Unique and shared risk factors for early childhood victimisation and polyvictimisation in a Brazilian population-based birth cohort.

Background: Identifying modifiable risk factors for child victimisation and polyvictimisation (exposure to multiple types of victimisation) is critical for informing prevention efforts, yet little evidence is available in low- and middle-income countries. The authors aimed to estimate the prevalence of child victimisation and polyvictimisation, and examine unique and shared risk factors in a population-based cohort in Southern Brazil. Methods: Lifetime child victimisation was based on maternal report when children were aged 4 years old (N∼3900) and included five types of victimisation (conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer/sibling victimisation, sexual victimisation, and witnessing/indirect victimisation) and polyvictimisation. Based on a socioecological model, possible risk factors were examined in four levels: community, maternal and family, parent, and child. Findings: Conventional crime and peer/sibling victimisation were the most common types of victimisation (46.0 and 46.5%, respectively), followed by witnessing/indirect victimisation (27.0%), and child maltreatment (11.3%). Sexual victimisation had the lowest prevalence (1.4%). One in 10 (10.1%) children experienced polyvictimisation. In general, boys had higher victimisation rates than girls. There were few risk factors related only to specific types of victimisation (e.g., child disability was uniquely associated with child maltreatment and peer/sibling victimisation). Instead, most risk factors were shared across nearly all victimisation types and also associated with polyvictimisation. These shared risk factors were: violent neighbourhood and low social cohesion, maternal adverse childhood experiences, younger maternal age, parental antisocial behaviour, intimate partner violence against mothers, and maternal depression. Interpretation: These findings reveal a general pattern of accumulative risk effects for different types of victimisation and polyvictimisation, rather than unique risk profiles in children aged four year Prevention efforts should target risk factors at multiple levels (e.g.,: community, maternal and family and parent) during early childhood. Funding: Wellcome Trust grant 10735_Z_18_Z.

Child and Maternal Mental Health Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Social Inequalities in a Brazilian Birth Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major stress for families and children, particularly in the context of prolonged school closures. Few longitudinal studies are available on young children's mental health, including data both before and during the pandemic. This study examined experiences that might increase risk for mental health problems among caregivers and young children during the COVID-19 pandemic and inequalities driven by pre-pandemic disadvantage. METHOD: This prospective, population-based birth cohort study in Pelotas, Brazil, analyzed 2,083 children and caregivers with data from before the pandemic in 2019, when children were 4 years old, and again in 2020, when schools were closed for a long period during the pandemic. Child conduct problems, emotional problems, and hyperactivity-inattention problems were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Family financial hardship, relationship difficulties, caregiver mental health, parenting practices, and child fears and isolation were considered as potential risk factors. RESULTS: Across the whole population, the only significant increase in mental health problems from before to during the pandemic was found for maternal depression. However, poorer families were at far greater risk of experiencing serious financial problems, food shortages, increased conflict in adult relationships, parenting problems, and child worries about food availability during the pandemic. In turn, these difficulties were associated with increases in multiple mental health problems for both caregivers and children. Increased child mental health problems were most strongly associated with concurrent maternal anxiety (ß > 0.20, p < .001, for each of child conduct, emotional, and hyperactivity problems), maternal depression (ß = 0.26, p < .001, for child emotional problems), partner criticism (ß = 0.21, p < .001, for child conduct problems), and harsh parenting (ß > 0.20, p < .001, for both child conduct and hyperactivity problems). Child worry about COVID-19 was associated with increased emotional problems (ß = 0.14, p < .001), but children's isolation was not associated with their mental health. CONCLUSION: Overall, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health is a mixed picture, but for families in poverty, marked material and interpersonal difficulties were associated with increases in mental health problems among children and caregivers.

Synthetic Control Methodology for Examining Firearm Policy.

Purpose of Review: Firearm policies have the potential to alleviate the public health burden of firearm violence, yet it is unclear which policies are effective. The current review aims to summarize studies that use synthetic control methods to overcome previous methodological limitations when examining the impacts of firearm policies. Recent Findings: Evidence from studies using synthetic control methods find compelling evidence that purchasing licensing laws for all individuals (e.g., permit-to-purchase) have a preventive effect on firearm deaths. Otherwise, the effects of other firearm policies targeting firearm availability, ownership, sales, and use varied across studies and contexts. Summary: Synthetic control evaluations find heterogenous effects of firearm policies, suggesting that previous inconsistent findings might reflect their varying impacts across regions rather than methodological limitations alone. Future research should aim to exploit the complementary biases of synthetic control methods to triangulate evidence across evaluation approaches and understand why firearm policies have differential impacts.

Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense on Violence and Crime: A Systematic Review.

