Comprehensive care programmes for children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) represent a small, but growing, proportion of all children. Regardless of their underlying diagnosis, by definition, all CMC have similar functional limitations and high healthcare needs. It has been suggested that improving aspects of healthcare delivery for CMC improves health- and quality of life-related outcomes for children and their families and reduces healthcare-related expenditure. As a result, dedicated comprehensive care programmes have been established at many hospitals to meet the needs of CMC; however, it is unclear if such programmes are effective. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive care programmes that aim to improve care coordination and other aspects of health care for CMC and to assess whether the effectiveness of such programmes differs according to the programme setting and structure. We aimed to assess their effectiveness in relation to child and parent health, functioning, and quality of life, quality of care, number of healthcare encounters, unmet healthcare needs, and total healthcare-related costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL in May 2023. We also searched reference lists, trial registries, and the grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies were included. Studies that compared enrolment in a comprehensive care programme with non-enrolment in such a programme/treatment as usual were included. Participants were children that met the criteria for the definition of CMC, which is: having (i) a chronic condition, (ii) functional limitations, (iii) increased health and other service needs, and (iv) increased healthcare costs. Studies that included the following types of outcomes were included: health; quality of care; utilisation, coverage and access; resource use and costs; equity; and adverse outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias in each included study, and evaluated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE criteria. Where possible, data were represented in forest plots and pooled. We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis for comparisons and outcomes, so we used a structured synthesis approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with a total of 912 CMC as participants. All included studies were randomised controlled trials conducted in hospitals in the USA or Canada. Participants varied across the included studies; however, all four studies included children with complex and chronic illness and high healthcare needs. While the primary aim of the intervention was similar across all four studies, the components of the interventions differed: in the four studies, the intervention involved some element of care coordination; in two of the studies, it involved the child receiving care from a multidisciplinary team, while in one study, the intervention was primarily centred on access to an advanced practice nurse care coordinator and another study involved nurse a practitioner-paediatrician dyad partnering with families. The risk of bias in the four studies varied across domains, with issues primarily relating to the lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors, inadequate allocation concealment, and incomplete outcome data. Comprehensive care for CMC compared to usual care may make little to no difference to child health, functioning, and quality of life at 12 or 24 months (three studies with 404 participants) and we assessed the evidence for the outcomes in this category (child health-related quality of life and functional status) as being of low certainty. For CMC, comprehensive care probably makes little or no difference to parent health, functioning, and quality of life compared to usual care at 12 months (one study with 117 participants) and we assessed the evidence for this outcome as being of moderate certainty. Comprehensive care for CMC compared to usual care may slightly improve child and family satisfaction with, and perceptions of, care and service delivery at 12 months (three studies with 453 participants); however, we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of low certainty. For CMC, comprehensive care probably makes little or no difference to the number of healthcare encounters (emergency department visits) and the number of hospitalised days (hospital admissions) compared to usual care at 12 months (three studies with 668 participants), and we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of moderate certainty. Three of the included studies (668 participants) reported cost outcomes and had conflicting results, with one study reporting significantly lower healthcare costs at 12 months in the intervention group compared to the control group, one reporting no differences between groups, and the other study reporting a greater increase in total healthcare costs in the intervention group compared to the control group. Overall, comprehensive care may make little or no difference to overall healthcare costs in CMC; however, the methods used to measure total healthcare costs varied across studies and the certainty of the evidence relating to this outcome is low. No studies assessed the costs to the family. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was available to be included. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the effectiveness of comprehensive care for CMC ranged from low to moderate across outcomes and there is currently insufficient evidence on which to draw strong conclusions. There is a need for more high-quality randomised trials with consistency of the target population and intervention components, methods of reporting outcomes, and follow-up periods, as well as full cost analyses, taking into account both costs to the family and costs to the healthcare system.