Applicability and Psychometric Properties of General Mental Health Assessment Tools in Autistic People: A Systematic Review

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of instruments for assessing mental health (MH) among autistic people. This study aimed to review the psychometric properties of broadband instruments used to assess MH problems among autistic people. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42022316571) we searched the APA PsycINFO via Ovid, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and the Web of Science via Clarivate databases from 1980 to March 2022, with an updated search in January 2024, to identify very recent empirical studies. Independent reviewers evaluated the titles and abstracts of the retrieved records (n = 11,577) and full-text articles (n = 1000). Data were extracted from eligible studies, and the quality of the included papers was appraised. In all, 164empirical articles reporting on 35 instruments were included. The review showed variable evidence of reliability and validity of the various instruments. Among the instruments reported in more than one study, the Aberrant Behavior Checklist had consistently good or excellent psychometric evidence. The reliability and validity of other instruments, including: the Developmental Behavior Checklist, Emotion Dysregulation Inventory, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory, Autism Spectrum Disorder-Comorbid for Children Scale, and Psychopathology in Autism Checklist, were less documented. There is a need for a greater evidence-base for MH assessment tools for autistic people.

The place of and evidence for serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in children and adolescents: Views based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

Serotonin reuptake inhibiting drugs (SRI) have been used in the treatment of paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder over the past 30 years. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to discuss the place of and evidence for the use of SRI in paediatric OCD, based on 14 publications of methodologically sound, randomized and controlled studies. Both SRI and specific SRIs were examined and comparisons of SRI, placebo, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), combined (COMBO) treatments (SRI+CBT) made to investigate their relative efficacy. Using the Cochrane methodology, and as measures of effect size mean difference and Hedge's g, SRIs proved to be superior to drug placebo, with a modest effect size. From direct comparisons of CBT and SRI treatments, we conclude that CBT has the superior efficacy. COMBO versus CBT shows that SRI treatment adds little to concomitant CBT, while COMBO shows favourable outcome versus SRI alone. In pre-trial partial treatment responders, those who failed a SRI had better outcome from adding CBT as compared to continuing a SRI. Those who failed CBT treatment did as well with continued CBT as with switching to a SRI. The studies of combinations and sequences of treatments need to be developed further.

Standard individual cognitive behaviour therapy for paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review of effect estimates across comparisons

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses of paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have shown much higher effect size for standard individual cognitive behaviour therapy (SI-CBT) compared with control conditions than for serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) compared with placebo. Other factors, such as systematic differences in the provided care or exposure to factors other than the interventions of interest (performance bias) may be stronger confounders in psychotherapy research than in pharmacological research.

AIMS

These facts led us to review SI-CBT studies of paediatric OCD with the aim to compare the effect estimates across different comparisons, including active treatments.

METHOD

We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs with treatment periods of 12-16 weeks. Outcome was post-test score on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CYBOCS).

RESULTS

Thirteen papers reporting from 13 RCTs with 17 comparison conditions were included. SI-CBT was superior to wait-list and placebo therapy but not active treatments. Effect estimates for SI-CBT in wait-list comparison studies were significantly larger than in placebo-therapy comparison studies. In addition, the SI-CBT effect estimate was not significantly different when compared with SRIs alone or combined SRIs and CBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance bias may have inflated previous effect estimates for SI-CBT when comparison contingencies included wait-list. However, the calculated SI-CBT effect estimate was lower but significant when compared with placebo therapy. The effects of SI-CBT and active treatments were not significantly different. In conclusion, our data support the current clinical guidelines, although better comparisons between SI-CBT and SRIs are needed.