Psychiatric services最新文献

Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefits of coordinated specialty care (CSC) for early psychosis, access to this multimodal, evidence-based program in the United States has been hindered by a lack of funding for core CSC services and activities. The recent approval of team-based reimbursement codes by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to fund substantially more CSC services for clients with insurance coverage that accepts the new team-based billing codes. This streamlined and more inclusive billing strategy may reduce administrative burden and support the financial viability of CSC programs.

Objective: Disruptive and distracting behaviors in the classroom, from off-task to aggressive behaviors, negatively affect academic engagement and achievement and can lead to more serious problems, including mental health conditions and substance use disorders. The goals of this systematic review were to assess the level of evidence, using established rating criteria, for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing disruptive and distracting classroom behaviors; identify program components common to multiple interventions; synthesize the evidence in regard to students from different racial-ethnic groups; and conduct an economic analysis of these interventions.

Methods: A search of major databases, gray literature, and evidence base registries was conducted to identify studies published between 2008 and 2022. The authors rated interventions as having high, moderate, or low levels of evidence of effectiveness on the basis of the number and rigor of studies with positive outcomes.

Results: Of the 27 interventions identified across 65 studies (N=73 articles), six interventions received a high or moderate evidence rating. The Good Behavior Game was the most frequently studied intervention. Many interventions shared similar program components, including behavioral management, classroom management, emotional-cognitive processes, and skills acquisition. Most articles (86%) were focused on elementary school students. The four interventions rated as having high evidence of effectiveness also showed generally positive outcomes in studies conducted in school settings with racial-ethnic diversity. No studies met the criteria for inclusion in an economic analysis.

Conclusions: With greater use and more research, interventions focusing on reducing disruptive and distracting behaviors have the potential to promote student well-being and prevent mental health conditions.

Schools are an important component in the mental health system of care for youths. Teachers and other school staff have unique opportunities to promote emotional wellness and prevent mental health conditions. Although numerous programs are available, identifying evidence-based and effective options is a significant challenge. This introduction lays out the rationale and methodology of the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) series, a collection of systematic reviews of school-based mental health promotion and prevention approaches recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for students in kindergarten through grade 12. Authors of the current AEB series used the rating criteria derived from the 2014 AEB series, which provided systematic reviews of a wide spectrum of interventions for mental and substance use disorders. Like its predecessor, the current series upholds a high standard of scientific rigor while ensuring that the information is easily accessible to various stakeholders in education, behavioral health, and communities. It describes the universal features included in each systematic review, such as a rating of the level of evidence for interventions, intervention program components, identification of interventions that have yielded positive outcomes for students from underserved populations, and a review of cost data. The AEB systematic reviews will serve as an important tool for decision makers involved in managing limited resources for various programs in school-based mental health services by synthesizing large bodies of research for use by leaders in education and behavioral health.

Objective: This systematic review used established rating criteria to describe the level of evidence for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing bullying perpetration and victimization in schools, synthesized the evidence for students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and reviewed the literature for available information to conduct an economic analysis of the interventions.

Methods: Major databases, gray literature, and evidence-base registries were searched to identify studies published from 2008 through 2022. The authors rated antibullying intervention models as having high, moderate, or low evidence depending on the number and rigor of studies with positive findings.

Results: Overall, 80 articles reporting on 71 original research studies describing a total of 48 antibullying interventions met the inclusion criteria for this review. Two schoolwide interventions received a high-evidence rating: the KiVa (Kiusaamista Vastaan) Antibullying Program and the Friendly Schools program. Multilevel interventions with components at the levels of school, classroom, and individual student most consistently showed strong evidence for reducing bullying behavior in elementary and middle school grades. Four interventions yielded positive effects in reducing bullying and victimization among diverse samples of students.

Conclusions: Antibullying interventions can reduce bullying in schools. Some interventions show effectiveness with students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. The gains relative to per-student costs were in the range that is considered cost-effective. Most implementation costs are spent on staff training and support. Research on successful implementation of whole-school interventions and additional synthesis of evidence pertaining to program structures would further advance the antibullying evidence base.

Objective: Using a sample of U.S. college students, the authors evaluated whether barriers to mental health treatment varied by race and ethnicity.

Methods: Data were drawn from a large multicampus study conducted across 26 U.S. colleges and universities. The sample (N=5,841) included students who screened positive for at least one mental disorder and who were not currently receiving psychotherapy.

Results: The most prevalent barriers to treatment across the sample were a preference to deal with issues on one's own, lack of time, and financial difficulties. Black and Hispanic/Latine students reported a greater willingness to seek treatment than did White students. However, Black and Hispanic/Latine students faced more financial barriers to treatment, and Hispanic/Latine students also reported lower perceived importance of mental health. Asian American students also reported financial barriers and preferred to handle their issues on their own or with support from family or friends and had lower readiness, willingness, and intentionality to seek help than did White students.

Conclusions: Disparities in unmet treatment needs may arise from both distinct and common barriers and point to the potential benefits of tailored interventions to address the specific needs of students of color from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. The findings further underscore the pressing need for low-cost and brief treatment models that can be used or accessed independently to address the most prevalent barriers for students.

The use of electronic devices and social media is becoming a ubiquitous part of most people's lives. Although researchers are exploring the sequelae of such use, little attention has been given to the importance of digital media use in routine psychiatric assessments of patients. The nature of technology use is relevant to understanding a patient's lifestyle and activities, the same way that it is important to evaluate the patient's occupation, functioning, and general activities. The authors propose a framework for psychiatric inquiry into digital media use, emphasizing that such inquiry should focus on quality of use, including emotional and behavioral consequences, rather than simply the amount of use.

Students at colleges and universities report high rates of mental disorders, including depression and anxiety, and frequent suicidal ideation. School policies toward such students, however, often have appeared punitive or aimed primarily at reducing the institution's potential liability. A recent lawsuit against Yale University highlighted allegations of practices that violated several federal statutes by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for students with psychiatric disabilities. The resolution of those claims in a sweeping settlement agreement can provide a model for the many other universities that need to align their policies with federal disability law.