Evaluation of an automated matching system of children and families to virtual mental health resources during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Children and their families often face obstacles in accessing mental health (MH) services. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test an electronic matching process to match children with virtual MH resources and increase access to treatment for children and their families during COVID-19. METHODS: Within a large observational child cohort, a random sample of 292 families with children ages 6-12 years were invited to participate. Latent profile analysis indicated five MH profiles using parent-reported symptom scores from validated depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and inattention measures: (1) Average Symptoms, (2) Low Symptoms, (3) High Symptoms, (4) Internalizing, and (5) Externalizing. Children were matched with virtual MH resources according to their profile; parents received surveys at Time 1 (matching process explanation), Time 2 (match delivery) and Time 3 (resource uptake). Data on demographics, parent MH history, and process interest were collected. RESULTS: 128/292 families (44%) completed surveys at Time 1, 80/128 families (63%) at Time 2, and a final 67/80 families (84%) at Time 3, yielding an overall uptake of 67/292 (23%). Families of European-descent and those with children assigned to the Low Symptoms profile were most likely to express interest in the process. No other factors were associated with continued interest or uptake of the electronic matching process. Most participating parents were satisfied with the process. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic matching process delivered virtual MH resources to families in a time-efficient manner. Further research examining the effectiveness of electronically matched resources in improving children's MH symptoms is needed.

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.

The Distinction Between Social Connectedness and Support When Examining Depressive Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Childhood depression is associated with significant social and functional impairment, suicide risk, and persistence throughout adulthood. Recent evidence demonstrates that social connectedness and social support may serve as protective factors against the development of depression. The current study aimed to examine the effect of change in social connectedness and social support on depressive symptoms among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hierarchical regression was performed. Results indicated that parent-reported measures of change in social connectedness were inversely associated with depressive symptom severity, and could significantly predict future depressive symptom severity. In contrast, parent-reported measures of social support (i.e., from family and friends) did not significantly predict future depressive symptom severity. The presence of a pre-COVID psychiatric and/or neurodevelopmental diagnosis and baseline depressive symptom severity were also important factors associated with future depressive symptom severity. The findings suggest that an awareness of the presence of social supports (i.e., family or friends) is not sufficient for children to feel connected, but rather the mechanisms of social relationships are crucial. As our approach to public health restrictions evolves, the risk transmission of COVID-19 should be carefully balanced with the risks associated with decreased connectedness among youth.

The role of parenting practices in parent and child mental health over time.

BACKGROUND: Parent and child mental health has suffered during the pandemic and transition phase. Structured and shared parenting may be intervention targets beneficial to families who are struggling with parent or child mental health challenges. AIMS: First, we investigated associations between structured and shared parenting and parent depression symptoms. Second, we investigated associations between structured and shared parenting and depression, hyperactivity/inattention and irritability symptoms in children. METHOD: A total of 1027 parents in two-parent households (4797 observations total; 85.1% mothers) completed online surveys about themselves and their children (aged 2-18 years) from April 2020 to July 2022. Structured parenting and shared parenting responsibilities were assessed from April 2020 to November 2021. Symptoms of parent depression, child depression, child hyperactivity and inattention, child irritability, and child emotional and conduct problems were assessed repeatedly (one to 14 times; median of four times) from April 2020 to July 2022. RESULTS: Parents who reported higher levels of shared parenting responsibilities had lower depression symptoms (ß = -0.09 to -0.32, all P < 0.01) longitudinally. Parents who reported higher levels of shared parenting responsibilities had children with fewer emotional problems (ages 2-5 years; ß = -0.07, P < 0.05), fewer conduct problems (ages 2-5 years; ß = -0.09, P < 0.01) and less irritability (ages 13-18 years; ß = -0.27, P < 0.001) longitudinally. Structured parenting was associated with fewer conduct problems (ages 2-5 years; ß = -0.05, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Shared parenting is beneficial for parent and child mental health, even under chaotic or inflexible life conditions. Structured parenting is beneficial for younger children.

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.

