) demonstrates unique developmental manifestations in adolescence with implications for optimized, age-appropriate treatment. This 10-year update is the third in a series of systematic reviews examining the efficacy and safety of adolescent ADHD treatments. We broadly examined efficacy on ADHD symptoms, impairments, and other reported outcomes. Acute and long-term efficacy, and treatment moderators, were considered.

Method: We performed PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO searches for articles published or in press from 2013 to 2024, integrated with hand search and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in this series' earlier reviews. RCTs examining the safety or efficacy of interventions delivered to adolescents (ages 10.0-19.9) with a diagnosis of ADHD were included. Study characteristics were extracted and reviewed, quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE, and effect sizes were calculated for individual studies and illustrated using forest plots.

Results: Sixty-three RCTs were identified. Quality of evidence ranged from high (medication; k = 29) to very low (nutrient supplementation, neurofeedback, occupational therapy; k = 1 each). Medications demonstrated consistent strong impact on ADHD symptoms and inconsistent impact on impairment. Diverse cognitive/behavioral treatments (C/BTs) demonstrated inconsistent impact on ADHD symptoms but strong and consistent impact on impairment and executive function skills, plus moderate benefits on internalizing symptoms. No interventions demonstrated significant safety concerns. Long-term maintenance (up to 3 years post-treatment) was demonstrated for C/BTs, though moderate quality of evidence was noted because participants cannot be fully blinded to receipt of treatment.

Conclusions: The effects of C/BTs and medication appear complementary, not duplicative. Combining medication and C/BT is advised at treatment outset to maximize engagement, maintenance, and response breadth (i.e. improving both ADHD symptoms/cognitive performance and coping skills/functional impairments). Engagement strategies (e.g. motivational interviewing) may facilitate uptake. Novel treatments do not yet demonstrate effects on ADHD symptoms or impairments in adolescents but remain a promising area for research.

Background: Economic evaluations of treatments for children with behavioural difficulties (i.e., characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)) usually rely on data of randomised controlled trials or are model-based. Findings of such studies may not be representative of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility in clinical practice. The current longitudinal study aimed to perform an economic evaluation of treatments for children with hyperactivity, impulsive behaviours, inattention, and/or behavioural difficulties using observational data that were obtained in clinical practice.

Methods: Parents of 209 children (aged 5-12) who were referred to 1 of 10 Dutch youth mental healthcare institutions and who received treatment with (n = 108) or without (n = 101) the use of medication, filled out questionnaires at three timepoints (baseline, and ~ 6 and ~12 months later). Propensity score matching was used to make both groups comparable. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), ADHD and ODD symptom severity, and impairment. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were derived to show uncertainty around the ICER.

Results: Results did not show statistically significant differences in costs and effects between children who were treated with medication (alone or in combination with non-medication treatment) and those who were treated without medication. CEAC suggested that medication treatment has a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the €80,000 threshold and 36% at the €20,000 threshold compared with treatment without medication.

Conclusions: Using observational data, our study did not provide clear evidence of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of treatment with medication compared with treatment without medication in clinical practice.