Annual Research Review: The impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and young people worldwide: systematic review of studies with pre- and within-pandemic data.

BACKGROUND: The high volume and pace of research has posed challenges to researchers, policymakers and practitioners wanting to understand the overall impact of the pandemic on children and young people's mental health. We aimed to search for and review the evidence from epidemiological studies to answer the question: how has mental health changed in the general population of children and young people? METHODS: Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched in October 2021, with searches updated in February 2022. We aimed to identify studies of children or adolescents with a mean age of 18 years or younger at baseline, that reported change on a validated mental health measure from prepandemic to during the pandemic. Abstracts and full texts were double-screened against inclusion criteria and quality assessed using a risk of bias tool. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analyses were performed where studies were sufficiently similar. RESULTS: 6917 records were identified, and 51 studies included in the review. Only four studies had a rating of high quality. Studies were highly diverse in terms of design, setting, timing in relation to the pandemic, population, length of follow-up and choice of measure. Methodological heterogeneity limited the potential to conduct meta-analyses across studies. Whilst the evidence suggested a slight deterioration on some measures, overall, the findings were mixed, with no clear pattern emerging. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for a more harmonised approach to research in this field. Despite the sometimes-inconsistent results of our included studies, the evidence supports existing concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on children's mental health and on services for this group, given that even small changes can have a significant impact on provision at population level. Children and young people must be prioritised in pandemic recovery, and explicitly considered in planning for any future pandemic response.

Digital access constraints predict worse mental health among adolescents during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing social restrictions disrupted young people's social interactions and resulted in several periods during which school closures necessitated online learning. We hypothesised that digitally excluded young people would demonstrate greater deterioration in their mental health than their digitally connected peers during this time. We analysed representative mental health data from a sample of UK 10-15-year-olds (N = 1387) who completed a mental health inventory in 2017-2019 and thrice during the pandemic (July 2020, November 2020 and March 2021). We employed longitudinal modelling to describe trajectories of adolescent mental health for participants with and without access to a computer or a good internet connection for schoolwork. Adolescent mental health symptoms rose early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with the highest mean Total Difficulties score around December 2020. The worsening and subsequent recovery of mental health during the pandemic was greatly pronounced among those without access to a computer, although we did not find evidence for a similar effect among those without a good internet connection. We conclude that lack of access to a computer is a tractable risk factor that likely compounds other adversities facing children and young people during periods of social isolation or educational disruption.

Why Is Non-suicidal Self-injury More Common in Women? Mediation and Moderation Analyses of Psychological Distress, Emotion Dysregulation, and Impulsivity.

OBJECTIVE: Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) appears to be more common among women than men, though the underlying reasons for this remain unclear. In a community sample of young adults (N = 996, aged 18-33) assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated alternative explanation for the NSSI prevalence gap: are women more likely to experience the feelings which lead to NSSI as a coping strategy, or does this prevalence gap result from differences in how men and women respond to distress? METHODS: Cross-sectional mediation and moderation analyses tested how self-reported psychological distress (K10), emotion dysregulation (DERS), and impulsivity (UPPS-P) may contribute to a higher prevalence of NSSI among women. RESULTS: Women were twice as likely as men to report past-year NSSI (14.47% versus 7.78%, OR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.29, 3.13]). Women reported significantly higher psychological distress and significantly lower sensation seeking and positive urgency than men. Psychological distress partially statistically mediated the relationship between gender and past-year NSSI. Gender did not significantly moderate associations between psychological distress, emotion dysregulation, or impulsivity and past-year NSSI. Past-year NSSI prevalence did not significantly decrease with age and we found no significant age by gender interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Greater levels of NSSI in young women are partly explained by their greater levels of psychological distress, but not by differences in how men and women respond to this distress. Given similar levels of psychological distress, emotion dysregulation, and impulsivity, women and men are similarly likely to experience NSSI. HighlightsWomen aged 18-33 were significantly more likely to report past-year NSSI than menWomen's greater psychological distress contributed to their higher NSSI prevalenceVariables investigated here were similarly associated with NSSI in men and women.

