Identifying psychosocial and contextual markers considered by physicians to personalize care.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to identify the psychosocial and contextual markers considered by physicians to personalize care. METHODS: An online questionnaire with one open-ended question, asking physicians to describe clinical situations in which they personalized care, was used. Physicians were recruited from March 31, 2023, to August 10, 2023, from three hospitals, five university departments of general practice and six physician organizations in France. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, with participants encouraged to invite their colleagues via a snowball sampling method. The participants were a diverse sample of French general practitioners and other medical specialists who see patients in consultations or in hospital wards. We extracted the psychosocial and contextual markers considered by physicians to personalize care in each clinical situation. The analysis involved both manual and AI-assisted content analysis using GPT3.5-Turbo (OpenAI). Mathematical models to assess data saturation were used to ensure that a comprehensive list of markers was identified. RESULTS: In total, 1340 people connected to the survey platform and 1004 (75.0%) physicians were eligible for the study (median age 39 years old, IQR 34 to 50; 60.5% women; 67.0% working in outpatient settings), among whom 290 answered the open-ended question. The participants reported 317 clinical situations during which they personalized care. Personalization was based on the consideration of 40 markers: 27 were related to patients' psychosocial characteristics (e.g., patient capacity, psychological state, beliefs), and 13 were related to circumstances (e.g., competing activities, support network, living environment). The data saturation models showed that at least 97.0% of the potential markers were identified. Manual and AI-assisted content analysis using GPT3.5-Turbo were concordant for 89.9% of clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians personalize care to patients' contexts and lives using a broad range of psychosocial and contextual markers. The effect of these markers on treatment engagement and effectiveness needs to be evaluated in clinical studies and integrated as tailoring variables in personalized interventions to build evidence-based personalization.

Systematic Review: Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Measure Depression Symptom Severity in Adolescents With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of 12 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression. Depression symptom severity was chosen as the outcome of focus given its importance as an outcome to measure in adolescents with depression across clinical trials and/or care. METHOD: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from year of inception up to December 7, 2023. Study appraisal (ie, risk of bias), evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Included studies evaluated at least 1 of 9 measurement properties as detailed in the COSMIN taxonomy within a reported sample or subgroup of youth ages 12 to 24 years, with at least 40% meeting criteria for any depressive disorder. RESULTS: Of the 15,560 records identified, 31 studies for 7 PROMs were included in the COSMIN appraisal. Although several PROMs have the potential to accurately measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression, at this time none of the PROMs can be recommended for use without further evaluative work. High-quality evidence was generally lacking, largely due to few or inconsistent findings, small sample sizes, and other methodological concerns. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of the measurement properties of 12 PROMs used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression found that none of the PROMs can be recommended for use until further evaluative work is conducted. Clinicians and researchers should proceed with caution when using these PROMs. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STATEMENT: One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Discriminative validity and interpretability of the mood and feelings questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) to differentiate between depression severity levels remains unexplored. We explored the discriminative validity of the MFQ to identify an optimal cut-off MFQ score to distinguish between subthreshold-to-mild and moderate-to-severe depression severity levels. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional design was used in a sample (N = 67) of help-seeking youth (ages 13 to 18, inclusive) experiencing depressive symptoms. The MFQ was administered verbatim to youth by a research analyst over the phone. Youth were then grouped into subthreshold-to-mild or moderate-to-severe depression severity categories based on scores received on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Depression Rating Scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses were conducted, with area under the curve (AUC) and Youden Index (J) as primary indices. We hypothesized that the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval for the area under the curve would be ≥0.70. RESULTS: The primary analysis yielded an AUC of 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.763-0.947) and an optimal cut-off of ≥43 (J = 0.60, positive predictive value = 91.4 %, negative predictive value = 62.5 %, sensitivity = 72.7 %, specificity = 87.0 %). LIMITATIONS: Our study collected a small sample, and as such cannot identify how subgroup classification (e.g., based on race or gender) may moderate outcomes. Further, unknown measurement error of the predictor and reference variable measures can bias the estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings highlight the potential for the MFQ to support clinical decision-making relevant to adolescents experiencing varying severities of depressive symptoms in secondary care settings.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

