RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Access to child and adolescent mental health services by ethnic minorities has been poorly studied. Despite rapid growth of the immigrant Korean population, evidence indicates that few Korean families utilise these services in New Zealand. Those that do tend to present late and with significant morbidity. We sought to understand barriers to service access from Korean parents' perspectives. METHOD: Seven focus groups were undertaken with 31 Korean parents of children aged 18 and under. The focus groups were semi-structured, held in the Korean language and utilised two case scenarios of common childhood/adolescent mental illnesses around which a set of broad, open-ended questions were posed. All conversations were audiorecorded, transcribed and translated into English. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software. RESULTS: Both attitudinal and structural barriers were identified. Attitudinal barriers included attribution of mental illness to external stressors or parenting problems, social stigma, denial or normalization of children's behaviour, fear of family disempowerment, and mistrust of public mental health services. Structural barriers included parents' lack of information regarding available services, logistical difficulties in access, communication difficulties, concerns over the quality of translators, and cultural competence of service providers. CONCLUSION: Significant barriers prevent Korean immigrant families from accessing child and adolescent mental health services in New Zealand. Measures to improve access, for example by countering stigma, are urgently required.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review, last published in 2012 (Loy 2012). Children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders may present to health services, where they may be treated with atypical antipsychotics. There is increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of disruptive behaviour disorders. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo, for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. The aim was to evaluate each drug separately rather than the class effect, on the grounds that each atypical antipsychotic has different pharmacologic binding profile (Stahl 2013) and that this is clinically more useful. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics versus placebo in children and youths aged up to and including 18 years, with a diagnosis of disruptive behaviour disorders, including comorbid ADHD. The primary outcomes were aggression, conduct problems and adverse events (i.e. weight gain/changes and metabolic parameters). The secondary outcomes were general functioning, noncompliance, other adverse events, social functioning, family functioning, parent satisfaction and school functioning. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JL and KS) independently collected, evaluated and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analyses for each of our primary outcomes, except for metabolic parameters, due to inadequate outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (spanning 2000 to 2014), involving a total of 896 children and youths aged five to 18 years. Bar two trials, all came from an outpatient setting. Eight trials assessed risperidone, one assessed quetiapine and one assessed ziprasidone. Nine trials assessed acute efficacy (over four to 10 weeks); one of which combined treatment with stimulant medication and parent training. One trial was a six-month maintenance trial assessing symptom recurrence.The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Nine studies had some degree of pharmaceutical support/funding. Primary outcomesUsing the mean difference (MD), we combined data from three studies (238 participants) in a meta-analysis of aggression, as assessed using the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) â Irritability subscale. We found that youths treated with risperidone show reduced aggression compared to youths treated with placebo (MD -6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to -4.19; low-quality evidence). Using the standardised mean difference (SMD), we pooled data from two risperidone trials (190 participants), which used different scales: the Overt Aggression Scale â Modified (OAS-M) Scale and the Antisocial Behaviour Scale (ABS); as the ABS had two subscales that could not be combined (reactive and proactive aggression), we performed two separate analyses. When we combined the ABS Reactive subscale and the OAS-M, the SMD was -1.30 in favour of risperidone (95% CI -2.21 to -0.40, moderate-quality evidence). When we combined the ABS Proactive subscale and OAS-M, the SMD was -1.12 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), suggesting uncertainty about the estimate of effect, as the confidence intervals overlapped the null value. In summary, there was some evidence that aggression could be reduced by risperidone. Data were lacking on other atypical antipsychotics, like quetiapine and ziprasidone, with regard to their effects on aggression.We pooled data from two risperidone trials (225 participants) in a meta-analysis of conduct problems, as assessed using the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form â Conduct Problem subscale (NCBRF-CP). This yielded a final mean score that was 8.61 points lower in the risperidone group compared to the placebo group (95% CI -11.49 to -5.74; moderate-quality evidence).We investigated the effect on weight by performing two meta-analyses. We wanted to distinguish between the effects of antipsychotic medication only and the combined effect with stimulants, since the latter can have a counteracting effect on weight gain due to appetite suppression. Pooling two trials with risperidone only (138 participants), we found that participants on risperidone gained 2.37 kilograms (kg) more (95% CI 0.26 to 4.49; moderate-quality evidence) than those on placebo. When we added a trial where all participants received a combination of risperidone and stimulants, we found that those on the combined treatment gained 2.14 kg more (95% CI 1.04 to 3.23; 3 studies; 305 participants; low-quality evidence) than those on placebo. Secondary outcomesOut of the 10 included trials, three examined general functioning, social functioning and parent satisfaction. No trials examined family or school functioning. Data on non-compliance/attrition rate and other adverse events were available from all 10 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that in the short term risperidone may reduce aggression and conduct problems in children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders There is also evidence that this intervention is associated with significant weight gain.For aggression, the difference in scores of 6.49 points on the ABC â Irritability subscale (range 0 to 45) may be clinically significant. It is challenging to interpret the clinical significance of the differential findings on two different ABS subscales as it may be difficult to distinguish between reactive and proactive aggression in clinical practice. For conduct problems, the difference in scores of 8.61 points on the NCBRF-CP (range 0 to 48) is likely to be clinically significant. Weight gain remains a concern.Caution is required in interpreting the results due to the limitations of current evidence and the small number of high-quality trials. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of quetiapine, ziprasidone or any other atypical antipsychotic for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths and no evidence for children under five years of age. It is uncertain to what degree the efficacy found in clinical trials will translate into real-life clinical practice. Given the effectiveness of parent-training interventions in the management of these disorders, and the somewhat equivocal evidence on the efficacy of medication, it is important not to use medication alone. This is consistent with current clinical guidelines.