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for autistic spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (autism) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, plus restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests. Whilst some people embrace autism as part of their identity, others struggle with their difficulties, and some seek treatment. There are no current interventions that result in complete reduction of autism features. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter for the cholinergic system and has a role in attention, novelty seeking, and memory. Low levels of acetylcholine have been investigated as a potential contributor to autism symptomatology. Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine (commonly referred to as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) all inhibit acetylcholinesterase, and have slightly different modes of action and biological availability, so their effectiveness and side-effect profiles may vary. The effect of various acetylcholinesterase inhibitor on core autism features across the lifespan, and possible adverse effects, have not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and harms of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for people with the core features (social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviours) of autism. To assess the effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on non-core features of autism. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g. galantamine, donepezil, or rivastigmine) of varying doses, delivered orally or via transdermal patch, either as monotherapy or adjunct therapy, with placebo. People of any age, with a clinical diagnosis of autism were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were core features of autism and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, irritability, hyperactivity, and general health and function. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (74 participants). One study was conducted in Iran, the second in the USA, although exact location in the USA is unclear. Galantamine plus risperidone versus placebo plus risperidone One study compared the effects of galantamine plus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone (40 participants, aged 4 years to 12 years). Primary and secondary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (score 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed there was little to no difference between the two groups postintervention for social communication (mean difference (MD) -2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.88 to 0.38), and restricted and repetitive behaviour (MD -0.55, 95% CI -3.47 to 2.37). Overall autism features were not assessed. Adverse events may be higher in the galantamine plus risperidone group (75%) compared with the placebo plus risperidone group (35%): odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 21.86, low-certainty evidence. No serious adverse events were reported. Low-certainty evidence showed a small difference in irritability (MD -3.50, 95% CI -6.39 to -0.61), with the galantamine plus risperidone group showing a greater decline on the irritability subscale than the placebo group postintervention. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in hyperactivity postintervention (MD -5.20, 95% CI -10.51 to 0.11). General health and function were not assessed. Donepezil versus placebo One study compared donepezil to placebo (34 participants aged 8 years to 17 years). Primary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Modified Version of The Real Life Rating Scale (scored 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed no evidence of group differences immediately postintervention in overall autism features (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33), or in the autism symptom domains of social communication (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.30), and restricted and repetitive behaviours (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.35). Significant adverse events leading to study withdrawal in at least one participant was implied in the data analysis section, but not explicitly reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of donepezil, compared to placebo, on the secondary outcomes of interest, including irritability (MD 1.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.57), hyperactivity (MD 2.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.70), and general health and function (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.54) postintervention. Across all analyses within this comparison, we judged the evidence to be very low-certainty due to high risk of bias, and very serious imprecision (results based on one small study with wide confidence intervals). The study narratively reported adverse events for the study as a whole, rather than by treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence about the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors as a medication to improve outcomes for autistic adults is lacking, and for autistic children is very uncertain. There is a need for more evidence of improvement in outcomes of relevance to clinical care, autistic people, and their families. There are a number of ongoing studies involving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and future updates of this review may add to the current evidence.

