Retrospective audit of a school-based integrated health-care model in a specialised school for children with externalising behaviour.

AIM: Problematic externalising behaviours in adolescents are associated with high individual and societal burden. A school-based multidisciplinary health clinic, Ngaramadhi Space (NS), was developed at Yudi Gunyi School, a specialised behavioural school in Sydney, Australia, to improve access to holistic health-care and behavioural support. This evaluation aimed to describe the demographics, clinic attendance, health screening, recommendations made, and changes in Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores of students attending the clinic. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of students including changes in SDQ scores using descriptive statistics (26 July 2016 to 14 May 2019; n = 79). RESULTS: Prior to the assessment, few students engaged with a paediatrician or mental health professional (22.8%; 27.8%, respectively). Child protection services were involved with 76%. NS attendance was high (failure-to-attend = 7.6%; cancellations = 8.9%). New issues found at the assessment included: parental separation (31.6%); trauma history (27.8%); substance use (19%); emotional wellbeing concerns (16.5%), learning difficulties (12.7%), domestic violence (12.7%) and medical conditions (10.1%). SDQ teacher reports showed a significant decrease in total difficulties scores (M = 6.2, SD = 6.165, P < 0.05, eta squared = 1.013 (large effect)) and all subsets. No significant differences in parent and self-reported SDQ. CONCLUSIONS: Students with problematic externalising behaviour have unmet health and social needs. The NS school-based integrated health-care model offers a novel, convenient and innovative way to engage these students. This approach has high initial attendance rates with teacher-reported SDQ results showing some behavioural improvement. Further qualitative studies are required.

Identifying and responding to family adversity in Australian community and primary health settings: a multi-site cross sectional study.

Background: Unaddressed family adversity has potentially modifiable, negative biopsychosocial impacts across the life course. Little is known about how Australian health and social practitioners identify and respond to family adversity in community and primary health settings. Objective: To describe, in two Australian community health services: (1) the number of adversities experienced by caregivers, (2) practitioner identification of caregivers experiencing adversity, (3) practitioner response to caregivers experiencing adversity, and (4) caregiver uptake of referrals. Methods: Survey of caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending community health services in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW). Analysis described frequencies of caregiver self-reported: (1) experiences of adversity, (2) practitioner identification of adversity, (3) practitioner response to adversity, and (4) referral uptake. Analyses were sub-grouped by three adversity domains and site. Results: 349 caregivers (Victoria: n = 234; NSW: n = 115) completed the survey of whom 88% reported experiencing one or more family adversities. The median number of adversities was 4 (2-6). Only 43% of participants were directly asked about or discussed an adversity with a practitioner in the previous 6 months (Victoria: 30%; NSW: 68%). Among caregivers experiencing adversity, 30% received direct support (Victoria: 23%; NSW: 43%), and 14% received a referral (Victoria: 10%; NSW: 22%) for at least one adversity. Overall, 74% of caregivers accepted referrals when extended. Conclusion: The needs of Australian families experiencing high rates of adversity are not systematically identified nor responded to in community health services. This leaves significant scope for reform and enhancement of service responses to families experiencing adversity.

A systematic review of the biological, social, and environmental determinants of intellectual disability in children and adolescents.

Aim: This systematic review aimed to identify the most important social, environmental, biological, and/or genetic risk factors for intellectual disability (ID). Methods: Eligible were published prospective or retrospective comparative studies investigating risk factors for ID in children 4-18 years. Exclusions were single group studies with no comparator without ID and a sample size <100. Electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Campbell Collaboration, and CINAHL) were searched for eligible publications from 1980 to 2020. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal instruments, appropriate for study type, were used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Descriptive characteristics and individual study results were presented followed by the synthesis for individual risk factors, also assessed using GRADE. Results: Fifty-eight individual eligible studies were grouped into six exposure topics: sociodemographic; antenatal and perinatal; maternal physical health; maternal mental health; environmental; genetic or biological studies. There were few eligible genetic studies. For half the topics, the certainty of evidence (GRADE) was moderate or high. Conclusion: Multiple studies have examined individual potential determinants of ID, but few have investigated holistically to identify those populations most at risk. Our review would indicate that there are vulnerable groups where risk factors we identified, such as low socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, teenage motherhood, maternal mental illness, and alcohol abuse, may cluster, highlighting a target for preventive strategies. At-risk populations need to be identified and monitored so that interventions can be implemented when appropriate, at preconception, during pregnancy, or after birth. This could reduce the likelihood of ID and provide optimal opportunities for vulnerable infants. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=120032], identifier [CRD42019120032].

Co-Design of a Neurodevelopment Assessment Scale: A Study Protocol.

Neurodevelopmental disorders are a heterogeneous group of conditions with overlapping symptomatology and fluctuating developmental trajectories that transcend current diagnostic categorisation. There is a need for validated screening instruments which dimensionally assess symptomatology from a holistic, transdiagnostic perspective. The primary aim is to co-design a Neurodevelopment Assessment Scale (NAS), a user-friendly transdiagnostic assessment inventory that systematically screens for all signs and symptoms commonly encountered in neurodevelopmental disorders. Our first objective is to undertake development of this tool, utilising co-design principles in partnership with stakeholders, including both those with lived experience of neurodevelopmental disorders and service providers. Our second objective is to evaluate the face validity, as well as the perceived utility, user-friendliness, suitability, and acceptability (i.e., 'social validity'), of the NAS from the perspective of parents/caregivers and adults with neurodevelopmental disorders, clinicians, and service providers. Our third objective is to ascertain the psychometric properties of the NAS, including content validity and convergent validity. The NAS will provide an efficient transdiagnostic tool for evaluating all relevant signs, symptoms, and the dimensional constructs that underpin neurodevelopmental presentations. It is anticipated that this will maximise outcomes by enabling the delivery of personalised care tailored to an individual's unique profile in a holistic and efficient manner.