Child and Adolescent Mental Health最新文献

Because definitions of mental disorder are inescapably subjective, they can be continuously expanded in response to commercial, guild and social interests and pressures. In this article, I argue that this has resulted in young people increasingly (and unnecessarily) self-identifying, and/or being labelled, as having a mental disorder. I point out the dangers this poses for their future as thus far mental health awareness, prevention and treatment programmes have failed to improve mental health and well-being at a population level. Instead of doubling down on failed paradigms and strategies, we – as professionals and academics in the field – need to rethink what we are doing, endorsing or tolerating.

Five articles in this issue's debate discuss whether we over-pathologise young people's mental health. The articles highlight the paradox between inflating diagnoses in the community and under-recognising mental health needs in health and social care settings. Co-production with young people and their families when developing services, community-based initiatives, and research projects is an important method for getting the balance right between increasing awareness and offering support for mental health problems at the earliest possible opportunity, without misinterpreting and mislabelling as ‘mental illness’ the emotions and behaviours of young people in response to challenging or changing life circumstances.

The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ brought ‘the manosphere’ (a virtual space defined by misogynist views) and its potential dangers for teenage boys into the mainstream narrative. This paper describes parallels between toxic masculinity communities and other extremist groups. It considers why so many teenage boys may be attracted to the manosphere and why a developmental context is crucial to an informed response. The unique characteristics of ‘the teenage brain’ offer a framework to guide professionals working with young people who are exploring this type of content.

The concept of autism has undergone a significant transformation in recent decades, evolving from a narrowly defined, rare disorder into a broad and heterogeneous spectrum. This diagnostic expansion, while intended to improve recognition of diverse presentations, has led to a marked increase in prevalence and a dilution of autism's neurobiological distinctiveness. Two emerging trends may further contribute to this phenomenon: the rise in adult diagnoses without documented childhood traits, and the growing attribution of transdiagnostic social difficulties to subthreshold autistic traits. These trends risk conflating autism with general social dysfunction and undermining the validity of related clinical constructs. The diagnostic inflation of ASD may reflect a problematic overextension of criteria, compounded by the use of unstructured assessments and amplified by the growing influence of neurodiversity discourse. Moreover, it is facilitated by the absence of definitive neurobiological markers and remains at odds with autism's characterization as a neurodevelopmental condition with strong genetic roots. Whether this expansive reconceptualization constitutes progress or regression warrants deeper scientific debate.

Our collective article argues for the development of a clear, shared guidance to support responsible collaborations between academic researchers and digital technology companies, particularly in the fields of education and youth mental health. Drawing on longstanding experience in edtech research, we argue that effective academia–industry collaboration requires clearer institutional support, with explicit guidance at both the contractual and community engagement levels to ensure transparency, fair reporting and the inclusion of all stakeholders. We highlight the challenges researchers face, such as limited legal support and difficulties in publishing negative results, and the need for strong contractual safeguards that protect against the suppression of negative results, define data ownership and set transparent terms for data use, publication timelines and study termination. We also advocate for formalized data-sharing protocols and a centralized, anonymized data repository governed by shared principles, enabling more rigorous cross-study analyses and supporting funders, researchers and policymakers in making evidence-based decisions.

There is growing recognition that neurodivergence encompasses overlapping and co-occurring neurodevelopmental traits rather than isolated diagnostic categories. However, clinical services often struggle to adopt holistic, needs-based assessments due to reliance on condition-specific pathways. This article introduces ESSENCE-D, a digital tool designed to support neurodevelopmental formulation by surveying traits across multiple neurotypes without a pre-defined diagnostic focus. ESSENCE-D generates visual profiles that help clinicians and families better understand an individual's strengths and needs, guiding multidisciplinary decision-making. Preliminary piloting suggests the tool is sensitive, user-friendly and could help streamline emerging holistic neurodevelopmental pathways. With ongoing clinical trials underway, ESSENCE-D represents a promising step towards aligning neurodevelopmental services with the principles of neurodiversity and improving care for neurodivergent individuals.

Depression and anxiety are common in young people, yet many do not receive adequate support. Current guidelines recommend digital interventions as an effective approach; however, there is a need for more accessible, evidence-based programmes that are co-developed with young people and rigorously evaluated. The bilingual digital programme, MoodHwb, was co-designed with young people with depression and in collaboration with parents, carers, professionals and a digital media company. MoodHwb aims to support young people in managing their mood and well-being. An early evaluation study provided initial support for the programme theory and indicated its acceptability among users. The programme has since been refined based on feedback, and a feasibility randomised controlled trial has been completed.

This commentary reflects on a timely and methodologically significant study by Silwal et al., which investigates bullying victimization among adolescents in conflict-affected Eastern Ukraine. Conducted in a context of fragility, social fragmentation, and resource scarcity, the study offers vital insights into how war and its aftermath shape adolescent experiences. It reveals higher rates of bullying in conflict-affected regions, with girls disproportionately targeted—an uncomfortable finding that challenges conventional gender patterns in bullying. Drawing on emerging evidence, the commentary considers the role of desensitization, emotional regulation, and digital exposure in shaping youth aggression. It also highlights the need to address the structural stressors facing adolescents in both post-conflict and post-migration contexts, particularly within disrupted school systems. In response, the commentary calls for integrated and context-responsive interventions that strengthen emotional and social competencies without reinforcing stigma. It further urges researchers and policymakers to acknowledge the politicized nature of post-migration violence discourse and to maintain commitment to nuanced and context-sensitive analysis. The findings underscore that bullying in such settings is a social indicator of wider systemic pressures—an expression of the hidden wars adolescents carry in their daily lives and into their schools.