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications. OBJECTIVES: To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Teaching mental health first aid in the school setting: a novel approach to improving outcomes for common adolescent mental disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Common adolescent mental disorders, such as depression, often go untreated and severely impact health and educational outcomes. The purpose of this review is to describe what is currently known about school-based mental health interventions and to describe a new intervention, Mental Health First Aid training. RECENT FINDINGS: Universal and selective prevention and treatment programmes have been widely evaluated, though population-level dissemination remains elusive. A novel approach is to train adolescents in how to recognise early signs of mental disorder onset, decrease stigmatising beliefs and barriers to help-seeking, and to use appropriate first aid strategies for assisting peers in mental health crisis, such as those with depression and suicidal ideation. SUMMARY: Teaching adolescents the skills necessary to recognise and respond to mental health problems and mental health crises may provide life-long skills that prompt lower stigmatising beliefs, greater support of peers and appropriate, timely help-seeking.

Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for young people with suicide-related behaviour (Reframe-IT): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Suicide-related behaviours are common in young people and associated with a range of negative outcomes. There are few evidence-based interventions; however, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) shows promise. Internet delivery of CBT is popular, with potential to increase reach and accessibility. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of an internet-based CBT program (Reframe-IT) in reducing suicide-related behaviours, depression, anxiety, hopelessness and improving problem solving and cognitive and behavioural skills in school students with suicide-related behaviours. METHODS: A parallel randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness of Reframe-IT plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU alone in reducing suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, depression, hopelessness, symptoms of anxiety, negative problem orientation and cognitive and behavioural skill acquisition was undertaken. We recruited students experiencing suicidal ideation from 18 schools in Melbourne, Australia, between August 2013 and December 2016. The intervention comprised eight modules of CBT delivered online over 10 weeks with assessments conducted at baseline, 10 weeks and 22 weeks. FINDINGS: Only 50 of the planned 169 participants were recruited. There were larger improvements in the Reframe-IT group compared with the TAU group for the primary outcome of suicidal ideation (intervention -61.6, SD 41.6; control -47.1, SD 42.3, from baseline to 22-week follow-up intervention); however, differences were non-significant (p=0.593). There were no increases in distress in the majority of participants (91.1%) after completion of each module. Changes in depression and hopelessness partly mediated the effect of acquisition of CBT skills on suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was underpowered due to difficulties recruiting participants as a result of the complex recruitment procedures that were used to ensure safety of participants. Although there were no significant differences between groups, young people were safely and generally well engaged in Reframe-IT and experienced decreases in suicidal ideation and other symptoms as well as improvements in CBT skills. The study is the first online intervention trial internationally to include young people demonstrating all levels of suicide risk. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Integration of internet-delivered interventions for young people with suicide-related behaviour may result in reductions in these behaviours. Further research is needed, but researchers should feel more confident about being able to safely undertake research with young people who experience these behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000864729.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT and interpersonal therapy (IPT) based interventions for preventing depression in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in young people. It has a marked negative impact and is associated with self-harm and suicide. Preventing its onset would be an important advance in public health. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was last updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether evidence-based psychological interventions (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT) and third wave CBT)) are effective in preventing the onset of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group (CCMDCTR to 11 September 2015), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We searched conference abstracts and reference lists of included trials and reviews, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of an evidence-based psychological prevention programme compared with any comparison control for young people aged 5 to 19 years, who did not currently meet diagnostic criteria for depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and rated their risk of bias. We adjusted sample sizes to take account of cluster designs and multiple comparisons. We contacted trial authors for additional information where needed. We assessed the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 83 trials in this review. The majority of trials (67) were carried out in school settings with eight in colleges or universities, four in clinical settings, three in the community and four in mixed settings. Twenty-nine trials were carried out in unselected populations and 53 in targeted populations.For the primary outcome of depression diagnosis at medium-term follow-up (up to 12 months), there were 32 trials with 5965 participants and the risk of having a diagnosis of depression was reduced for participants receiving an intervention compared to those receiving no intervention (risk difference (RD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to -0.01; P value = 0.01). We rated this evidence as moderate quality according to the GRADE criteria. There were 70 trials (73 trial arms) with 13,829 participants that contributed to the analysis for the primary outcome of depression symptoms (self-rated) at the post-intervention time point, with results showing a small but statistically significant effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.21, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.15; P value < 0.0001). This effect persisted to the short-term assessment point (up to three months) (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.17; P value < 0.0001; 16 studies; 1558 participants) and medium-term (4 to 12 months) assessment point (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; P value = 0.0002; 53 studies; 11,913 participants); however, the effect was no longer evident at the long-term follow-up. We rated this evidence as low to moderate quality according to the GRADE criteria.The evidence from this review is unclear with regard to whether the type of population modified the overall effects; there was statistically significant moderation of the overall effect for depression symptoms (P value = 0.0002), but not for depressive disorder (P value = 0.08). For trials implemented in universal populations there was no effect for depression diagnosis (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01) and a small effect for depression symptoms (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.05). For trials implemented in targeted populations there was a statistically significantly beneficial effect of intervention (depression diagnosis RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; depression symptoms SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.23). Of note were the lack of attention placebo-controlled trials in targeted populations (none for depression diagnosis and four for depression symptoms). Among trials implemented in universal populations a number used an attention placebo comparison in which the intervention consistently showed no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall the results show small positive benefits of depression prevention, for both the primary outcomes of self-rated depressive symptoms post-intervention and depression diagnosis up to 12 months (but not beyond). Estimates of numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTB = 11) compare well with other public health interventions. However, the evidence was of moderate to low quality using the GRADE framework and the results were heterogeneous. Prevention programmes delivered to universal populations showed a sobering lack of effect when compared with an attention placebo control. Interventions delivered to targeted populations, particularly those selected on the basis of depression symptoms, had larger effect sizes, but these seldom used an attention placebo comparison and there are practical difficulties inherent in the implementation of targeted programmes. We conclude that there is still not enough evidence to support the implementation of depression prevention programmes.Future research should focus on current gaps in our knowledge. Given the relative lack of evidence for universal interventions compared with attention placebo controls and the poor results from well-conducted effectiveness trials of universal interventions, in our opinion any future such trials should test a depression prevention programme in an indicated targeted population using a credible attention placebo comparison group. Depressive disorder as the primary outcome should be measured over the longer term, as well as clinician-rated depression. Such a trial should consider scalability as well as the potential for the intervention to do harm.