An Integrated Care Pathway for depression in adolescents: protocol for a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Non-randomized, Cluster Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our group developed an Integrated Care Pathway to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based care for adolescents experiencing depression called CARIBOU-2 (Care for Adolescents who Receive Information 'Bout OUtcomes, 2nd iteration). The core pathway components are assessment, psychoeducation, psychotherapy options, medication options, caregiver support, measurement-based care team reviews and graduation. We aim to test the clinical and implementation effectiveness of the CARIBOU-2 pathway relative to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in community mental health settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation, Non-randomized Cluster Controlled Trial Design. Primary participants will be adolescents (planned n = 300, aged 13-18 years) with depressive symptoms, presenting to one of six community mental health agencies. All sites will begin in the TAU condition and transition to the CARIBOU-2 intervention after enrolling 25 adolescents. The primary clinical outcome is the rate of change of depressive symptoms from baseline to the 24-week endpoint using the Childhood Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Generalized mixed effects modelling will be conducted to compare this outcome between intervention types. Our primary hypothesis is that there will be a greater rate of reduction in depressive symptoms in the group receiving the CARIBOU-2 intervention relative to TAU over 24 weeks as per the CDRS-R. Implementation outcomes will also be examined, including clinician fidelity to the pathway and its components, and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approvals have been obtained. Should our results support our hypotheses, systematic implementation of the CARIBOU-2 intervention in other community mental health agencies would be indicated.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr.

OBJECTIVE: The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (SIQ-Jr) were designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are often used in clinical trials. Our aim was to identify and appraise the published literature with respect to the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify, appraise, and synthesize published literature on measurement properties and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 16, 2023, to identify sources relevant to our aim. RESULTS: We identified 15 sources meeting our eligibility criteria. The body of literature did not meet COSMIN standards to make recommendations for use with regard to these measurement instruments. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed, with a focus on content validity and structural validity, prior to recommending the SIQ and SIQ-Jr for use in clinical practice and in clinical trials. No specific grant funding was used for this review. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In this systematic review, authors analyzed 15 sources examining measurement properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr. Both measures are designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are used in clinical practice and clinical trials. The authors identified sufficient evidence for convergent validity for both measures. Authors concluded that further research is needed to support content validity, structural validity as a unidimensional scale (as they are often used) as well as their internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative validity, predictive validity, and interpretability of these measures. The authors also emphasize the need to consider the limitations of these measures for researchers studying suicidal ideation and clinicians using these measures in their assessments of young people.

Consenso internacional sobre medidas de resultado de tratamientos de depresión y ansiedad en población infantojuvenil: recomendaciones para su aplicación en Chile / International consensus on outcome measures for the treatment of depression and anxiety in children and adolescents: recommendations for their application in Chile

El Consorcio Internacional para la Medición de Resultados en Salud (ICHOM, por sus siglas en inglés) se especializa en el desarrollo de conjuntos de medidas de resultado de tratamientos para condiciones de salud con el objetivo de mejorar la práctica clínica. ICHOM desarrolló una propuesta de medidas de resultado para depresión, ansiedad, trastorno obsesivo-compulsivo y trastorno por estrés postraumático, en población infanto-juvenil de entre 6 y 24 años que fue publicada el 2021. Un grupo de trabajo internacional de 27 personas expertas en clínica, en investigación y por experiencia vivida, alcanzó el consenso a través del método Delphi adaptado con votación anónima iterativa, apoyada por insumos de investigación. Se propone evaluar síntomas, pensamientos y conductas suicidas y funcionalidad a través de siete medidas de resultado informadas primariamente por el o la paciente. Las recomendaciones fueron validadas a través de una encuesta que involucró a 487 participantes en 45 países. Este artículo presenta sugerencias para su aplicación en Chile.

Abstract: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) specializes in developing sets of outcome measures for health conditions with the goal of improving clinical practice. ICHOM developed a proposal for outcome measures for depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in children and young people aged 6 to 24 years that was published in 2021. An international working group of 27 clinical, research, and lived experience experts, reached consensus through the adapted Delphi method, and iterative anonymous voting, supported by research inputs. It is proposed to assess symptoms, suicidal thoughts, and behavior, and functioning through seven primarily patient-reported outcome measures. The recommendations were validated through a survey involving 487 participants across 45 countries. This article presents suggestions for their application in Chile.

