Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors' memory and future thinking processes place them at risk for poor mental health.

OBJECTIVE: Identity formation is a key developmental milestone for adolescents and young adults (AYAs). Autobiographical memory and future-thinking are crucial cognitive processes underpinning this, which may be impacted by cancer experiences. We know little about how these processes might be related to AYAs' adjustment to cancer, quality of life (QoL), and mental health outcomes. METHODS: We examined autobiographical memory and future-thinking processes, and their relationship with mental health outcomes, among 77 AYA cancer survivors (Mage  = 22.3 years, 59.7% female), compared with 62 community-based controls (Mage  = 23.3 years, 50% female). Participants completed the Life Narratives Interview, Future Imaginings Task, measures assessing depression, anxiety, QoL, and cancer-related identity. We coded two facets of autobiographical thinking: thematic content and specificity. RESULTS: Relative to controls, survivors recounted more negative life narratives (P = .000). Survivors' memories and future lives were more health/illness-focused (P = .000) and they remembered past events with greater specificity (P = .007) than controls. In contrast, survivors imagined their future lives with less specificity than controls (P = .000). Regression analyses highlighted that being female, greater identification as a "cancer survivor," worse depression, and recent cancer treatment-completion significantly predicted maladaptive autobiographical thinking processes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings point to key modifiable cognitive processes relevant to AYAs' cancer-related adjustment and future mental health. To bolster resilience into longer-term survivorship, clinicians could adapt existing evidence-based, cognitive-behavioural interventions to assist AYAs to imagine future events in greater detail.

Consensus Among International Ethical Guidelines for the Provision of Videoconferencing-Based Mental Health Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Online technologies may reduce barriers to evidence-based mental health care, yet they also create numerous ethical challenges. Recently, numerous professional organizations and expert groups have produced best-practice guidelines to assist mental health professionals in delivering online interventions in an ethically and clinically sound manner. However, there has been little critical examination of these international best-practice guidelines regarding appropriate electronic mental health (e-mental health) service delivery via technologies such as videoconferencing (including Skype), particularly for specific, vulnerable populations. Further, the extent to which concordance exists between these guidelines remains unclear. Synthesizing this literature to provide clear guidance to both mental health professionals and researchers is critical to ensure continued progress in the field of e-mental health. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review all currently available ethical and best-practice guidelines relating to videoconferencing-delivered mental health treatments in order to ascertain the recommendations for which international consensus could be found. Additionally, this review examines the extent to which each set of guidance addresses several key special populations, including children and young people, and populations living with illness. METHODS: This systematic review examined guidelines using a two-armed search strategy, examining (1) professional organizations' published guidance; and (2) MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for the past ten years. In order to determine consensus for best-practice, a recommendation was considered "firm" if 50% or more of the reviewed guidelines endorsed it and "tentative" if recommended by fewer guidelines than these. The professional guidelines were also scored by two raters using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) criteria. RESULTS: In the study, 19 guidelines were included, yielding 11 specific "firm" and a further 123 "tentative-level" recommendations regarding the appropriateness of e-mental health, competence, legal and regulatory issues, confidentiality, consent, professional boundaries, and crisis management. International consensus yielded firm guidance across almost all areas except professional boundaries and some aspects of determining the appropriateness of e-mental health. Few guidelines specifically addressed special populations. Overall guideline quality varied; however, 42% (8/19) of the guidelines scored at least 5 out of 7. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis of guidelines provides a foundation for clinicians and researchers utilizing e-mental health worldwide. The lack of specific guidance relating to special populations is an area warranting further attention in order to strengthen mental health professionals' and researchers' capacity to ethically and effectively tailor e-mental health interventions to these groups.