Development of suicide postvention guidelines for secondary schools: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide of school-aged adolescents is a significant problem, with serious implications for students and staff alike. To date, there is a lack of evidence regarding the most effective way for a secondary school to respond to the suicide of a student, termed postvention [(Crisis 33:208-214, 2012), (Crisis 34:164-182, 2013)]. The aim of this study was to employ the expert consensus (Delphi) methodology to the development of a set of guidelines, to assist English-speaking secondary schools to develop a plan to respond to a student suicide, or to respond to a suicide in the absence of a predetermined plan. METHODS: The Delphi methodology was employed, which involved a two-stage process. Firstly, medical and research databases, existing postvention guidelines developed for schools, and lay literature were searched in order to identify potential actions that school staff could carry out following the suicide of a student. Based on this search, an online questionnaire was produced. Secondly, 40 experts in the area of suicide postvention from English-speaking countries were recruited and asked to rate each action contained within this questionnaire, in terms of how important they felt it was to be included in the postvention guidelines. A set of guidelines was developed based on these responses. In total, panel members considered 965 actions across three consensus rounds. RESULTS: Five hundred fourty-eight actions were endorsed for inclusion into the postvention guidelines based on an 80% consensus agreement threshold. These actions were groups according to common themes, which are presented in the following sections: 1. Developing an Emergency Response Plan; 2. Forming an Emergency Response Team; 3. Activating the Emergency Response Team; 4. Managing a suspected suicide that occurs on school grounds; 5. Liaising with the deceased student's family; 6. Informing staff of the suicide; 7. Informing students of the suicide; 8. Informing parents of the suicide; 9. Informing the wider community of the suicide; 10. Identifying and supporting high-risk students; 11. Ongoing support of students; 12. Ongoing support of staff; 13. Dealing with the media; 14. Internet and social media; 15. The deceased student's belongings; 16. Funeral and memorial; 17. Continued monitoring of students and staff; 18. Documentation; 19. Critical Incident Review and annual review of the ER Plan; 20. Future prevention. Panel members frequently commented on every suicide being 'unique', and the need for flexibility in the guidelines, in order to accommodate the resources available, and the culture of the school community. CONCLUSION: In order to respond effectively and safely to the suicide of a student, schools need to undertake a variety of postvention actions. These are the first set of postvention guidelines produced worldwide for secondary schools that are based on expert opinion using the Delphi method.

Where to go from here? An exploratory meta-analysis of the most promising approaches to depression prevention programs for children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the overall effect of individual depression prevention programs on future likelihood of depressive disorder and reduction in depressive symptoms. In addition, we have investigated whether Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), Interpersonal Therapy (IPT) and other therapeutic techniques may modify this effectiveness. METHODS: This study is based on and includes the trial data from meta-analyses conducted in the Cochrane systematic review of depression prevention programs for children and adolescents by Merry et al. (2011). All trials were published or unpublished English language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs of any psychological or educational intervention compared to no intervention to prevent depression in children and adolescents aged 5-19 years. RESULTS: There is some evidence that the therapeutic approach used in prevention programs modifies the overall effect. CBT is the most studied type of intervention for depression prevention, and there is some evidence of its effectiveness in reducing the risk of developing a depressive disorder, particularly in targeted populations. Fewer studies employed IPT, however this approach appears promising. To our knowledge, this is the first study to have explored how differences in the approach taken in the prevention programs modify the overall treatment effects of prevention programs for children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to identify the specific components of CBT that are most effective or indeed if there are other approaches that are more effective in reducing the risk of future depressive episodes. It is imperative that prevention programs are suitable for large scale roll-out, and that emerging popular modes of delivery, such as online dissemination continue to be rigorously tested.

