Early hearing detection and intervention

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."1-23-08"Spiral-bound.Title from cover."Safer-healthier-people" --Cover.Produced by the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Program.Also available via the World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (14.61 MB, 25 p.)

Gender differences in first episode psychotic mania

Background : The aim of this paper was to delineate the impact of gender on premorbid history, onset, and 18 month outcomes of first episode psychotic mania (FEPM) patients. Methods : Medical file audit assessment of 118 (male = 71; female = 47) patients with FEPM aged 15 to 29 years was undertaken on clinical and functional measures. Results : Males with FEPM had increased likelihood of substance use (OR = 13.41, p < .001) and forensic issues (OR = 4.71, p = .008), whereas females were more likely to have history of sexual abuse trauma (OR = 7.12, p = .001). At service entry, males were more likely to be using substances, especially cannabis (OR = 2.15, p = .047), had more severe illness (OR = 1.72, p = .037), and poorer functioning (OR = 0.96, p = .045). During treatment males were more likely to decrease substance use (OR = 5.34, p = .008) and were more likely to be living with family (OR = 4.30, p = .009). There were no gender differences in age of onset, psychopathology or functioning at discharge. Conclusions : Clinically meaningful gender differences in FEPM were driven by risk factors possibly associated with poor outcome. For males, substance use might be associated with poorer clinical presentation and functioning. In females with FEPM, the impact of sexual trauma on illness course warrants further consideration

Joint submission to the Australian Government Treasury for the Measuring What Matters second consultation process, May 2023

In April 2023, the Australian Government invited a second round of feedback on the Treasury’s Measuring What Matters Statement; Australia’s first national framework on wellbeing. Recognising that traditional economic indicators provide important insights, but not a complete picture or holistic view of the community’s wellbeing, the Statement sought to define a suite of social and environmental indicators. Treasury set out several key questions and invited organisations and individuals to conduct their own consultation guided by these questions. The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use recognised the need to 1) ensure mental health is considered as paramount in any conceptualisation of wellbeing, and 2) centre both academic evidence and the voices of young people. As such, two consultation sessions were held; firstly with Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, which is chaired by The Matilda Centre’s Professor Maree Teesson; and secondly with the PREMISE Centre of Research Excellence in Prevention and Early Intervention in Mental Illness and Substance Use Youth Advisory Board and The Matilda Centre Youth Mental Health Advisory Team. Chaired by Distinguished Professor Maree Teesson AC, Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank includes mental health experts from around Australia: Mr John Brogden AM, Professor Philip Batterham, Professor Alison Calear, Professor Tom Calma AO, Scientia Professor Helen Christensen AO, Professor Patricia Dudgeon AM, Professor Ian Hickie AM, Professor Frances Kay-Lambkin, Professor Patrick McGorry AO, Professor John McGrath, Professor Marc Stears, and Professor Harvey Whiteford. Eight diverse young people aged 16-25 were involved in the second submission and were reimbursed for their participation. The findings from these consultations and resulting submissions are contained in this document. In July 2023, Treasury released the final Measuring What Matters Framework. Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, The Matilda Centre and PREMISE look forward to hearing more about the implementation of this framework and tracking of the 50 chosen indicators

Credible knowledge: A pilot evaluation of a modified GRADE method using parent-implemented interventions for children with autism

Abstract Background Decision-making in child and youth mental health (CYMH) care requires recommendations that are developed through an efficient and effective method and are based on credible knowledge. Credible knowledge is informed by two sources: scientific evidence, and practice-based evidence, that reflects the "real world" experience of service providers. Current approaches to developing these recommendations in relation to CYMH will typically include evidence from one source or the other but do not have an objective method to combine the two. To this end, a modified version of the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was pilot-tested, a novel method for the CYMH field. Methods GRADE has an explicit methodology that relies on input from scientific evidence as well as a panel of experts. The panel established the quality of evidence and derived detailed recommendations regarding the organization and delivery of mental health care for children and youth or their caregivers. In this study a modified GRADE method was used to provide precise recommendations based on a specific CYMH question (i.e. What is the current credible knowledge concerning the effects of parent-implemented, early intervention with their autistic children?). Results Overall, it appeared that early, parent-implemented interventions for autism result in positive effects that outweigh any undesirable effects. However, as opposed to overall recommendations, the heterogeneity of the evidence required that recommendations be specific to particular interventions, based on the questions of whether the benefits of a particular intervention outweighs its harms. Conclusions This pilot project provided evidence that a modified GRADE method may be an effective and practical approach to making recommendations in CYMH, based on credible knowledge. Key strengths of the process included separating the assessments of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, transparency in decision-making, and the objectivity of the methods. Most importantly, this method combined the evidence and clinical experience in a more timely, explicit and simple process as compared to previous approaches. The strengths, limitations and modifications of the approach as they pertain to CYMH, are discussed

Assessment or referral tool: the unintended consequences of a dual purpose common assessment framework form

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was designed to facilitate early intervention through multi-agency working and the active involvement of families. The underlying principle was to move away from a risk-focused, needs-led or service-led culture to assess need and match needs to identified services. It was anticipated that services and assessments would become more evidence-based, and a common language between professionals and agencies would evolve. Taking a social constructionist approach this study explored professionals’ experiences of the use of the Common Assessment Framework form. Forty-one professionals from four different local authorities and a variety of agencies took part in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed utilizing thematic analysis. Findings suggest the unintended consequences of the use of the CAF were influenced by local authority policy. As the local authorities adopted the policy of utilizing the CAF as a referral mechanism, rather than to assess needs, profes-sionals unintentionally perceived the CAF form as a referral tool, to refer families to existing service provision. Further to this, professionals referred to the CAF form itself, as a ‘means to an end’, implying that this was a step that had to be overcome in order to access services