Child and Adolescent Mental Health最新文献

Our CAMH journal has gone from strength to strength with increased submissions. However, we recognise that globally there is a battle for science integrity, and some issues, such as gender dysphoria and autism, have become highly politicised. Scientific expertise is not always valued and has been actively attacked. It is therefore timely to discuss how we aim to continue to push for the highest standards of publication in CAMH. This editorial discusses how we can increase scientific integrity through using the principles of open science, including greater transparency, particularly when academics collaborate with industry. The editorial discusses the importance of academic discourse, particularly when evidence is limited or unclear, and highlights the debate on banning social media in adolescents.

Recent legislation in Australia banning social media accounts for children under 16, alongside similar proposals worldwide, has ignited debate about whether age-based restrictions are an effective way to protect young people's mental health. While the intent of such bans is to reduce exposure to harmful content, their feasibility and effectiveness remain unclear. Enforcement requires robust age verification, often relying on sensitive data such as government-issued identification or facial scans, which raises privacy concerns and can be circumvented through the use of VPNs. Moreover, social media use is diverse. Although it can intensify harms such as bullying, it also provides vital opportunities for connection and support, particularly for marginalised adolescents. Removing access to accounts may limit risks within platforms, but does not prevent exposure to harmful content elsewhere, nor does it guarantee increased offline engagement. Importantly, blanket bans fail to address unsafe design features embedded within social media or to equip adolescents with the skills needed to navigate online environments. More targeted, evidence-based regulation that promotes safer platform design and accountability may provide a more effective pathway to protecting young people's well-being.

As frontline health professionals working across paediatrics, psychiatry, psychology and general practice in the United Kingdom, we are witnessing an alarming and growing mental health crisis among children and adolescents, which we believe is exacerbated by social media use. Drawing upon clinical experience and supported by a growing body of research, we present evidence that social media contributes to a spectrum of adverse mental health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, self-harm and suicidality. Particularly vulnerable populations, including neurodivergent children and those facing socioeconomic disadvantage, are disproportionately affected. Despite academic suggestions of some benefits, our real-world experience of the preponderance of clinical cases indicates an urgent need for preventive action. We argue that current regulatory frameworks are insufficient and propose a precautionary public health approach: an immediate statutory ban on social media use for all children under 16, placing the burden of proof on technology companies to demonstrate safety before allowing access. We further advocate for the strengthening of age verification systems, public health campaigns, parental guidance interventions and routine clinical screening for problematic social media use. This paper reflects the collective voice of our health professionals on the frontline of child and adolescent care, calling for decisive policy action to address a preventable and escalating threat to youth mental health.

At its core, pathologising is choosing the language of pathology to describe suffering. In youth mental health, the prevailing choice is to use diagnostic labels such as ADHD and autism when describing the problems young people face. A key, yet poorly visible risk of such diagnostic labelling is disorderism – a relative neglect of context introduced by the tendency to interpret peoples struggles through the lens of disorders of the individual. At the same time, diagnostic labels serve important functions. Among others, they help families access care and find information, allow researchers to compare findings, and aid policymakers organise funding. Put simply, the functions are too valuable to outright discard, yet the risks too great to ignore. We find ourselves stuck – locked inside our own language. We argue that a path forward lies in recognising the primary way diagnostic labels may cause harm: by sidelining other forms of understanding. Rather than reimagining the labels entirely, a way out of the deadlock could involve profound epistemic humility. If we deflate the labels – removing weight and certainty – we create space for other kinds of understanding.

The complex role that social media plays in shaping young people's mental health and well-being requires a nuanced approach to regulation beyond simple bans. Social media presents demonstrated harms for young people, yet can also be a lifeline and provide a valuable resource for social support, learning, and expression. In this article, we draw on policy actions outlined in the WHO Europe policy brief Addressing the digital determinants of youth mental health and well-being to emphasize the importance of evidence-informed, multi-faceted strategies aligned with the precautionary principle to mitigate risks while maximizing benefits. These strategies include regulating harmful platform features, enhancing digital literacy, empowering parents, increasing industry accountability, and promoting healthy offline activities.

Adolescents spend much of their daily lives online, with social media a central part of their digital environment. While findings are complex, evidence increasingly points to small but relatively consistent harms, particularly for those meeting criteria for problematic use. At the population level, these effects are concerning, given the extraordinary prevalence of exposure to social media, rising rates of problematic use and adolescents' vulnerability to mental ill-health. The complexity of determining causality should not delay action: from a public health perspective, precautionary measures are warranted. We argue for a comprehensive approach that includes effective age verification and age-appropriate protection, regulation of harmful design features for all ages and inclusion of young people's voices. Just as offline environments include regulation and guidance, digital environments must be shaped to support individual and community needs.