Back to basics: could behavioural therapy be a good treatment option for youth depression? A critical review.

AIM: Recent findings from systematic reviews and primary research studies have shown more modest effects of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for youth depression than previously shown, highlighting the need to further enhance the effectiveness of this intervention, or components of this intervention. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the work that has been done to identify the different components of CBT and their varying effectiveness for young people with depression. METHODS: Narrative overview of English language reviews/meta-analyses and primary intervention studies retrieved from searches of computerized databases as well as ancestry searches. RESULTS: Reviews of intervention studies of adults as well as young people with depression have shown that behavioural approaches are equally as effective as cognitive approaches in reducing depression symptoms. Post-hoc analyses of large studies in youth depression have also shown that behavioural approaches might be more suitable for young people. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviourally based approaches appear promising in treating youth depression; however, further research is required. This research will represent an essential step towards refining interventions for youth depression, and enabling interventions to be targeted to particular subgroups, to optimize their effectiveness.

Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents and, if left untreated, are likely to recur in adulthood. Depression is highly debilitating, affecting psychosocial, family and academic functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We have examined clinical outcomes including remission, clinician and self reported depression measures, and suicide-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 June 2014. The register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared i) any psychological therapy with any antidepressant medication, or ii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy alone, or an antidepressant medication alone, or iii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a placebo or'treatment as usual', or (iv) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy or antidepressant medication plus a placebo.We included studies if they involved participants aged between 6 and 18 years, diagnosed by a clinician as having Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. We applied a random-effects meta-analysis, using the odds ratio (OR) to describe dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) to describe continuous outcomes when the same measures were used, and standard mean difference (SMD) when outcomes were measured on different scales. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven studies, involving 1307 participants in this review. We also identified one ongoing study, and two additional ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion. Studies recruited participants with different severities of disorder and with a variety of comorbid disorders, including anxiety and substance use disorder, therefore limiting the comparability of the results. Regarding the risk of bias in studies, just under half the studies had adequate allocation concealment (there was insufficient information to determine allocation concealment in the remainder), outcome assessors were blind to the participants' intervention in six studies, and in general, studies reported on incomplete data analysis methods, mainly using intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. For the majority of outcomes there were no statistically significant differences between the interventions compared. There was limited evidence (based on two studies involving 220 participants) that antidepressant medication was more effective than psychotherapy on measures of clinician defined remission immediately post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.98), with 67.8% of participants in the medication group and 53.7% in the psychotherapy group rated as being in remission. There was limited evidence (based on three studies involving 378 participants) that combination therapy was more effective than antidepressant medication alone in achieving higher remission from a depressive episode immediately post-intervention (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47), with 65.9% of participants treated with combination therapy and 57.8% of participants treated with medication, rated as being in remission. There was no evidence to suggest that combination therapy was more effective than psychological therapy alone, based on clinician rated remission immediately post-intervention (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.68).Suicide-related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were reported in various ways across studies and could not be combined in meta-analyses. However, some trials measured suicidal ideation using standardised assessment tools suitable for meta-analysis. In one study involving 188 participants, rates of suicidal ideation were significantly higher in the antidepressant medication group (18.6%) compared with the psychological therapy group (5.4%) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72) and this effect appeared to remain at six to nine months (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98), with 13.6% of participants in the medication group and 3.9% of participants in the psychological therapy group reporting suicidal ideation. It was unclear what the effect of combination therapy was compared with either antidepressant medication alone or psychological therapy alone on rates of suicidal ideation. The impact of any of the assigned treatment packages on drop out was also mostly unclear across the various comparisons in the review.Limited data and conflicting results based on other outcome measures make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any specific intervention based on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence upon which to base conclusions about the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions, antidepressant medication and a combination of these interventions. On the basis of the available evidence, the effectiveness of these interventions for treating depressive disorders in children and adolescents cannot be established. Further appropriately powered RCTs are required.

