ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ability to communicate is integral to all human relationships. Previous research has specifically highlighted communication within families as both a risk and protective factor for anxiety disorders and/or depression. Yet, there is limited understanding about whether communication is amenable to intervention in the context of adolescent psychopathology, and whether doing so improves outcomes. AIMS: The aim of this systematic review was to determine in which contexts and for whom does addressing communication in families appear to work, not work and why? METHOD: We pre-registered our systematic review with PROSPERO (identifier CRD42022298719), followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified from a systematic search of the literature. There was significant heterogeneity in the features of communication that were measured across these studies. There were mixed findings regarding whether family-focused interventions led to improvements in communication. Although there was limited evidence that family-focused interventions led to improvements in communication relative to interventions without a family-focused component, we discuss these findings in the context of the significant limitations in the studies reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that further research is required to assess the efficacy of family-focused interventions for improving communication in the context of anxiety and depression in those aged 14-24 years.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the clinical and aetiological overlap between autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia spectrum disorders, reported to co-occur at both diagnostic and trait levels. Individually, sub-clinical autistic and psychotic traits are associated with poor clinical outcomes, including increased depressive symptomatology, self-harming behaviour and suicidality. However, the implications when both traits co-occur remain poorly understood. The study aimed to (1) examine the relationship between autistic and psychotic traits and (2) determine if their co-occurrence increases depressive symptomatology, self-harm and suicidality. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a self-selecting (online and poster advertising) sample of the adult UK population (n = 653) were collected using an online survey. Validated self-report measures were used to assess sub-clinical autistic and psychotic traits, depressive symptomatology, self-harming behaviour and suicidality. Correlation and regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A positive correlation between sub-clinical autistic and positive psychotic traits was confirmed (rs = 0.509, p < 0.001). Overall, autistic traits and psychotic traits were, independently, significant predictors of depression, self-harm and suicidality. Intriguingly, however, depression was associated with a negative interaction between the autistic domain attention to detail and psychotic traits. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports previous findings that sub-clinical autistic and psychotic traits are largely independently associated with depression, self-harm and suicidality, and is novel in finding that their combined presence has no additional effect on depression, self-harm or suicidality. These findings highlight the importance of considering both autistic and psychotic traits and their symptom domains in research and when developing population-based depression prevention and intervention strategies.
