| Literature DB >> 31054126 |
Miranda Wolpert1, Victoria Zamperoni2, Elisa Napoleone2, Praveetha Patalay3, Jenna Jacob2, Marjolein Fokkema4, Marianne Promberger2, Luís Costa da Silva2, Meera Patel2, Julian Edbrooke-Childs2.
Abstract
Of children with mental health problems who access specialist help, 50% show reliable improvement on self-report measures at case closure and 10% reliable deterioration. To contextualise these figures it is necessary to consider rates of improvement for those in the general population. This study examined rates of reliable improvement/deterioration for children in a school sample over time. N = 9074 children (mean age 12; 52% female; 79% white) from 118 secondary schools across England provided self-report mental health (SDQ), quality of life and demographic data (age, ethnicity and free school meals (FSM) at baseline and 1 year and self-report data on access to mental health support at 1 year). Multinomial logistic regressions and classification trees were used to analyse the data. Of 2270 (25%) scoring above threshold for mental health problems at outset, 27% reliably improved and 9% reliably deteriorated at 1-year follow up. Of 6804 (75%) scoring below threshold, 4% reliably improved and 12% reliably deteriorated. Greater emotional difficulties at outset were associated with greater rates of reliable improvement for both groups (above threshold group: OR = 1.89, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.64, 2.17], below threshold group: OR = 2.23, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.93, 2.57]). For those above threshold, higher baseline quality of life was associated with greater likelihood of reliable improvement (OR = 1.28, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.13, 1.46]), whilst being in receipt of FSM was associated with reduced likelihood of reliable improvement (OR = 0.68, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.53, 0.88]). For the group below threshold, being female was associated with increased likelihood of reliable deterioration (OR = 1.20, p < 0.025, 95% CI [1.00, 1.42]), whereas being from a non-white ethnic background was associated with decreased likelihood of reliable deterioration (OR = 0.66, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]). For those above threshold, almost one in three children showed reliable improvement at 1 year. The extent of emotional difficulties at outset showed the highest associations with rates of reliable improvement.Entities:
Keywords: Child mental health; Deterioration; Improvement; Outcomes
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31054126 PMCID: PMC7024693 DOI: 10.1007/s00787-019-01334-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry ISSN: 1018-8827 Impact factor: 4.785
Characteristics of the full sample
| Variable | Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline conduct | 9074 | 1.96 | 1.88 |
| Baseline emotion | 2.61 | 2.18 | |
| Baseline hyperactivity | 3.72 | 2.35 | |
| Baseline peer problems | 1.81 | 1.74 | |
| Baseline impact | 0.72 | 1.71 | |
| Attainment at appropriate level for academic stage | 28.29 | 5.44 | |
| School climate | 9.44 | 3.09 | |
| Quality of life | 25.38 | 5.50 |
Mo. months, yr. year
Reliable change rates in the full, above threshold, and below threshold samples
| Samples | Improvement | Deterioration | No change | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | ||||