Interventions to reduce suicides at suicide hotspots: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: 'Suicide hotspots' include tall structures (for example, bridges and cliffs), railway tracks, and isolated locations (for example, rural car parks) which offer direct means for suicide or seclusion that prevents intervention. METHODS: We searched Medline for studies that could inform the following question: 'What interventions are available to reduce suicides at hotspots, and are they effective?' RESULTS: There are four main approaches: (a) restricting access to means (through installation of physical barriers); (b) encouraging help-seeking (by placement of signs and telephones); (c) increasing the likelihood of intervention by a third party (through surveillance and staff training); and (d) encouraging responsible media reporting of suicide (through guidelines for journalists). There is relatively strong evidence that reducing access to means can avert suicides at hotspots without substitution effects. The evidence is weaker for the other approaches, although they show promise. CONCLUSIONS: More well-designed intervention studies are needed to strengthen this evidence base.

Newer generation antidepressants for depressive disorders in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common in young people and are associated with significant negative impacts. Newer generation antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are often used, however evidence of their effectiveness in children and adolescents is not clear. Furthermore, there have been warnings against their use in this population due to concerns about increased risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and adverse outcomes, including definitive suicidal behaviour and suicidal ideation, of newer generation antidepressants compared with placebo in the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the review, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to October 2011. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 -), MEDLINE (1950 -) and PsycINFO (1967 -). We searched clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical company websites. We checked reference lists of included trials and other reviews, and sent letters to key researchers and the pharmaceutical companies of included trials from January to August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials and cluster trials comparing a newer generation antidepressant with a placebo in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years old and diagnosed with a depressive disorder were eligible for inclusion. In this update, we amended the selection criteria to include newer generation antidepressants rather than SSRIs only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or three review authors selected the trials, assessed their quality, and extracted trial and outcome data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis. We used risk ratio (RR) to summarise dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) to summarise continuous measures. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials of a range of newer antidepressants compared with placebo, containing 3335 participants, were included. The trials excluded young people at high risk of suicide and many co-morbid conditions and the participants are likely to be less unwell than those seen in clinical practice. We judged none of these trials to be at low risk of bias, with limited information about many aspects of risk of bias, high drop out rates and issues regarding measurement instruments and the clinical usefulness of outcomes, which were often variously defined across trials. Overall, there was evidence that those treated with an antidepressant had lower depression severity scores and higher rates of response/remission than those on placebo. However, the size of these effects was small with a reduction in depression symptoms of 3.51 on a scale from 17 to 113 (14 trials; N = 2490; MD -3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -2.47). Remission rates increased from 380 per 1000 to 448 per 1000 for those treated with an antidepressant. There was evidence of an increased risk (58%) of suicide-related outcome for those on antidepressants compared with a placebo (17 trials; N = 3229; RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.45). This equates to an increased risk in a group with a median baseline risk from 25 in 1000 to 40 in 1000. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that the magnitude of intervention effects (compared with placebo) were modified by individual drug class. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Caution is required in interpreting the results given the methodological limitations of the included trials in terms of internal and external validity. Further, the size and clinical meaningfulness of statistically significant results are uncertain. However, given the risks of untreated depression in terms of completed suicide and impacts on functioning, if a decision to use medication is agreed, then fluoxetine might be the medication of first choice given guideline recommendations. Clinicians need to keep in mind that there is evidence of an increased risk of suicide-related outcomes in those treated with antidepressant medications.

Interventions for preventing relapse and recurrence of a depressive disorder in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders often begin during childhood or adolescence. There is a growing body of evidence supporting effective treatments during the acute phase of a depressive disorder. However, little is known about treatments for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression once an individual has achieved remission or recovery from their symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of early interventions, including psychological and pharmacological interventions, to prevent relapse or recurrence of depressive disorders in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 1 June 2011). The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition we handsearched the references of all included studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials using a psychological or pharmacological intervention, with the aim of preventing relapse or recurrence from an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) or dysthymic disorder (DD) in children and adolescents were included. Participants were required to have been diagnosed with MDD or DD according to DSM or ICD criteria, using a standardised and validated assessment tool. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion in the review, extracted trial and outcome data, and assessed trial quality. Results for dichotomous outcomes are expressed as odds ratio and continuous measures as mean difference or standardised mean difference. We combined results using random-effects meta-analyses, with 95% confidence intervals. We contacted lead authors of included trials and requested additional data where possible. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials with 882 participants were included in the review. In five trials the outcome assessors were blind to the participants' intervention condition and in the remainder of trials it was unclear. In the majority of trials, participants were either not blind to their intervention condition, or it was unclear whether they were or not. Allocation concealment was also unclear in the majority of trials. Although all trials treated participants in an outpatient setting, the designs implemented in trials was diverse, which limits the generalisability of the results. Three trials indicated participants treated with antidepressant medication had lower relapse-recurrence rates (40.9%) compared to those treated with placebo (66.6%) during a relapse prevention phase (odds ratio (OR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.64, P = 0.02). One trial that compared a combination of psychological therapy and medication to medication alone favoured a combination approach over medication alone, however this result did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.15). The majority of trials that involved antidepressant medication reported adverse events including suicide-related behaviours. However, there were not enough data to show which treatment approach results in the most favourable adverse event profile. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is little evidence to conclude which type of treatment approach is most effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of depressive episodes in children and adolescents. Limited trials found that antidepressant medication reduces the chance of relapse-recurrence in the future, however, there is considerable diversity in the design of trials, making it difficult to compare outcomes across studies. Some of the research involving psychological therapies is encouraging, however at present more trials with larger sample sizes need to be conducted in order to explore this treatment approach further.

Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents and, if left untreated, are likely to recur in adulthood. Depression is highly debilitating, affecting psychosocial, family and academic functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We have examined clinical outcomes including remission, clinician and self reported depression measures, and suicide-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 November 2011. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared i) any psychological therapy with any antidepressant medication, or ii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy alone, or an antidepressant medication alone, or iii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a placebo or 'treatment as usual', or (iv) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy or antidepressant medication plus a placebo.We included studies if they involved participants aged between 6 and 18 years, diagnosed by a clinician as having Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. We applied a random-effects meta-analysis, using the odds ratio (OR) to describe dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) to describe continuous outcomes when the same measures were used, and standard mean difference (SMD) when outcomes were measured on different scales. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten studies, involving 1235 participants in this review. Studies recruited participants with different severities of disorder and with a variety of comorbid disorders, including anxiety and substance use disorder, therefore limiting the comparability of the results. Regarding the risk of bias in studies, half the studies had adequate allocation concealment (there was insufficient information to determine allocation concealment in the remainder), outcome assessors were blind to the participants' intervention in six studies, and in general, studies reported on incomplete data analysis methods, mainly using intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. For the majority of outcomes there were no statistically significant differences between the interventions compared. There was limited evidence (based on two studies involving 220 participants) that antidepressant medication was more effective than psychotherapy on measures of clinician defined remission immediately post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.98), with 67.8% of participants in the medication group and 53.7% in the psychotherapy group rated as being in remission. There was limited evidence (based on three studies involving 378 participants) that combination therapy was more effective than antidepressant medication alone in achieving higher remission from a depressive episode immediately post-intervention (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47), with 65.9% of participants treated with combination therapy and 57.8% of participants treated with medication, rated as being in remission. There was no evidence to suggest that combination therapy was more effective than psychological therapy alone, based on clinician rated remission immediately post-intervention (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.68).Suicide-related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were reported in various ways across studies and could not be combined in meta-analyses. However suicidal ideation specifically was generally measured and reported using standardised assessment tools suitable for meta-analysis. In one study involving 188 participants, rates of suicidal ideation were significantly higher in the antidepressant medication group (18.6%) compared with the psychological therapy group (5.4%) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72) and this effect appeared to remain at six to nine months (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.36), with 13.6% of participants in the medication group and 3.9% of participants in the psychological therapy group reporting suicidal ideation. It was unclear what the effect of combination therapy was compared with either antidepressant medication alone or psychological therapy alone on rates of suicidal ideation. The impact of any of the assigned treatment packages on drop out was also mostly unclear across the various comparisons in the review.Limited data and conflicting results based on other outcome measures make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any specific intervention based on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence upon which to base conclusions about the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions, antidepressant medication and a combination of these interventions. On the basis of the available evidence, the effectiveness of these interventions for treating depressive disorders in children and adolescents cannot be established. Further appropriately powered RCTs are required.

Suicide clusters in young people: evidence for the effectiveness of postvention strategies.

