The positive impact of identity-affirming mental health treatment for neurodivergent individuals.

Introduction: The medical and social definitions of neurodivergence have become a common topic of discussion in recent years, and the ways that we define, measure and report on conditions within the neurodivergent umbrella are changing. The objective of this study was to analyze differences in mental health symptom presentation at intake and compare treatment outcomes among three groups: clients with an affirming neurodivergent diagnosis, clients without an affirming diagnosis, and neurotypical clients. Methods: Data were collected at intake and discharge. Clients self-reported neurodivergent identity, neurodivergent diagnoses, as well as the severity of depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms and self-harm frequency. One-way multivariate analysis of variance tests were run to assess differences in mental health symptoms at intake and discharge based on neurodivergent identity and corresponding diagnosis. When MANOVAs indicated significant differences, follow-up univariate one-way ANOVAs were conducted for each dependent variable. Results: Neurodivergent clients reported significantly worse mental health symptoms at intake than neurotypical clients, regardless of diagnosis status. Additionally, clients who identified as neurodivergent but did not report an affirming medical diagnosis reported significantly worse mental health symptoms than those who did report an affirming medical diagnosis. By discharge from IOP treatment, no significant differences were found in symptom change scores between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals, or neurodivergent individuals with an affirming diagnosis and those without. Discussion: These findings highlight the importance of acknowledging client identity as a key component of mental health treatment. The act of validating symptoms and experiences, allowing accommodations when requested, and exploring identity formation regardless of diagnosis, allowed all clients who identified as neurodivergent to benefit from treatment.

Predicting Youth and Young Adult Treatment Engagement in a Transdiagnostic Remote Intensive Outpatient Program: Latent Profile Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The youth mental health crisis in the United States continues to worsen, and research has shown poor mental health treatment engagement. Despite the need for personalized engagement strategies, there is a lack of research involving youth. Due to complex youth developmental milestones, there is a need to better understand clinical presentation and factors associated with treatment engagement to effectively identify and tailor beneficial treatments. OBJECTIVE: This quality improvement investigation sought to identify subgroups of clients attending a remote intensive outpatient program (IOP) based on clinical acuity data at intake, to determine the factors associated with engagement outcomes for clients who present in complex developmental periods and with cooccurring conditions. The identification of these subgroups was used to inform programmatic decisions within this remote IOP system. METHODS: Data were collected as part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives at a remote IOP for youth and young adults. Participants included clients (N=2924) discharged between July 2021 and February 2023. A latent profile analysis was conducted using 5 indicators of clinical acuity at treatment entry, and the resulting profiles were assessed for associations with demographic factors and treatment engagement outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 2924 participants, 4 profiles of clinical acuity were identified: a low-acuity profile (n=943, 32.25%), characterized by minimal anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and 3 high-acuity profiles defined by moderately severe depression and anxiety but differentiated by rates of self-harm (high acuity+low self-harm: n=1452, 49.66%; high acuity+moderate self-harm: n=203, 6.94%; high acuity+high self-harm: n=326, 11.15%). Age, gender, transgender identity, and sexual orientation were significantly associated with profile membership. Clients identified as sexually and gender-marginalized populations were more likely to be classified into high-acuity profiles than into the low-acuity profile (eg, for clients who identified as transgender, high acuity+low self-harm: odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.35-3.18; P<.001; high acuity+moderate self-harm: OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.66-4.90; P<.001; high acuity+high self-harm: OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.45-5.51; P<.001). Race was unrelated to the profile membership. Profile membership was significantly associated with treatment engagement: youth and young adults in the low-acuity and high-acuity+low-self-harm profiles attended an average of 4 fewer treatment sessions compared with youth in the high-acuity+moderate-self-harm and high-acuity+high-self-harm profiles (ꭓ23=27.6, P<.001). Individuals in the high-acuity+low-self-harm profile completed treatment at a significantly lower rate relative to the other 2 high-acuity profiles (ꭓ23=13.4, P=.004). Finally, those in the high-acuity+high-self-harm profile were significantly less likely to disengage early relative to youth in all other profiles (ꭓ23=71.12, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation represents a novel application for identifying subgroups of adolescents and young adults based on clinical acuity data at intake to identify patterns in treatment engagement outcomes. Identifying subgroups that differentially engage in treatment is a critical first step toward targeting engagement strategies for complex populations.