Systematic Review: Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Measure Depression Symptom Severity in Adolescents With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of 12 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression. Depression symptom severity was chosen as the outcome of focus given its importance as an outcome to measure in adolescents with depression across clinical trials and/or care. METHOD: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from year of inception up to December 7, 2023. Study appraisal (ie, risk of bias), evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Included studies evaluated at least 1 of 9 measurement properties as detailed in the COSMIN taxonomy within a reported sample or subgroup of youth ages 12 to 24 years, with at least 40% meeting criteria for any depressive disorder. RESULTS: Of the 15,560 records identified, 31 studies for 7 PROMs were included in the COSMIN appraisal. Although several PROMs have the potential to accurately measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression, at this time none of the PROMs can be recommended for use without further evaluative work. High-quality evidence was generally lacking, largely due to few or inconsistent findings, small sample sizes, and other methodological concerns. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of the measurement properties of 12 PROMs used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression found that none of the PROMs can be recommended for use until further evaluative work is conducted. Clinicians and researchers should proceed with caution when using these PROMs. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STATEMENT: One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Discriminative validity and interpretability of the mood and feelings questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) to differentiate between depression severity levels remains unexplored. We explored the discriminative validity of the MFQ to identify an optimal cut-off MFQ score to distinguish between subthreshold-to-mild and moderate-to-severe depression severity levels. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional design was used in a sample (N = 67) of help-seeking youth (ages 13 to 18, inclusive) experiencing depressive symptoms. The MFQ was administered verbatim to youth by a research analyst over the phone. Youth were then grouped into subthreshold-to-mild or moderate-to-severe depression severity categories based on scores received on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Depression Rating Scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses were conducted, with area under the curve (AUC) and Youden Index (J) as primary indices. We hypothesized that the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval for the area under the curve would be ≥0.70. RESULTS: The primary analysis yielded an AUC of 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.763-0.947) and an optimal cut-off of ≥43 (J = 0.60, positive predictive value = 91.4 %, negative predictive value = 62.5 %, sensitivity = 72.7 %, specificity = 87.0 %). LIMITATIONS: Our study collected a small sample, and as such cannot identify how subgroup classification (e.g., based on race or gender) may moderate outcomes. Further, unknown measurement error of the predictor and reference variable measures can bias the estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings highlight the potential for the MFQ to support clinical decision-making relevant to adolescents experiencing varying severities of depressive symptoms in secondary care settings.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Beyond frequency: Evaluating the validity of assessing the context, duration, ability, and botherment of depression and anxiety symptoms in South Brazil.

Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom's context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (N = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., "How easily …") produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., "In which daily situations …"). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

An Integrated Care Pathway for depression in adolescents: protocol for a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Non-randomized, Cluster Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our group developed an Integrated Care Pathway to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based care for adolescents experiencing depression called CARIBOU-2 (Care for Adolescents who Receive Information 'Bout OUtcomes, 2nd iteration). The core pathway components are assessment, psychoeducation, psychotherapy options, medication options, caregiver support, measurement-based care team reviews and graduation. We aim to test the clinical and implementation effectiveness of the CARIBOU-2 pathway relative to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in community mental health settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation, Non-randomized Cluster Controlled Trial Design. Primary participants will be adolescents (planned n = 300, aged 13-18 years) with depressive symptoms, presenting to one of six community mental health agencies. All sites will begin in the TAU condition and transition to the CARIBOU-2 intervention after enrolling 25 adolescents. The primary clinical outcome is the rate of change of depressive symptoms from baseline to the 24-week endpoint using the Childhood Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Generalized mixed effects modelling will be conducted to compare this outcome between intervention types. Our primary hypothesis is that there will be a greater rate of reduction in depressive symptoms in the group receiving the CARIBOU-2 intervention relative to TAU over 24 weeks as per the CDRS-R. Implementation outcomes will also be examined, including clinician fidelity to the pathway and its components, and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approvals have been obtained. Should our results support our hypotheses, systematic implementation of the CARIBOU-2 intervention in other community mental health agencies would be indicated.