BACKGROUND: Suicide clusters have commonly been documented in adolescents and young people. AIMS: The current review conducts a literature search in order to identify and evaluate postvention strategies that have been employed in response to suicide clusters in young people. METHODS: Online databases, gray literature, and Google were searched for relevant articles relating to postvention interventions following a suicide cluster in young people. RESULTS: Few studies have formally documented response strategies to a suicide cluster in young people, and at present only one has been longitudinally evaluated. However, a number of strategies show promise, including: developing a community response plan; educational/psychological debriefings; providing both individual and group counseling to affected peers; screening high risk individuals; responsible media reporting of suicide clusters; and promotion of health recovery within the community to prevent further suicides. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in formal evidence-based guidelines detailing appropriate postvention response strategies to suicide clusters in young people. The low-frequency nature of suicide clusters means that long-term systematic evaluation of response strategies is problematic. However, some broader suicide prevention strategies could help to inform future suicide cluster postvention responses.

Psychological and educational interventions for preventing depression in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in young people, has a marked negative impact and is associated with self-harm and suicide. Preventing its onset would be an important advance in public health.   OBJECTIVES: To determine whether psychological or educational interventions, or both, are effective in preventing the onset of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's trials registers (CCDANCTR) were searched at the editorial base in July 2010. Update searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC were conducted by the authors in September 2009. Conference abstracts, reference lists of included studies and reviews were searched and experts in the field contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of psychological or educational prevention programmes, or both, compared with placebo, any comparison intervention, or no intervention for young people aged 5 to 19 years-old, who did not currently meet diagnostic criteria for depression or who were below the clinical range on standardised, validated, and reliable rating scales of depression, or both, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and rated their quality. Sample sizes were adjusted to take account of cluster designs and multiple comparisons. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.  MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies including 14,406 participants were included in the analysis. There were only six studies with clear allocation concealment, participants and assessors were mostly not blind to the intervention or blinding was unclear so that the overall risk of bias was moderately high. Sixteen studies including 3240 participants reported outcomes on depressive diagnosis. The risk of having a depressive disorder post-intervention was reduced immediately compared with no intervention (15 studies; 3115 participants risk difference (RD) -0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to -0.05; P<0.0003), at three to nine months (14 studies; 1842 participants; RD -0.11; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06) and at 12 months (10 studies; 1750 participants; RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01). There was no evidence for continued efficacy at 24 months (eight studies; 2084 participant; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.03) but limited evidence of efficacy at 36 months (two studies; 464 participants; RD -0.10; 95% CI -0.19 to -0.02). There was significant heterogeneity in all these findings. There was no evidence of efficacy in the few studies that compared intervention with placebo or attention controls. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from this review that targeted and universal depression prevention programmes may prevent the onset of depressive disorders compared with no intervention. However, allocation concealment is unclear in most studies, and there is heterogeneity in the findings. The persistence of findings suggests that this is real and not a placebo effect. 

Treatment-resistant depression in adolescents: is the addition of cognitive behavioral therapy of benefit?

BACKGROUND: Many young people with major depression fail first-line treatments. Treatment-resistant depression has various definitions in the literature but typically assumes nonresponse to medication. In young people, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line intervention, thus the definition of treatment resistance should be expanded. Therefore, our aim was to synthesize the existing evidence of any interventions for treatment-resistant depression, broadly defined, in children and adolescents and to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in this context. METHODS: We used Cochrane Collaboration methodology, with electronic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers. Only randomized controlled trials were included, and were assessed for risk of bias. Meta- analysis was undertaken where possible and appropriate. RESULTS: Of 953 articles retrieved, four trials were eligible for inclusion. For one study, only the trial registration document was available, because the study was never completed. All other studies were well conducted with a low risk of bias, although one study had a high dropout rate. Two studies assessed the effect of adding CBT to medication. While an assertive trial of antidepressants does appear to lead to benefit, when compared with placebo, there was no significant advantage, in either study, or in a meta-analysis of data from these trials, that clearly demonstrated an additional benefit of CBT. The third trial showed little advantage of a tricyclic antidepressant over placebo in the context of an inpatient admission. CONCLUSION: Few randomized controlled trials have investigated interventions for treatment-resistant depression in young people, and results from these show modest benefit from antidepressants with no additional benefit over medication from CBT. Overall, there is a lack of evidence about effective interventions to treat young people who have failed to respond to evidence-based interventions for depression. Research in this area is urgently required.