Physical and mental health 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (long COVID) among adolescents in England (CLoCk): a national matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We describe post-COVID symptomatology in a non-hospitalised, national sample of adolescents aged 11-17 years with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with matched adolescents with negative PCR status. METHODS: In this national cohort study, adolescents aged 11-17 years from the Public Health England database who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January and March, 2021, were matched by month of test, age, sex, and geographical region to adolescents who tested negative. 3 months after testing, a subsample of adolescents were contacted to complete a detailed questionnaire, which collected data on demographics and their physical and mental health at the time of PCR testing (retrospectively) and at the time of completing the questionnaire (prospectively). We compared symptoms between the test-postive and test-negative groups, and used latent class analysis to assess whether and how physical symptoms at baseline and at 3 months clustered among participants. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN 34804192). FINDINGS: 23 048 adolescents who tested positive and 27 798 adolescents who tested negative between Jan 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, were contacted, and 6804 adolescents (3065 who tested positive and 3739 who tested negative) completed the questionnaire (response rate 13·4%). At PCR testing, 1084 (35·4%) who tested positive and 309 (8·3%) who tested negative were symptomatic and 936 (30·5%) from the test-positive group and 231 (6·2%) from the test-negative group had three or more symptoms. 3 months after testing, 2038 (66·5%) who tested positive and 1993 (53·3%) who tested negative had any symptoms, and 928 (30·3%) from the test-positive group and 603 (16·2%) from the test-negative group had three or more symptoms. At 3 months after testing, the most common symptoms among the test-positive group were tiredness (1196 [39·0%]), headache (710 [23·2%]), and shortness of breath (717 [23·4%]), and among the test-negative group were tiredness (911 [24·4%]), headache (530 [14·2%]), and other (unspecified; 590 [15·8%]). Latent class analysis identified two classes, characterised by few or multiple symptoms. The estimated probability of being in the multiple symptom class was 29·6% (95% CI 27·4-31·7) for the test-positive group and 19·3% (17·7-21·0) for the test-negative group (risk ratio 1·53; 95% CI 1·35-1·70). The multiple symptoms class was more frequent among those with positive PCR results than negative results, in girls than boys, in adolescents aged 15-17 years than those aged 11-14 years, and in those with lower pretest physical and mental health. INTERPRETATION: Adolescents who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had similar symptoms to those who tested negative, but had a higher prevalence of single and, particularly, multiple symptoms at the time of PCR testing and 3 months later. Clinicians should consider multiple symptoms that affect functioning and recognise different clusters of symptoms. The multiple and varied symptoms show that a multicomponent intervention will be required, and that mental and physical health symptoms occur concurrently, reflecting their close relationship. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care, in their capacity as the National Institute for Health Research, and UK Research and Innovation.

Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician-Clinician Encounters, Clinician-Patient-Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and Household Clustering.

Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.

Survey of CAMHS clinicians about their experience of remote consultation: brief report.

The Covid-19 crisis necessitated rapid adoption of remote consultations across National Health Service (NHS) child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). This study aimed to understand practitioners' experiences of rapid implementation of remote consultations across CAMHS in one NHS trust in the east of England. Data were collected through a brief questionnaire documenting clinicians' experiences following remote delivery of services. The questionnaire began before 'lockdown' and focused on assessment consultations (n = 102) as part of a planned move to virtual assessment. As the roll-out of remote consultations was extended at lockdown, we extended the questionnaire to include all remote clinical contacts (n = 202). Despite high levels of initial concern, clinicians' reports were positive overall; importantly, however, their experiences varied by team. When restrictions on face-to-face working are lifted, a blended approach of remote and face-to-face service delivery is recommended to optimise access and capacity while retaining effective and safe care.