How to make mental health services more youth-friendly? A Delphi study involving young adults, parents and professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Although youth-friendly service characteristics have been previously identified, consensus among a representative group of stakeholders about which of these characteristics are truly relevant to the youth-friendliness of services is currently lacking. In our study, young adults, parents and professionals were consulted on this topic to reveal existing (dis)agreement. In addition, (dis)agreement on feasibility for implementation in clinical practice was also assessed. METHODS: A mixed-method Delphi approach was used with three online questionnaire rounds and a physical meeting. Young adults (18-26 years) and parents were part of a public panel and professionals were allocated to the professional panel. In the rounds, participants were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each item. Subsequently, the percentage agreement (% of participants giving a score of 7 or above on a 9-point Likert scale) within and across panels was calculated. Consensus was assumed to have been reached when at least 70% agreement was achieved. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data, obtained in the rounds and the physical meeting, was performed to identify overarching themes and characteristics of relevance to the youth-friendliness of services. RESULTS: For 65% of the items included in the Delphi questionnaire, consensus on importance was reached within both panels. Participants showed more insecurity about the feasibility of these items, however. Our thematic analysis revealed reasons for disagreement between and within the panels. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed substantial between- and within-panel agreement on youth-friendly service characteristics. We recommend that the items for which consensus was reached should be used as a checklist in terms of youth mental health service development, design and delivery. The characteristics for which there was disagreement between and within the panels should inspire an ongoing trialogue between young adults, parents and professionals both on the individual level and the service level. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In this study, (parents of) young adults with lived experience were included as experts, including one of the coauthors. This coauthor contributed to the manuscript by having a final say about the included quotes.

A user perspective on youth mental health services: Increasing help-seeking behaviour requires addressing service preferences and attitudinal barriers.

AIM: Although the incidence of mental health problems is highest in young people, the majority do not seek help. Reducing the discrepancy between need for care and access to services requires an understanding of the user perspective, which is largely lacking. This study aimed to examine preferences for mental health service attributes and their relative importance among young people, as well as the potential impact on actual help-seeking intentions. METHODS: Youth aged 16-24 years (N = 258) participated in a discrete choice experiment. In addition to choosing which service would suit their needs most out of two service options in nine choice sets, participants were asked whether they would consult the chosen service in the case of mental health problems. Demographic information was also collected, as well as their current mental health status, experience with and perceived barriers to care. Panel mixed logit models were estimated. RESULTS: Young people's preferences were mostly driven by the attribute 'format', with a preference for individual rather than group therapy. Other attributes, in order of importance, were 'wait times' (short), 'cost' (low), 'healthcare professionals' expertise' (particular experience with working with youth aged 12 to 25 years), and 'location' (house in a city). However, a majority of young people would not consult the service they had indicated, mainly due to attitudinal barriers such as wanting to deal with problems on their own (self-reliance). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing psychological barriers to access care should be a priority in mental health policies. Furthermore, entry point services, in particular, should be able to provide the option of individual treatment.

What influences clinicians' decisions about ADHD medication? Initial data from the Influences on Prescribing for ADHD Questionnaire (IPAQ).

Despite evidence for its efficacy and effectiveness, the use of medication for the treatment of ADHD remains controversial. Little is known about the factors that influence clinicians' decisions to use medication for ADHD. Here, we present initial data on the attitudes of prescribing clinicians from the Influences on Prescribing for ADHD Questionnaire (IPAQ)-a new clinician-completed, 40-item scale. The eight IPAQ subscales cover attitudes towards (1) treatment outcome optimisation, (2) the use of rule based over more informal approaches, (3) side effects, (4) symptoms control as the primary goal of treatment, (5) the influence of external pressure on medication-related decisions, (6) the value of taking the child's views into account, (7) long-term medication use and (8) the value of psychosocial approaches for the treatment of ADHD. Sixty-eight clinicians from Belgium and the UK took part. All subscales had acceptable levels of internal reliability (Chronbach's alpha = 0.62-0.78). Overall, clinicians reported taking a rule-based approach to prescribing with a focus on treatment optimisation, taking the child's view into account and valuing psycho-social approaches. They focused on treating broader patterns of impairment, but were wary of the potential side effects and long-term treatment. Psychiatrists scored high on their focus on symptom control and preference for long-term medication use, while paediatricians reported using more rule-based approaches. We identified four distinctive response profiles: (1) pro-psychosocial; (2) medication focused; (3) unsystematic; and (4) response optimizers. Future larger scale studies are required to replicate these profiles and to explore their relationship with prescribing behaviour and treatment outcomes.

The decisions regarding ADHD management (DRAMa) study: uncertainties and complexities in assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from the clinician's point of view.

Clinical decision making is influenced by a range of factors and constitutes an inherently complex task. Here we present results from the decisions regarding ADHD management (DRAMa) study in which we undertook a thematic analysis of clinicians' experiences and attitudes to assessment, diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. Fifty prescribing child psychiatrists and paediatricians from Belgium and the UK took part in semi-structured interviews about their decisions regarding the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. Interviews were transcribed and processed using thematic analysis and the principles of grounded theory. Clinicians described the assessment and diagnostic process as inherently complicated and requiring time and experience to piece together the accounts of children made by multiple sources and through the use of varying information gathering techniques. Treatment decisions were viewed as a shared process between families, children, and the clinician. Published guidelines were viewed as vague, and few clinicians spoke about the use of symptom thresholds or specific impairment criteria. Furthermore, systematic or operationalised criteria to assess treatment outcomes were rarely used. Decision making in ADHD is regarded as a complicated, time consuming process which requires extensive use of clinical impression, and involves a partnership with parents. Clinicians want to separate biological from environmental causal factors to understand the level of impairment and the subsequent need for a diagnosis of ADHD. Clinical guidelines would benefit from revisions to take into account the real-world complexities of clinical decision making for ADHD.