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes.

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

Readability of Commonly Used Quality of Life Outcome Measures for Youth Self-Report.

Self-report measures are central in capturing young people's perspectives on mental health concerns and treatment outcomes. For children and adolescents to complete such measures meaningfully and independently, the reading difficulty must match their reading ability. Prior research suggests a frequent mismatch for mental health symptom measures. Similar analyses are lacking for measures of Quality of Life (QoL). We analysed the readability of 13 commonly used QoL self-report measures for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years by computing five readability formulas and a mean reading age across formulas. Across measures, the mean reading age for item sets was 10.7 years (SD = 1.2). For almost two-thirds of the questionnaires, the required reading age exceeded the minimum age of the target group by at least one year, with an average discrepancy of 3.0 years (SD = 1.2). Questionnaires with matching reading ages primarily targeted adolescents. Our study suggests a frequent mismatch between the reading difficulty of QoL self-report measures for pre-adolescent children and this group's expected reading ability. Such discrepancies risk undermining the validity of measurement, especially where children also have learning or attention difficulties. Readability should be critically considered in measure development, as one aspect of the content validity of self-report measures for youth.

Predictors, Moderators, and Mediators Associated With Treatment Outcome in Randomized Clinical Trials Among Adolescents With Depression: A Scoping Review.

Importance: The application of precision medicine principles for the treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents requires an examination of the variables associated with depression outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Objective: To describe predictors, moderators, and mediators associated with outcomes in RCTs for the treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents. Evidence Review: A scoping review of RCTs for the treatment of depression in adolescents was conducted. Databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL. Included publications tested predictors, moderators, and/or mediators associated with depression symptom outcomes (eg, symptom reduction, response, remission) in RCTs pertaining to the treatment of adolescents, ages 13 to 17 years. Predictors were defined as variables that were associated with depression outcomes, independent of treatment group. Moderators were defined as baseline variables that were associated with differential outcomes between treatment groups. Mediators were defined by a formal mediation analysis. In duplicate, variables were extracted and coded with respect to analysis type (univariable or multivariable), statistical significance, direction of effect size, reporting of a priori hypotheses, and adjustment for multiple comparisons. Aggregated results were summarized by variable domain and RCT sample. Findings: Eighty-one articles reporting on variables associated with outcomes across 33 RCTs were identified, including studies of biological (10 RCTs), psychosocial (18 RCTs), and combined (4 RCTs) treatments as well as a service delivery model (1 RCT). Fifty-three variable domains were tested as baseline predictors of depression outcome, 41 as moderators, 19 as postbaseline predictors, and 5 as mediators. Variable domains that were reported as significant in at least 3 RCTs included age, sex/gender, baseline depression severity, early response to treatment, sleep changes, parent-child conflict, overall psychopathology, suicidal ideation, hopelessness, functional impairment, attendance at therapy sessions, and history of trauma. Two publications reported a priori hypotheses and adjustment for multiple comparisons, both finding that baseline depression severity and family conflict were associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This review identified commonly researched variables requiring more scrutiny as well as underresearched variables to inform future study designs. Further efforts to discover predictors, moderators, and mediators associated with treatment response have great potential to optimize care for adolescents with depression.