Anxiety in children and youth: Part 2-The management of anxiety disorders.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental health concerns affecting Canadian children and adolescents. The Canadian Paediatric Society has developed two position statements that summarize current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of anxiety disorders. Both statements offer evidence-informed guidance to support paediatric health care providers (HCPs) making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions. The objectives of Part 2, which focuses on management, are to: (1) review the evidence and context for a range of clinical approaches that combine behavioural and pharmacological interventions to effectively address impairment, (2) describe the roles of education and psychotherapy in the prevention and treatment of anxiety disorders, and (3) outline the use of pharmacotherapy, with side effects and risks. Recommendations for managing anxiety are based on current guidelines, review of the literature, and expert consensus. Note that when the word 'parent' (singular or plural) is used, it includes any primary caregiver and every configuration of family.

CRISIS AFAR: an international collaborative study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and service access in youth with autism and neurodevelopmental conditions.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic are documented in the general population. Such heterogeneity has not been systematically assessed in youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). To identify distinct patterns of the pandemic impact and their predictors in ASD/NDD youth, we focused on pandemic-related changes in symptoms and access to services. METHODS: Using a naturalistic observational design, we assessed parent responses on the Coronavirus Health and Impact Survey Initiative (CRISIS) Adapted For Autism and Related neurodevelopmental conditions (AFAR). Cross-sectional AFAR data were aggregated across 14 European and North American sites yielding a clinically well-characterized sample of N = 1275 individuals with ASD/NDD (age = 11.0 ± 3.6 years; n females = 277). To identify subgroups with differential outcomes, we applied hierarchical clustering across eleven variables measuring changes in symptoms and access to services. Then, random forest classification assessed the importance of socio-demographics, pre-pandemic service rates, clinical severity of ASD-associated symptoms, and COVID-19 pandemic experiences/environments in predicting the outcome subgroups. RESULTS: Clustering revealed four subgroups. One subgroup-broad symptom worsening only (20%)-included youth with worsening across a range of symptoms but with service disruptions similar to the average of the aggregate sample. The other three subgroups were, relatively, clinically stable but differed in service access: primarily modified services (23%), primarily lost services (6%), and average services/symptom changes (53%). Distinct combinations of a set of pre-pandemic services, pandemic environment (e.g., COVID-19 new cases, restrictions), experiences (e.g., COVID-19 Worries), and age predicted each outcome subgroup. LIMITATIONS: Notable limitations of the study are its cross-sectional nature and focus on the first six months of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitantly assessing variation in changes of symptoms and service access during the first phase of the pandemic revealed differential outcome profiles in ASD/NDD youth. Subgroups were characterized by distinct prediction patterns across a set of pre- and pandemic-related experiences/contexts. Results may inform recovery efforts and preparedness in future crises; they also underscore the critical value of international data-sharing and collaborations to address the needs of those most vulnerable in times of crisis.

Disruption to Education During COVID-19: School Nonacademic Factors Are Associated with Children's Mental Health.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined aspects of the school environment, beyond modality, as contributors to child and youth mental health during the coronavirus pandemic. We investigated associations between nonacademic school experiences and children's mental health. METHODS: Parents of children ages 6 to 18 years completed online surveys about school experiences (November 2020) and mental health (February/March 2021). Parent-reported and child-reported school experiences (i.e., nonacademic factors) included school importance, adapting to public health measures, and school connectedness. Children's mental health symptoms of depression, anxiety, inattention, and hyperactivity were collected using standardized parent-reported measures. RESULTS: Children's (N = 1052) self-reported and parent-reported nonacademic factors were associated with mental health outcomes, after adjusting for demographics and previous mental health. Lower importance, worse adapting to school changes, and less school connectedness were associated with greater depressive symptoms ( B = -4.68, CI [-6.04, -3.67] to - 8.73 CI [-11.47, 5.99]). Lower importance and worse adapting were associated with greater anxiety symptoms ( B = - 0.83 , CI [-1.62, -0.04] to -1.04 CI [-1.60, -0.48]). Lower importance was associated with greater inattention (B = -4.75, CI [-6.60, -2.90] to -6.37, CI [-11.08, -7.50]). Lower importance and worse adapting were associated with greater hyperactivity (B = -1.86, CI [-2.96, -0.77] to -4.71, CI [-5.95, -3.01]). CONCLUSION: Schools offer learning opportunities that extend beyond curriculum content and are a primary environment where children and youth develop connections with others. These aspects of school, beyond academics, should be recognized as key correlates of child and youth mental health.

From participants to partners: reconceptualising authentic patient engagement roles in youth mental health research.