Asunto(s)
Agresión/efectos de los fármacos , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Déficit de la Atención y Trastornos de Conducta Disruptiva/tratamiento farmacológico , Dibenzotiazepinas/uso terapéutico , Piperazinas/uso terapéutico , Fumarato de Quetiapina/uso terapéutico , Risperidona/uso terapéutico , Tiazoles/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Trastornos de Ansiedad/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad/tratamiento farmacológico , Niño , Preescolar , Trastorno de la Conducta/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/tratamiento farmacológico , Dibenzotiazepinas/efectos adversos , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Risperidona/efectos adversos , Aumento de PesoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Disruptive behaviour disorders include conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and disruptive behaviour not otherwise specified. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is frequently associated with disruptive behaviour disorders. The difficulties associated with disruptive behaviour disorders are demonstrated through aggression and severe behavioural problems. These often result in presentation to psychiatric services and may be treated with medications such as atypical antipsychotics. There is increasing evidence of a significant rise in the use of atypical antipsychotics for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in child and adolescent populations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo, for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in August 2011: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1948 to August Week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 32), PsycINFO (1806 to August Week 2 2011), CINAHL (1937 to current), ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 15 August 2011), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (searched 15 August 2011), CenterWatch (searched 15 August 2011) and ICTRP (searched 15 August 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with children and youths up to and including the age of 18, in any setting, with a diagnosis of a disruptive behaviour disorder. We included trials where participants had a comorbid diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depression or an anxiety disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two review authors extracted data independently. One review author entered data into Review Manager software and another checked it. We contacted trial authors for information about adverse effects and to provide missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised controlled trials, spanning 2000 to 2008. Seven assessed risperidone and one assessed quetiapine. Three of the studies were multicentre. Seven trials assessed acute efficacy and one assessed time to symptom recurrence over a six-month maintenance period.We performed meta-analyses for the primary outcomes of aggression, conduct problems and weight changes but these were limited by the available data as different trials reported either mean change scores (average difference) or final/post-intervention raw scores and used different outcome measures. We also evaluated each individual trial's treatment effect size where possible, using Hedges' g.For aggression, we conducted two meta-analyses. The first included three trials (combined n = 238) using mean difference (MD) on the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) Irritability subscale. Results yielded a final mean score with treatment that was 6.49 points lower than the post-intervention mean score with placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to -4.19). The second meta-analysis on aggression included two trials (combined n = 57) that employed two different outcome measures (Overt Aggression Scale (modified) (OAS-M) and OAS, respectively) and thus we used a standardised mean difference. Results yielded an effect estimate of -0.18 (95% CI -0.70 to 0.34), which was statistically non-significant.We also performed two meta-analyses for conduct problems. The first included two trials (combined n = 225), both of which employed the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form - Conduct Problem subscale (NCBRF-CP). The results yielded a final mean score with treatment that was 8.61 points lower than that with placebo (95% CI -11.49 to -5.74). The second meta-analysis on conduct problems included two trials (combined n = 36), which used the Conners' Parent Rating Scale - Conduct Problem subscale (CPRS-CP). Results yielded a mean score with treatment of 12.67 lower than with placebo (95% CI -37.45 to 12.11), which was a statistically non-significant result.With respect to the side effect of weight gain, a meta-analysis of two studies (combined n = 138) showed that participants on risperidone gained on average 2.37 kilograms more than those in the placebo group over the treatment period (MD 2.37; 95% CI 0.26 to 4.49).For individual trials, there was a range of effect sizes (ranging from small to large) for risperidone reducing aggression and conduct problems. The precision of the estimate of the effect size varied between trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some limited evidence of efficacy of risperidone reducing aggression and conduct problems in children aged 5 to 18 with disruptive behaviour disorders in the short term.For aggression, the difference in scores of 6.49 points on the ABC Irritability subscale (range 0 to 45) may be clinically significant. For conduct problems, the difference in scores of 8.61 points on the NCBRF-CP (range 0 to 48) is likely to be clinically significant.Caution is required due to the limitations of the evidence and the small number of relevant high-quality studies. The findings from the one study assessing impact in the longer term suggest that the effects are maintained to some extent (small effect size) for up to six months. Inadequately powered studies produced non-significant results. The evidence is restricted by heterogeneity of the population (including below average and borderline IQ), and methodological issues in some studies, such as use of enriched designs and risk of selection bias. No study addressed the issue of pre-existing/concurrent psychosocial interventions, and comorbid stimulant medication and its dosage was only partially addressed. There is currently no evidence to support the use of quetiapine for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and adolescents.It is uncertain to what degree the efficacy found in clinical trials will translate into real life clinical practice. Participants in the studies were recruited from clinical services but those who agree to take part in the clinical trials are a subset of the overall population presenting for care. There are no research data for children under five years of age. Further high-quality research is required with large samples of clinically representative youths and long-term follow-up to replicate current findings.