What treatment outcomes matter in adolescent depression? A Q-study of priority profiles among mental health practitioners in the UK and Chile.

Evidence-based and person-centred care requires the measurement of treatment outcomes that matter to youth and mental health practitioners. Priorities, however, may vary not just between but also within stakeholder groups. This study used Q-methodology to explore differences in outcome priorities among mental health practitioners from two countries in relation to youth depression. Practitioners from the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 27) and Chile (n = 15) sorted 35 outcome descriptions by importance and completed brief semi-structured interviews about their sorting rationale. By-person principal component analysis (PCA) served to identify distinct priority profiles within each country sample; second-order PCA examined whether these profiles could be further reduced into cross-cultural "super profiles". We identified three UK outcome priority profiles (Reduced symptoms and enhanced well-being; improved individual coping and self-management; improved family coping and support), and two Chilean profiles (Strengthened identity and enhanced insight; symptom reduction and self-management). These could be further reduced into two cross-cultural super profiles: one prioritized outcomes related to reduced depressive symptoms and enhanced well-being; the other prioritized outcomes related to improved resilience resources within youth and families. A practitioner focus on symptom reduction aligns with a long-standing focus on symptomatic change in youth depression treatment studies, and with recent measurement recommendations. Less data and guidance are available to those practitioners who prioritize resilience outcomes. To raise the chances that such practitioners will engage in evidence-based practice and measurement-based care, measurement guidance for a broader set of outcomes may be needed.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr.

OBJECTIVE: The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (SIQ-Jr) were designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are often used in clinical trials. Our aim was to identify and appraise the published literature with respect to the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify, appraise, and synthesize published literature on measurement properties and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 16, 2023, to identify sources relevant to our aim. RESULTS: We identified 15 sources meeting our eligibility criteria. The body of literature did not meet COSMIN standards to make recommendations for use with regard to these measurement instruments. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed, with a focus on content validity and structural validity, prior to recommending the SIQ and SIQ-Jr for use in clinical practice and in clinical trials. No specific grant funding was used for this review. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In this systematic review, authors analyzed 15 sources examining measurement properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr. Both measures are designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are used in clinical practice and clinical trials. The authors identified sufficient evidence for convergent validity for both measures. Authors concluded that further research is needed to support content validity, structural validity as a unidimensional scale (as they are often used) as well as their internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative validity, predictive validity, and interpretability of these measures. The authors also emphasize the need to consider the limitations of these measures for researchers studying suicidal ideation and clinicians using these measures in their assessments of young people.

Consenso internacional sobre medidas de resultado de tratamientos de depresión y ansiedad en población infantojuvenil: recomendaciones para su aplicación en Chile / International consensus on outcome measures for the treatment of depression and anxiety in children and adolescents: recommendations for their application in Chile

El Consorcio Internacional para la Medición de Resultados en Salud (ICHOM, por sus siglas en inglés) se especializa en el desarrollo de conjuntos de medidas de resultado de tratamientos para condiciones de salud con el objetivo de mejorar la práctica clínica. ICHOM desarrolló una propuesta de medidas de resultado para depresión, ansiedad, trastorno obsesivo-compulsivo y trastorno por estrés postraumático, en población infanto-juvenil de entre 6 y 24 años que fue publicada el 2021. Un grupo de trabajo internacional de 27 personas expertas en clínica, en investigación y por experiencia vivida, alcanzó el consenso a través del método Delphi adaptado con votación anónima iterativa, apoyada por insumos de investigación. Se propone evaluar síntomas, pensamientos y conductas suicidas y funcionalidad a través de siete medidas de resultado informadas primariamente por el o la paciente. Las recomendaciones fueron validadas a través de una encuesta que involucró a 487 participantes en 45 países. Este artículo presenta sugerencias para su aplicación en Chile.

