Lancet Psychiatry最新文献

The focus of mental health research in emerging fields should be driven by the priorities of people with relevant lived experience. Autism and ADHD are childhood-onset neurodevelopmental conditions that are associated with a range of health inequalities, including increased risk for eating disorders. The evidence base for how best to support neurodivergent individuals who experience disordered eating is still in its infancy, but research suggests that existing clinical approaches are not currently fit for purpose. In this Personal View, through community consultation with autistic people and people with ADHD who have experienced disordered eating, we present a comprehensive ranked list of research topics that people with lived experience prioritise. These priorities could be clustered into two areas: improving outcomes and identifying causal mechanisms. Within the theme of improving disordered eating outcomes, priorities are the improvement of treatment, the need for neurodiversity training in clinical services, and the identification and minimisation of unintended adverse effects of psychological intervention. Within the theme of identifying causal mechanisms, priorities are the identification of risk factors and a better understanding of the effect of autistic or ADHD neurocognitive profiles as potential contributors to eating disorder vulnerability. The final top ten research priorities are contextualised in terms of how they compare to the existing literature on the overlap between autism or ADHD and eating disorders, and concrete suggestions are made for how to implement these research priorities as testable hypotheses. Research informed by these priorities will build necessary understanding of the reasons behind the increased risk for eating disorders in neurodivergent people, and how to best support people who are affected by disordered eating to live positive and fulfilling lives.

Reducing the use of coercive measures in inpatient child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) requires an understanding of current rates and associated factors. We conducted a systematic review of research published between Jan 1, 2010, and Jan 10, 2024, addressing rates and risk factors for mechanical, physical, or pharmacological restraint, seclusion, or forced tube feeding in inpatient CAMHS. We identified 30 studies (including 39 027 patients or admissions) with low risk of bias. Median prevalence was 17·5% for any coercive measure, 27·7% for any restraint, and 6·0% for seclusion. Younger age, male sex, ethnicity or race other than White, longer stay, and repeated admissions were frequently linked to coercive measure use. Variable rates and conflicting risk factors suggest that patient traits alone are unlikely to determine coercive measure use. More research, especially in the form of nationwide studies, is needed to elucidate the impact of care and staff factors. Finally, we propose reporting guidelines to improve comparisons over time and settings.

Background: Conduct disorder is associated with the highest burden of any mental disorder in childhood, yet its neurobiology remains unclear. Inconsistent findings limit our understanding of the role of brain structure alterations in conduct disorder. This study aims to identify the most robust and replicable brain structural correlates of conduct disorder.

Methods: The ENIGMA-Antisocial Behavior Working Group performed a coordinated analysis of structural MRI data from 15 international cohorts. Eligibility criteria were a mean sample age of 18 years or less, with data available on sex, age, and diagnosis of conduct disorder, and at least ten participants with conduct disorder and ten typically developing participants. 3D T1-weighted MRI brain scans of all participants were pre-processed using ENIGMA-standardised protocols. We assessed group differences in cortical thickness, surface area, and subcortical volumes using general linear models, adjusting for age, sex, and total intracranial volume. Group-by-sex and group-by-age interactions, and DSM-subtype comparisons (childhood-onset vs adolescent-onset, and low vs high levels of callous-unemotional traits) were investigated. People with lived experience of conduct disorder were not involved in this study.

Findings: We collated individual participant data from 1185 young people with conduct disorder (339 [28·6%] female and 846 [71·4%] male) and 1253 typically developing young people (446 [35·6%] female and 807 [64·4%] male), with a mean age of 13·5 years (SD 3·0; range 7-21). Information on race and ethnicity was not available. Relative to typically developing young people, the conduct disorder group had lower surface area in 26 cortical regions and lower total surface area (Cohen's d 0·09-0·26). Cortical thickness differed in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (d 0·16) and the banks of the superior temporal sulcus (d -0·13). The conduct disorder group also had smaller amygdala (d 0·13), nucleus accumbens (d 0·11), thalamus (d 0·14), and hippocampus (d 0·12) volumes. Most differences remained significant after adjusting for ADHD comorbidity or intelligence quotient. No group-by-sex or group-by-age interactions were detected. Few differences were found between DSM-defined conduct disorder subtypes. However, individuals with high callous-unemotional traits showed more widespread differences compared with controls than those with low callous-unemotional traits.

Interpretation: Our findings provide robust evidence of subtle yet widespread brain structural alterations in conduct disorder across subtypes and sexes, mostly in surface area. These findings provide further evidence that brain alterations might contribute to conduct disorder. Greater consideration of this under-recognised disorder is needed in research and clinical practice.

Funding: Academy of Medical Sciences and Economic and S