Background. Since 2005, most US states have expanded civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home. In most cases, legislation has included removing the duty to retreat anywhere one may legally be, commonly known as stand-your-ground laws. The extent to which these laws affect public health and safety is widely debated in public and policy discourse.Objectives. To synthesize the available evidence on the impacts and social inequities associated with changing civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense on violence, injury, crime, and firearm-related outcomes.Search Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, National Bureau of Economic Research working papers, and SocArXiv; harvested references of included studies; and consulted with experts to identify studies until April 2020.Selection Criteria. Eligible studies quantitatively estimated the association between laws that expanded or restricted the right to use deadly force in self-defense and population or subgroup outcomes among civilians with a comparator.Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers extracted study data using a common form. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tools adapted for (controlled) before-after studies. To account for data dependencies, we conducted graphical syntheses (forest plots and harvest plots) to summarize the evidence on impacts and inequities associated with changing self-defense laws.Main Results. We identified 25 studies that estimated population-level impacts of laws expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense, all of which focused on stand-your-ground or other expansions to self-defense laws in the United States. Studies were scored as having serious or critical risk of bias attributable to confounding. Risk of bias was low across most other domains (i.e., selection, missing data, outcome, and reporting biases). Stand-your-ground laws were associated with no change to small increases in violent crime (total and firearm homicide, aggravated assault, robbery) on average across states. Florida-based studies showed robust increases (24% to 45%) in firearm and total homicide while self-defense claims under stand-your-ground law were more often denied when victims were White, especially when claimants were racial minorities.Author's Conclusions. The existing evidence contradicts claims that expanding self-defense laws deters violent crime across the United States. In at least some contexts, including Florida, stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in violence, and there are racial inequities in the application of these laws.Public Health Implications. In some US states, most notably Florida, stand-your-ground laws may have harmed public health and safety and exacerbated social inequities. Our findings highlight the need for scientific evidence on both population and equity impacts of self-defense laws to guide legislative action that promotes public health and safety for all.Trial Registration. Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/uz68e).

Relationships with caregivers and mental health outcomes among adolescents living with HIV: a prospective cohort study in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems may impact adherence to anti-retroviral treatment, retention in care, and consequently the survival of adolescents living with HIV. The adolescent-caregiver relationship is an important potential source of resilience. However, there is a lack of longitudinal research in sub-Saharan Africa on which aspects of adolescent-caregiver relationships can promote mental health among adolescents living with HIV. We draw on a prospective longitudinal cohort study undertaken in South Africa to address this question. METHODS: The study traced adolescents aged 10-19 initiated on antiretroviral treatment in government health facilities (n = 53) within a health district of the Eastern Cape province. The adolescents completed standardised questionnaires during three data collection waves between 2014 and 2018. We used within-between multilevel regressions to examine the links between three aspects of adolescent-caregiver relationships (caregiver supervision, positive caregiving, and adolescent-caregiver communication) and adolescent mental health (depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms), controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, rural/urban residence, mode of infection, household resources), n=926 adolescents. RESULTS: Improvements in caregiver supervision were associated with reductions in anxiety (0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p=0.0002) but not depression symptoms (0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00, p=.151), while changes in positive caregiving were not associated with changes in mental health symptoms reported by adolescents. Improvements in adolescent-caregiver communication over time were associated with reductions in both depression (IRR=0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, p<.0001) and anxiety (0.91, 95% CI 0.89-0.94, p<.0001) symptoms reported by adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight open and supportive adolescent-caregiver communication and good caregiver supervision as potential factors for guarding against mental health problems among adolescents living with HIV in South Africa. Several evidence-informed parenting programmes aim to improve adolescent-caregiver communication and caregiver supervision, and their effect on depression and anxiety among adolescents living with HIV should be rigorously tested in sub-Saharan Africa. How to improve communication in other settings, such as schools and clinics, and provide communication support for caregivers, adolescents, and service providers through these existing services should also be considered.

Predicting Barriers to Treatment for Depression in a U.S. National Sample: A Cross-Sectional, Proof-of-Concept Study.

OBJECTIVE: Even though safe and effective treatments for depression are available, many individuals with a diagnosis of depression do not obtain treatment. This study aimed to develop a tool to identify persons who might not initiate treatment among those who acknowledge a need. METHODS: Data were aggregated from the 2008-2014 U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N=391,753), including 20,785 adults given a diagnosis of depression by a health care provider in the 12 months before the survey. Machine learning was applied to self-report survey items to develop strategies for identifying individuals who might not get needed treatment. RESULTS: A derivation cohort aggregated between 2008 and 2013 was used to develop a model that identified the 30.6% of individuals with depression who reported needing but not getting treatment. When applied to independent responses from the 2014 cohort, the model identified 72% of those who did not initiate treatment (p<.01), with a balanced accuracy that was also significantly above chance (71%, p<.01). For individuals who did not get treatment, the model predicted 10 (out of 15) reasons that they endorsed as barriers to treatment, with balanced accuracies between 53% and 65% (p<.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable work is needed to improve follow-up and retention rates after the critical initial meeting in which a patient is given a diagnosis of depression. Routinely collected information about patients with depression could identify those at risk of not obtaining needed treatment, which may inform the development and implementation of interventions to reduce the prevalence of untreated depression.

The prevalence of depression in general hospital inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of interview-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid depression in the medically ill is clinically important. Admission to a general hospital offers an opportunity to identify and initiate treatment for depression. However, we first need to know how common depression is in general hospital inpatients. We aimed to address this question by systematically reviewing the relevant literature. METHODS: We reviewed published prevalence studies in any language which had used diagnostic interviews of general hospital inpatients and met basic methodological quality criteria. We focussed on interview-based studies in order to estimate the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of depressive illness. RESULTS: Of 158 relevant articles, 65 (41%) describing 60 separate studies met our inclusion criteria. The 31 studies that focussed on general medical and surgical inpatients reported prevalence estimates ranging from 5% to 34%. There was substantial, highly statistically significant, heterogeneity between studies which was not materially explained by the covariates we were able to consider. The average of the reported prevalences was 12% (95% CI 10-15), with a 95% prediction interval of 4-32%. The remaining 29 studies, of a variety of specific clinical populations, are described. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests a likely prevalence high enough to make it worthwhile screening hospital inpatients for depression and initiating treatment where appropriate. Further, higher quality, research is needed to clarify the prevalence of depression in specific settings and to further explore the reasons for the observed heterogeneity in estimates.