This editorial introduces the journal's new open data policy for original articles using quantitative data. It discusses key opportunities from data and code sharing. It further briefly sets out the new methods review that articles which use quantitative analysis will automatically undergo. With both changes we hope to strengthen our review process and contribute to a better evidence base in the field.
This editorial perspective summarises the key findings of the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) in England (the Cass Review). Although the evidence underpinning endocrine interventions in this group of young people remains weak, there is much that mental health practitioners can do to improve their well-being and support their families. The controversies surrounding this group of young people have disempowered local professionals, who have lost confidence in their ability to provide care for them. The reality is that CAMHS professionals already have all the necessary transferrable skills and with a small amount of top up training, they can make a profound difference to the lives of this vulnerable group, which has been marginalised in our healthcare system.
The environment influences the way we act, react and adapt to our surroundings whether it is consciously or unconsciously. Though it is widely accepted that multiple interacting systems influence human behaviour and development across the life span, the reality of teasing these factors apart is difficult and challenging. In this brief commentary on Czernine and colleagues' important and timely paper, 'Can a modernised psychiatric unit space reduce the use of coercive measures in child and adolescent psychiatry?', I evaluate and build on the evidence presented by making constructive suggestions on ways of improving the status quo healthcare and treatment conditions for children and adolescents today. The underlying assumption is that by furthering this complex yet important area of research in the field of psychiatry and adjacent disciplines, we can improve existing healthcare systems and processes that are aligned with meeting child and adolescent needs.
This commentary discusses the history of ADHD and how it can inform contemporary debates about the disorder. It critiques retrospective histories of ADHD, which propose earlier origins for the disorder than match the historical evidence. It concludes by indicating when ADHD did emerge as a distinctive disorder and why it did so.
Recognition of hyperactivity, impulsivity, distractibility, and emotional lability as a clinical syndrome is at the heart of identifying whether there is a discoverer of the condition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Just as clinics of children diagnosed with ADHD do not capture a homogeneous group of boys and girls, however, history does not either. What different observers/clinicians have chosen to highlight reflects what is important to them and to the times in which they lived. The child/children described by Heinrich Hoffman (of Fidgety Phil fame) and George Still (who highlighted impulsive aggression as a moral defect), for instance, did not come with a list of criteria (with which even now we cannot always agree) to prove unequivocally that they had ADHD. Who cares! It is sufficient that they recognized the importance of certain co-occurring behaviors and shared their observations with us such that we can conclude our clinic's children were recognized by good past observers. ADHD-like children, like the poor, have probably always been with us.
The use of seclusion in Adolescent Inpatient Psychiatric Units is being heavily scrutinised due to its forceful nature and potential to cause harm. This study aimed to understand staff perspectives on reasons for seclusion in an Adolescent Inpatient Psychiatric Unit.
A mixed methods approach that included the Attitudes to Seclusion Survey followed by a semi-structured interview on the reasons for seclusion was used. We recruited 31 participants who worked on the unit of which 27 were involved in seclusion.
The findings showed that the majority of staff view seclusion as undesirable and believe it should only be used out of necessity. However, there was disagreement among staff about the reasons why adolescents were secluded and whether those reasons were justified. Staff identified factors that contributed to increases in seclusion but also provided several ways in which seclusion could be reduced.
These findings highlight a need for precision on what constitutes justifiable use of seclusion to reduce the potential for misuse. It also shows opportunities exist for further reduction in seclusion through teamwork and communication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：