| Full ( | 910 | 10.03 | [9.21, 10.86] | 1011 | 11.14 | [10.33, 11.97] | 7153 | 78.83 | [78.01, 79.66] |
| Above threshold ( | 620 | 27.31 | [25.29, 29.34] | 198 | 8.72 | [6.7, 10.75] | 1452 | 63.96 | [61.94, 66] |
| Below threshold ( | 290 | 4.26 | [3.42, 5.13] | 813 | 11.95 | [11.11, 12.81] | 5701 | 83.79 | [82.95, 84.66] |
CI confidence intervals
Multinomial regression analysis predicting reliable improvement and deterioration in the above and below threshold samples
| Above threshold | Below threshold | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improvement | Deterioration | Improvement | Deterioration | |
| Variable | OR [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] |
| Baseline conduct | 1.67*** [1.49, 1.88] | 0.81 [0.67, 0.97] | 1.07 [0.93, 1.22] | 1.09 [1.00, 1.20] |
| Baseline emotion | 1.89*** [1.64, 2.17] | 0.68*** [0.54, 0.85] | 2.23*** [1.93, 2.57] | 0.82*** [0.75, 0.90] |
| Baseline hyperactivity | 1.11 [0.99, 1.24] | 0.75*** [0.63, 0.89] | 2.26*** [1.92, 2.67] | 0.74*** [0.67, 0.81] |
| Gender (female) | 1.00 [0.81, 1.24] | 1.14 [0.82, 1.59] | 0.74* [0.57, 0.96] | 1.20* [1.00, 1.42] |
| Ethnicity (other) | 1.23 [0.95, 1.58] | 0.82 [0.54, 1.25] | 1.46** [1.09, 1.97] | 0.66*** [0.54, 0.80] |
| FSM (yes) | 0.68** [0.53, 0.88] | 1.25 [0.88, 1.77] | 1.07 [0.77, 1.48] | 1.19 [0.97, 1.45] |
| SEN (yes) | 1.12 [0.86, 1.44] | 1.01 [0.68, 1.50] | 0.80 [0.56, 1.14] | 0.92 [0.74, 1.15] |
| Attainment at appropriate level for academic stage | 1.12 [0.99, 1.26] | 1.12 [0.92, 1.35] | 0.87 [0.75, 1.00] | 0.93 [0.85, 1.02] |
| School climate | 0.93 [0.83, 1.04] | 1.05 [0.88, 1.25] | 1.11 [0.97, 1.28] | 0.96 [0.88, 1.05] |
| Quality of life | 1.28*** [1.13, 1.46] | 0.78** [0.64, 0.95] | 1.11 [0.95, 1.29] | 0.93 [ [0.85, 1.03] |
| Baseline peer problems | 1.02 [0.90, 1.15] | 0.97 [0.80, 1.17] | 1.11 [0.97, 1.26] | 1.01 [0.93, 1.10] |
| Baseline impact | 1.00 [0.88, 1.13] | 1.02 [0.83, 1.26] | 1.00 [0.88, 1.14] | 1.02 [0.94, 1.10] |
| Duration (< 1 month) | 0.94 [0.70, 1.25] | 0.53** [0.33, 0.85] | 0.64** [0.45, 0.91] | 1.14 [0.91, 1.41] |
| Duration (1–5 months) | 0.96 [0.70, 1.32] | 0.41** [0.23, 0.74] | 0.73 [0.47, 1.14] | 1.05 [0.77, 1.44] |
| Duration (6–12 months) | 0.80 [0.53, 1.21] | 0.77 [0.42, 1.44] | 0.76 [0.39, 1.50] | 1.45 [0.93, 2.26] |
| Duration (>1 year) | 0.69 [0.50, 0.96] | 0.84 [0.53, 1.32] | 0.78 [0.49, 1.24] | 1.14 [0.82, 1.59] |
| School counsellor (yes) | 0.76 [0.57, 1.02] | 1.14 [0.76, 1.71] | 0.64 [0.39, 1.04] | 1.78*** [1.39, 2.29] |
| Peer mentor (yes) | 0.67* [0.49, 0.93] | 1.32 [0.86, 2.02] | 1.26 [0.76, 2.08] | 1.41** [1.08, 1.86] |
| Other help (yes) | 0.89 [0.67, 1.16] | 1.83** [1.24, 2.70] | 0.63 [0.41, 1.00] | 2.03*** [1.61, 2.55] |
| McFadden | 0.7 | 0.8 | ||
Continuous variables have been standardised
OR odds ratio, CI confidence intervals, FSM free school meal, SEN special educational needs
*p < 0.025, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 1Three-level regression tree predicting reliable improvement, reliable deterioration, and no reliable change in the above threshold sample. No no reliable change, det reliable deterioration, imp reliable improvement. For categorical variables (3, and 8), 1 = yes, 0 = no
Fig. 2Three-level regression tree predicting reliable improvement, reliable deterioration, and no reliable change in the below threshold sample. No no reliable change, det reliable deterioration, imp reliable improvement. For categorical variables (3, and 6), 1 = yes, 0 = no