The value of involving people with lived experience in the research process (ie, patient engagement) is increasingly being recognised within youth mental health research. The wide-reaching benefits of patient engagement have been documented in the literature, including the empowerment of patients, improvement of research outcomes, and increased relevance of research findings. Although various models exist to guide patient engagement, there are key concepts that deserve exploration to ensure the authentic implementation of these models and development of patient roles. Our Personal View aims to: identify and discuss barriers to patient engagement roles in the context of youth mental health research; consider how key concepts of relational empowerment, fluidity, and flexibility can address some of these barriers; and provide tangible recommendations for implementing authentic patient engagement throughout the research process.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

School and learning contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for child and youth mental health.

Despite significant disruption to school during the COVID-19 pandemic, research on the impact on children is sparse. This study examines in-person and virtual learning contexts and the impact of school format on mental health (MH). Children and adolescents were recruited from community and clinical settings. Parents and children completed prospective online surveys about school experiences (November 2020) and MH symptoms (February/March 2021), including school format and activities. Standardized measures of depression, anxiety, inattention, and hyperactivity were collected. Hierarchical regression analyses tested associations between school format and MH. Children (N = 1011; aged 6-18 years) attending school in-person (n = 549) engaged in high levels of participation in COVID-19 health measures and low levels of social learning activities. Learning online in high school was associated with greater MH symptoms (B = -2.22, CI[-4.32,-.12] to B = -8.18, CI[-15.59,-.77]). Children with no previous MH condition that attended school virtually experienced a similar magnitude of MH symptoms as those with previous MH conditions. However, children who attended school in a hybrid in-person format, with no previous MH condition, experienced less hyperactivity as same-age peers with prior MH problems (B = -8.08, CI[1.58,14.58]). Children's learning environments looked very different compared to before the pandemic. Removing children from school environments and limiting opportunities that support their MH, such as social learning activities, is problematic. Efforts to address the learning contexts to protect the mental health of children are needed.

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.

Outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported in randomised controlled trials of anxiety disorder treatments in children and adolescents: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent and persistent mental health conditions worldwide affecting between 10% and 20% of children and adolescents. Despite the high prevalence of paediatric AD, there is limited understanding of which treatments work best. Outcome heterogeneity across paediatric mental health trials has been a significant factor in hindering the ability to compare results and assess the efficacy of such trials. This scoping review will help to identify and synthesise the outcomes reported in paediatric AD trials to date. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, a comprehensive electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL) strategy will be applied to identify articles examining interventions for children diagnosed with an AD. Articles will be eligible for inclusion if they assess at least one AD intervention (eg, psychological), in children 4-18 years of age inclusive. Initial title and abstract screening will be completed by two trained reviewers independently and in duplicate. Full-text screening of each included article will be completed independently and in duplicate by two of three trained reviewers. Identified outcomes will be mapped to a standard outcome taxonomy developed for core outcome sets. Trial and outcome characteristics will be synthesised using quantitative metrics (counts and frequencies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a scoping review of the literature and patient information or records were not accessed, institutional ethics approval was not required. Results of this scoping review will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers inclusive of trialists and other stakeholders invested in outcome selection, measurement and reporting in paediatric AD trials. In addition, scoping review results will inform the development of a Core Outcome Set for paediatric AD trials-a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured across trials in an area of health, without precluding the inclusion of other outcomes.

Participating in extracurricular activities and school sports during the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations with child and youth mental health.

In Ontario, Canada, school extracurricular activities and sports were modified or canceled for a prolonged period due to public health restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study aims to examine the association of changes to extracurricular and sport participation and child and youth mental health. Data were collected on child and youth mental health symptoms (n = 908) and participation in extracurricular activities and sports in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 academic years. Results indicated that pre-COVID (2019-2020) participation in either extracurricular activities or sports was associated with reduced anxiety, inattention, and hyperactivity during the pandemic (ß range -0.08 to -0.11, p < 0.05). Participation in either extracurricular activities or sports during-COVID (2020-2021) was associated with lower depressive symptoms (ß range -0.09 to -0.10, p < 0.05). Findings suggest that participation in extracurricular activities and/or school sports both before or during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with better mental health outcomes in children and youth. Implications of this work consider future situations where restrictions on extracurricular and sport participation are reinstated and the impact of child and youth mental health.

