Exposure to maternal major depressive disorder (MDD) bears long-term negative consequences for children's well-being; to date, no research has examined how exposure at different stages of development differentially affects brain functioning.

Utilising a unique cohort followed from birth to preadolescence, we examined the effects of early versus later maternal MDD on default mode network (DMN) connectivity.

Maternal depression was assessed at birth and ages 6 months, 9 months, 6 years and 10 years, to form three groups: children of mothers with consistent depression from birth to 6 years of age, which resolved by 10 years of age; children of mothers without depression; and children of mothers who were diagnosed with MDD in late childhood. In preadolescence, we used magnetoencephalography and focused on theta rhythms, which characterise the developing brain.

Maternal MDD was associated with disrupted DMN connectivity in an exposure-specific manner. Early maternal MDD decreased child connectivity, presenting a profile typical of early trauma or chronic adversity. In contrast, later maternal MDD was linked with tighter connectivity, a pattern characteristic of adult depression. Aberrant DMN connectivity was predicted by intrusive mothering in infancy and lower mother–child reciprocity and child empathy in late childhood, highlighting the role of deficient caregiving and compromised socio-emotional competencies in DMN dysfunction.

The findings pinpoint the distinct effects of early versus later maternal MDD on the DMN, a core network sustaining self-related processes. Results emphasise that research on the influence of early adversity on the developing brain should consider the developmental stage in which the adversity occured.

Psychotic symptoms and psychotic disorders occur at increased rates in adults with intellectual disability, including borderline intellectual functioning, compared with the general population. Little is known about the development of such symptoms in this population.

To examine whether clinical factors predictive of psychotic disorder in a familial study of schizophrenia also apply to those with intellectual disability.

Adolescents with special educational needs (SEN) were assessed with the Structured Interview for Schizotypy (SIS) and Childhood Behavioural Checklist (CBCL). These scores were used to prospectively divide participants based on their anticipated risk for psychotic disorder. A subsample were reassessed three times over 6 years, using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

The SEN group were more symptomatic than controls throughout (Cohen's d range for PANSS subscale scores: 0.54–1.4, all P < 0.007). Over 6 years of follow-up, those above the SIS and CBCL cut-off values at baseline were more likely than those below to display morbid positive psychotic symptoms (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI 1.3–9.0) and develop psychotic disorder (odds ratio, 11.4; 95% CI 2.6–50.1). Baseline SIS and CBCL cut-off values predicted psychotic disorder with sensitivity of 0.67, specificity of 0.85, positive predictive value of 0.26 and negative predictive value of 0.97.

Adolescents with SEN have increased psychotic and non-psychotic symptoms. The personality and behavioural features associated with later psychotic disorder in this group are similar to those in people with familial loading. Relatively simple screening measures may help identify those in this vulnerable group who do and do not require monitoring for psychotic symptoms.

None.

Victims of violence, accidents and threats are at risk for mental health problems. Lower coping self-efficacy and social support levels increase this risk. Although highly relevant, it is unknown if the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic amplifies these risks.

To examine if the prevalence, incidence and/or mean scores for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems, coping self-efficacy, lack of emotional support and social acknowledgement are higher among adults victimised in the year after the COVID-19 outbreak compared with adults victimised in a similar period before the outbreak. Also, to compare symptoms, problems and support within non-victims during the same period.

Data was extracted from four surveys of the VICTIMS study (March 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021), based on a random sample of the Dutch population. Multivariate logistic regression analyses and mixed-effects models were used to examine differences between the two victim groups (2019: n = 421, 2021: n = 319) and non-victims (n = 3245).

Adults victimised after the outbreak more often had PTSD, anxiety and depression symptoms, general mental health problems and lower coping self-efficacy than those victimised before. They did not differ in lack of support and acknowledgement. Both victim groups differed from non-victims, where mental health problems and lack of support levels were much lower and almost stable.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and coping self-efficacy levels of victims, whereas mental health problems among non-victims remained virtually stable. Mental healthcare workers, general practitioners and victim services should take this impact into account.

Findings are presented from an evaluation of a pilot remand and assessment service - the Bentham Unit, The aims of the Bentham Unit are to provide rapid assessment, identify mentally disordered remand prisoners, and speed their transfer from prison to NHS care, where a need is indicated.

The number, rate and speed of referral, assessment and transfer to NHS care of offenders remanded to Wormwood Scrubs prison during periods before and after the Bentham Unit opened were compared.

The service attracted a large volume of referrals. Between the two periods, significant increases in the numbers of referrals and hospital disposals, and major reductions in the interval between reception on remand into the prison, NHS assessment and transfer to NHS care, were observed.

The aims of the unit were met. Implications for service configurations are discussed.

Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components.

We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care.

We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA).

We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group.

There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Children and young people with intellectual disability and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism) experience higher rates of mental health problems, including depression, than their typically developing peers. Although international guidelines suggest psychological therapies as first-line intervention for children and young people, there is limited evidence for psychological therapy for depression in children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism.

To evaluate the current evidence base for psychological interventions for depression in children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism, and examine the experiences of children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism, their families and therapists, in receiving and delivering psychological treatment for depression.

Databases were searched up to 30 April 2020 using pre-defined search terms and criteria. Articles were independently screened and assessed for risk of bias. Data were synthesised and reported in a narrative review format.

A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four identified studies were clinical case reports and six were quasi-experimental or experimental studies. All studies were assessed as being of moderate or high risk of bias. Participants with intellectual disability were included in four studies. There was limited data on the experiences of young people, their families or therapists in receiving or delivering psychological treatment for depression.

Well-designed, randomised controlled trials are critical to develop an evidence base for psychological treatment for young people with intellectual disability and/or autism with depression. Future research should evaluate the treatment experiences of young people, their families and therapists.