Eating, sleeping and moving recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric depression: umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Current first-line treatments for paediatric depression demonstrate mild-to-moderate effectiveness. This has spurred a growing body of literature on lifestyle recommendations pertaining to nutrition, sleep and exercise for treating paediatric depression. AIMS: Paediatric depression clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were reviewed for quality and to catalogue recommendations on nutrition, sleep and exercise made by higher-quality CPGs. METHOD: Searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL, and grey literature CPGs databases for relevant CPGs. Eligible CPGs with a minimum or high-quality level, as determined by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, Second Edition instrument, were included if they were (a) paediatric; (b) CPGs, practice parameter or consensus or expert committee recommendations; (c) for depression; (d) the latest version and (e) lifestyle recommendations for nutrition, sleep or exercise. Key information extracted included author(s), language, year of publication, country, the institutional body issuing the CPG, target disorder, age group, lifestyle recommendation and the methods used to determine CPG lifestyle recommendations. RESULTS: Ten paediatric CPGs for depression with a minimum or high-quality level contained recommendations on nutrition, sleep or exercise. Lifestyle recommendations were predominately qualitative, with quantitative details only outlined in two CPGs for exercise. Most recommendations were brief general statements, with 50% lacking supporting evidence from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in lifestyle interventions for treatment in child and youth depression is growing. However, current CPG lifestyle recommendations for nutrition, sleep or exercise are based on expert opinion rather than clinical trials.

Problem-solving training as an active ingredient of treatment for youth depression: a scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Problem-solving training is a common ingredient of evidence-based therapies for youth depression and has shown effectiveness as a versatile stand-alone intervention in adults. This scoping review provided a first overview of the evidence supporting problem solving as a mechanism for treating depression in youth aged 14 to 24 years. METHODS: Five bibliographic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and the grey literature were systematically searched for controlled trials of stand-alone problem-solving therapy; secondary analyses of trial data exploring problem-solving-related concepts as predictors, moderators, or mediators of treatment response within broader therapies; and clinical practice guidelines for youth depression. Following the scoping review, an exploratory meta-analysis examined the overall effectiveness of stand-alone problem-solving therapy. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by four randomized trials of problem-solving therapy (524 participants); four secondary analyses of problem-solving-related concepts as predictors, moderators, or mediators; and 23 practice guidelines. The only clinical trial rated as having a low risk of bias found problem-solving training helped youth solve personal problems but was not significantly more effective than the control at reducing emotional symptoms. An exploratory meta-analysis showed a small and non-significant effect on self-reported depression or emotional symptoms (Hedges' g = - 0.34; 95% CI: - 0.92 to 0.23) with high heterogeneity. Removing one study at high risk of bias led to a decrease in effect size and heterogeneity (g = - 0.08; 95% CI: - 0.26 to 0.10). A GRADE appraisal suggested a low overall quality of the evidence. Tentative evidence from secondary analyses suggested problem-solving training might enhance outcomes in cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy, but dedicated dismantling studies are needed to corroborate these findings. Clinical practice guidelines did not recommend problem-solving training as a stand-alone treatment for youth depression, but five mentioned it as a treatment ingredient. CONCLUSIONS: On its own, problem-solving training may be beneficial for helping youth solve personal challenges, but it may not measurably reduce depressive symptoms. Youth experiencing elevated depressive symptoms may require more comprehensive psychotherapeutic support alongside problem-solving training. High-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of problem-solving training as a stand-alone approach and as a treatment ingredient.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials. METHOD: Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience. CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

Measuring Health Outcomes in HIV: Time to Bring in the Patient Experience.

Introduction: Over the past decade, the global response to HIV has led to a reduction in the number of new infections, and a decrease in associated mortality. Yet, the number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) is high, with an estimated 38 million infected worldwide. As HIV shifts from being an acute terminal illness to a chronic condition, evaluating programmatic responses to HIV with sole reliance on biological markers (such as viral load or CD4 cell count) as proxies for patient health may no longer be suitable. HIV affects the lives of those infected in myriad ways which should be reflected in programme evaluations by measuring health-related quality of life, in addition to biomarkers. Discussion: In this commentary we argue that there is a pressing need to review how a "good" health outcome is defined and measured in light of care systems moving towards value-based frameworks that measure value in terms of the actual health outcomes achieved (rather than processes of care), global response shifting to providing long-term care for PLHIV in the community, and integrating HIV as part of universal health coverage plans. Efforts should be directed towards validating generic and disease specific patient-reported measures of PLHIV, to identify the most suitable tools. Such efforts will ensure that patient experience is appropriately captured, especially to be used in programme or economic evaluations. Conclusions: It is only by recognising and measuring the full range of health, mental and social outcomes related to the disease that the health status of PLHIV can be fully understood.