Abstract: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) specializes in developing sets of outcome measures for health conditions with the goal of improving clinical practice. ICHOM developed a proposal for outcome measures for depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in children and young people aged 6 to 24 years that was published in 2021. An international working group of 27 clinical, research, and lived experience experts, reached consensus through the adapted Delphi method, and iterative anonymous voting, supported by research inputs. It is proposed to assess symptoms, suicidal thoughts, and behavior, and functioning through seven primarily patient-reported outcome measures. The recommendations were validated through a survey involving 487 participants across 45 countries. This article presents suggestions for their application in Chile.

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

What treatment outcomes matter most? A Q-study of outcome priority profiles among youth with lived experience of depression.

Interest in youth perspectives on what constitutes an important outcome in the treatment of depression has been growing, but limited attention has been given to heterogeneity in outcome priorities, and minority viewpoints. These are important to consider for person-centred outcome tracking in clinical practice, or when conducting clinical trials targeting specific populations. This study used Q-methodology to identify outcome priority profiles among youth with lived experience of service use for depression. A purposive sample of 28 youth (aged 16-21 years) rank-ordered 35 outcome statements by importance and completed brief semi-structured interviews eliciting their sorting rationales. By-person principal component analysis was used to identify outcome priority profiles based on all Q-sort configurations. Priority profiles were described and interpreted with reference to the qualitative interview data. Four distinct outcome priority profiles were identified: "Relieving distress and experiencing a happier emotional state"; "Learning to cope with cyclical distressing emotional states"; "Understanding and processing distressing emotional states"; and "Reduced interference of ongoing distressing emotional states with daily life". All four profiles prioritised improvements in mood and the ability to feel pleasure but differed in the level of importance assigned to learning coping skills, processing experiences, and the reduced interference of depression with life and identity. As part of a person-centered approach to care delivery, care providers should routinely engage young people in conversation and shared decision-making about the types of change they would like to prioritise and track during treatment, beyond a common core of consensus outcomes.

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

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

How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes.

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

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

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

Readability of Commonly Used Quality of Life Outcome Measures for Youth Self-Report.

Self-report measures are central in capturing young people's perspectives on mental health concerns and treatment outcomes. For children and adolescents to complete such measures meaningfully and independently, the reading difficulty must match their reading ability. Prior research suggests a frequent mismatch for mental health symptom measures. Similar analyses are lacking for measures of Quality of Life (QoL). We analysed the readability of 13 commonly used QoL self-report measures for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years by computing five readability formulas and a mean reading age across formulas. Across measures, the mean reading age for item sets was 10.7 years (SD = 1.2). For almost two-thirds of the questionnaires, the required reading age exceeded the minimum age of the target group by at least one year, with an average discrepancy of 3.0 years (SD = 1.2). Questionnaires with matching reading ages primarily targeted adolescents. Our study suggests a frequent mismatch between the reading difficulty of QoL self-report measures for pre-adolescent children and this group's expected reading ability. Such discrepancies risk undermining the validity of measurement, especially where children also have learning or attention difficulties. Readability should be critically considered in measure development, as one aspect of the content validity of self-report measures for youth.

Assessing the impact of mental health difficulties on young people's daily lives: protocol for a scoping umbrella review of measurement instruments.

INTRODUCTION: An important consideration for determining the severity of mental health symptoms is their impact on youth's daily lives. Those wishing to assess 'life impact' face several challenges: First, various measurement instruments are available, including of global functioning, health-related quality of life and well-being. Existing reviews have tended to focus on one of these domains; consequently, a comprehensive overview is lacking. Second, the extent to which such instruments truly capture distinct concepts is unclear. Third, many available scales conflate symptoms and their impact, thus undermining much needed analyses of associations between the two. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping umbrella review will examine existing reviews of life impact measures for use with children and youth aged 6-24 years in the context of mental health and well-being research. We will systematically search six bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the COSMIN database of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments), and conduct systematic record screening, data extraction and charting based on methodological guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data synthesis will involve the tabulation of scale characteristics, feasibility and measurement properties, and the use of summary statistics to synthesise how these instruments operationalise life impact. The protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/ers48). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will provide a comprehensive road map for researchers and clinicians seeking to assess life impact in youth mental health, providing guidance in navigating available measurement options. We will seek to publish the findings in a leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Formal research ethics approval will not be required.