Evaluation of parent and youth experiences in advisory groups as part of a mental healthcare clinical trial: protocol for a mixed-method study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement in healthcare research is a necessity to ensure that research objectives align with priorities, outcomes and needs of the population under study, and to facilitate ease of implementation and adoption of findings. In clinical trials, there is an increasing focus on patient engagement during the planning and conduct of clinical trials due to the potential for ethical and methodological benefits. As patient engagement in clinical trials increases, there is a need to evaluate the approaches of these activities to contribute evidence on what is most appropriate and successful. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient engagement processes and the activities of patient partners during and after a paediatric mental healthcare trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a mixed-methods study design, we will evaluate patient partners' engagement activities across set time-points during the trial and after trial completion. In this study, the term 'patient partner' is inclusive of two groups of people with lived experience: (1) caregivers (parents, formal/informal caregivers and family), and (2) youth (aged 15-24 years). Engagement will be evaluated using the participant and project questionnaires of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET), followed sequentially by semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data from the PPEET questionnaire will be analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Data from open-ended questions from the PPEET questionnaires and semi-structured interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from Athabasca University Research Ethics Board will be obtained for this project. Findings will be disseminated at both academic and public venues whether in-person or online, and using platforms that are caregiver and youth friendly. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04902391.

An Innovative Model of Pediatric Emergency Department Mental Health Care: Protocol for a Multicenter Type 1 Effectiveness-Implementation Cluster Randomized Trial.

Over the past decade, visits to American and Canadian emergency departments (EDs) for child and youth mental health care have increased substantially.1,2 Acute mental health crises can occur as a result of a variety of concerns, including those that are life threatening (eg, suicide attempts), pose safety concerns (eg, suicidal intentions, aggressive behaviors, alcohol and other drug use), and are physically distressing to the child or youth (eg, panic attacks). ED health care providers play a vital role in assessing the safety and well-being of the child or youth and referring them to services for ongoing care.3,4 During the ED visit, assessment and care should pinpoint risks, inform treatment, and consider family needs and preferences as part of a patient-centered approach. Yet, this approach to care is not widely adopted in EDs. Most EDs do not require the use of pediatric-specific mental health tools to guide assessments or have patient-centered procedures in place to guide the care of patients with mental health emergencies.5-7 Our team believes these limitations have led to the provision of acute mental health care that can lack sufficient quality and efficiency. This study protocol describes a trial designed to evaluate if a novel mental health care bundle that was co-designed with parents and youth results in greater improvements in the well-being of children and youth 30 days after seeking ED care for mental health and/or substance misuse concerns compared with existing care protocols. We hypothesize that the bundle will positively impact child and youth well-being, while also providing cost-effective health care system benefits.

Mental health profiles of autistic children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: Canadian province-wide lockdowns have challenged children's mental health (MH) during the COVID-19 pandemic, with autistic children being at particular risk. The purpose of our study was to identify sub-groups of autistic children with distinct mental health change profiles, to understand the child-, parent-, and system-specific factors associated with such profiles in order to ultimately inform future interventions. Methods: Data were drawn from a large Canadian cohort (N=1,570) across Ontario, resulting in 265 autistic children (mean age=10.9 years, 76% male). K-means clustering analyses were employed to partition distinct MH profiles in six MH measures (mood, anxiety, OCD symptoms, irritability, inattention, hyperactivity) and group differences were examined with reference to the above factors. Additionally, we investigated the characteristics of children who accessed acute MH services. Results: The optimal number of clusters was two; one included those experiencing MH deterioration across all six MH measures (61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=54.9 to 67.4), and a second included youth that did not experience MH changes (38.7%, 95%CI=32.6 to 45.1). Child-specific factors associated with MH deterioration included higher pre-existing internalizing symptoms, high levels of COVID stress. Parental MH challenges and system-specific factors, such as the loss of learning supports, access to physicians and material deprivation, were also associated with MH deterioration. Access to acute MH services were primarily associated with financial insecurity and loss of services. Conclusions: More than half of autistic children experienced MH deterioration, and person-specific (pre-existing MH, COVID related stress), parent-specific (Parent MH) and system-level (loss of services and material deprivation) characteristics were associated with such decline, providing clinical and policy opportunities for intervention at multiple levels.