Anhedonia, Apathy, Pleasure, and Effort-Based Decision-Making in Adult and Adolescent Cannabis Users and Controls.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use may be linked with anhedonia and apathy. However, previous studies have shown mixed results, and few have examined the association between cannabis use and specific reward sub-processes. Adolescents may be more vulnerable than adults to harmful effects of cannabis. This study investigated (1) the association between non-acute cannabis use and apathy, anhedonia, pleasure, and effort-based decision-making for reward; and (2) whether these relationships were moderated by age group. METHODS: We used data from the "CannTeen" study. Participants were 274 adult (26-29 years) and adolescent (16-17 years) cannabis users (1-7 d/wk use in the past 3 months) and gender- and age-matched controls. Anhedonia was measured with the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (n = 274), and apathy was measured with the Apathy Evaluation Scale (n = 215). Effort-based decision-making for reward was measured with the Physical Effort task (n = 139), and subjective wanting and liking of rewards was measured with the novel Real Reward Pleasure task (n = 137). RESULTS: Controls had higher levels of anhedonia than cannabis users (F1,258 = 5.35, P = .02, η p2 = .02). There were no other significant effects of user-group and no significant user-group*age-group interactions. Null findings were supported by post hoc Bayesian analyses. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that cannabis use at a frequency of 3 to 4 d/wk is not associated with apathy, effort-based decision-making for reward, reward wanting, or reward liking in adults or adolescents. Cannabis users had lower anhedonia than controls, albeit at a small effect size. These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis that non-acute cannabis use is associated with amotivation.

Alternatives to mental health admissions for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises: A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Many children and young people (CYP) presenting with mental health crises are admitted to hospital due to concerns around illness severity and risk. Whilst inpatient admissions have an important role for such children, there are a number of burdens associated with them, and safe avoidance of admissions is favourable. We systematically reviewed the literature for studies of interventions reported as alternatives to a hospital admission in CYP presenting with mental health crises, in any inpatient setting. Methods: Three databases (PsychInfo, PubMed and Web of Science) were searched for peer-reviewed papers in October 2020, with an updated search in May 2021. Results: We identified 19 papers of interventions delivered in the emergency department, the home, outside of home but outside of clinics and in hospital clinics. The quality of most included studies was low, with less than half being randomised controlled trials and only half of these at low risk of bias. The best quality studies and greatest evidence for efficacy came from in-home interventions, in particular multisystemic therapy, which improved psychological outcomes, and though a large number of CYP still ended up being admitted, there appeared to be decreased length of stay. Conclusions: Overall, we could not recommend a particular intervention as an alternative to inpatient admission; however, our review describes benefits across a range of types of interventions that might be considered in multi-modal treatments. We also provide recommendations for future research, in particular the evaluation of new interventions as they emerge.

Loneliness as an active ingredient in preventing or alleviating youth anxiety and depression: a critical interpretative synthesis incorporating principles from rapid realist reviews.

Loneliness is a relatively common problem in young people (14-24 years) and predicts the onset of depression and anxiety. Interventions to reduce loneliness thus have significant potential as active ingredients in strategies to prevent or alleviate anxiety and depression among young people. Previous reviews have focused on quantitative evidence and have not examined potential mechanisms that could be targets for intervention strategies. To build on this work, in this review we aimed to combine qualitative and quantitative evidence with stakeholder views to identify interventions that appear worth testing for their potential effectiveness in reducing loneliness, anxiety and depression in young people aged 14-24 years, and provide insights into the potential mechanisms of action. We conducted a Critical Interpretative Synthesis, a systematic review method that iteratively synthesises qualitative and quantitative evidence and is explicitly focused on building theory through a critical approach to the evidence that questions underlying assumptions. Literature searches were performed using nine databases, and eight additional databases were searched for theses and grey literature. Charity and policy websites were searched for content relevant to interventions for youth loneliness. We incorporated elements of Rapid Realistic Review approaches by consulting with young people and academic experts to feed into search strategies and the resulting conceptual framework, in which we aimed to set out which interventions appear potentially promising in terms of theoretical and empirical underpinnings and which fit with stakeholder views. We reviewed effectiveness data and quality ratings for the included randomised controlled trials only. Through synthesising 27 studies (total participants n = 105,649; range 1-102,072 in different studies) and grey literature, and iteratively consulting with stakeholders, a conceptual framework was developed. A range of 'Intrapersonal' (e.g. therapy that changes thinking and behaviour), 'Interpersonal' (e.g. improving social skills), and 'Social' Strategies (e.g. enhancing social support, and providing opportunities for social contact) seem worth testing further for their potential to help young people address loneliness, thereby preventing or alleviating depression and/or anxiety. Such strategies should be co-designed with young people and personalised to fit individual needs. Plausible mechanisms of action are facilitating sustained social support, providing opportunities for young people to socialise with peers who share similar experiences, and changing thinking and behaviour, for instance through building positive attitudes to themselves and others. The most convincing evidence of effectiveness was found in support of Intrapersonal Strategies: two randomised controlled studies quality-rated as 'good' found decreases in loneliness associated with different forms of therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or peer network counselling), although power calculations were not reported, and effect sizes were small or missing. Strategies to address loneliness and prevent or alleviate anxiety and depression need to be co-designed and personalised. Promising elements to incorporate into these strategies are social support, including from peers with similar experiences, and psychological therapy.