Alcohol use in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is under-researched. Previous reviews have explored substance use as a whole, but this neglects individual characteristics unique to different substances. Alcohol use in non-clinical samples is associated with diverse responses. To advance practice and policy, an improved understanding of alcohol use among people with ASD is crucial to meet individual needs.

This was a narrative systematic review of the current literature on the association between alcohol use and ASD, focusing on aetiology (biological, psychological, social and environmental risk factors) and implications (consequences and protective factors) of alcohol use in autistic populations who utilise clinical services. We sought to identify priority research questions and offer policy and practice recommendations.

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023430291. The search was conducted across five databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Global Health. Included studies explored alcohol use and ASD within clinical samples.

A total of 22 studies was included in the final review. The pooled prevalence of alcohol use disorder in ASD was 1.6% and 16.1% in large population registers and clinical settings, respectively. Four components were identified as possible aetiological risk factors: age, co-occurring conditions, gender and genetics. We identified ten implications for co-occurring alcohol use disorder in ASD, summarised as a concept map.

Emerging trends in the literature suggest direction and principles for research and practice. Future studies should use a standardised methodological approach, including psychometrically validated instruments and representative samples, to inform policy and improve the experience for autistic populations with co-occurring alcohol use.

An improved understanding of the factors associated with self-harm in young people who die by suicide can inform suicide prevention measures.

To describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and service utilisation related to self-harm in a national sample of young people who died by suicide.

We carried out a descriptive study of self-harm in a national consecutive case series (N = 544) of 10- to 19-year-olds who died by suicide over 3 years (2014–2016) in the UK as identified from national mortality data. Information was collected from coroner inquest hearings, child death investigations, criminal justice system and National Health Service serious incident reports.

Almost half (49%) of these young people had harmed themselves at some point in their lives, a quarter (26%) in the 3 months before death. Girls were twice as likely as boys to have recent self-harm (40 v. 20%; P < 0.001). Compared to the no self-harm group, young people with recent self-harm were more likely to have a mental illness diagnosis (63 v. 23%; P < 0.001); misused alcohol (19 v. 9%; P = 0.07); experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse (17 v. 3%; P < 0.01); and recent life adversity (95 v. 75%; P < 0.001). Furthermore, they were more likely to be in contact with mental health services (60 v. 10%), or emergency departments or general physicians for a mental health condition (52 v. 10%) in the 3 months before death.

Presentation to services in young people who self-harm is an important opportunity to intervene through comprehensive psychosocial assessment and treatment of underlying conditions.

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first-episode psychosis (FEP) presentations across two Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services in Ireland, by comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic cohorts.

A cross-sectional observational design with retrospective medical record review was employed. The study population comprised 187 FEP patients (77 in pre-pandemic and 110 in post-pandemic cohort). Outcomes measured included duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), FEP presentation numbers, referral sources, global assessment of functioning scores, inpatient admissions, substance misuse and service delivery methods. Statistical analyses utilised chi-square tests to assess categorical variables, Mann–Whitney U tests to compare non-normally distributed continuous variables and Kruskal–Wallis tests to examine interactions between categorical and continuous variables.

A significant increase in FEP presentations was observed in the post-pandemic cohort (p = 0.003), with an increase in all urban areas and a decrease in the study’s only rural area. The difference in DUP between cohorts was not significant. However, significant interaction between gender, cohort and DUP was shown (p = 0.008), with women in the post-pandemic cohort experiencing longer DUP (p = 0.01). A significant rise in telephone (p = 0.05) and video consultations (p = 0.001) offered was observed, in the post-pandemic cohort. A similar number of in-person appointments were attended across both cohorts.

This study highlights the impact of the pandemic on FEP presentations, particularly rurally and regarding increased DUP among women. These findings underscore the need for flexible EIP services to respond to public health crises. Despite increased presentations, services adapted, maintaining service continuity through telehealth and modified in-person contact.

Discipline is a crucial aspect of parenting, shaping child development and behaviour. Time-out, a widely used disciplinary strategy with a strong evidence-base, has recently come under scrutiny with concerns about potential adverse effects on children's emotional development and attachment, particularly for those with a history of adversity.

To contribute critical empirical insights to the current controversy surrounding time-out by exploring the associations among time-out implementation, parent–child attachment and child mental health, and whether adversity exposure moderated these associations.

This cross-sectional study utilised a nationally representative sample of 474 primary caregivers in Australia, with children aged 6–8 years, who completed an online survey. Measures included the Implementation of Time-out Scale, Adverse Life Experiences Scale, Primary Attachment Style Questionnaire, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and Spence Child Anxiety Scale.

Appropriately implemented time-out was associated with enhanced mental health and attachment, while inappropriate time-out correlated with adverse child outcomes. Exposure to adversity moderated the relationship between time-out implementation and child well-being, such that children exposed to adversity were most likely to experience attachment enhancement from appropriately implemented time-out.

Despite recent concerns of harm caused by time-out, particularly for children with a history of adversity, findings support the beneficial impact of time-out on child well-being and attachment when implemented in accordance with evidence-based parameters. Combatting misinformation and disseminating evidence-based time-out guidelines is crucial for promoting child well-being and attachment, especially for children who have experienced adversity.

The clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-p) syndrome enables early identification of individuals at risk of schizophrenia and related disorders. We differentiate between the stigma associated with the at-risk identification itself (‘labelling-related’ stigma) versus stigma attributed to experiencing mental health symptoms (‘symptom-related’ stigma) and examine their relationships with key psychosocial variables.

We compare labelling- and symptom-related stigma in rates of endorsement and associations with self-esteem, social support loss and quality of life.

We assessed stigma domains of shame-related emotions, secrecy and experienced discrimination for both types of stigma. Individuals at CHR-p were recruited across three sites (N = 150); primary analyses included those who endorsed awareness of psychosis risk (n = 113). Paired-sample t-tests examined differences in labelling- versus symptom-related stigma; regressions examined associations with psychosocial variables, controlling for covariates, including CHR-p symptoms.

Respondents reported greater symptom-related shame, but more labelling-related secrecy. Of the nine significant associations between stigma and psychosocial variables, eight were attributable to symptom-related stigma, even after adjusting for CHR-p symptoms.

Stigma attributed to symptoms had a stronger negative association with psychosocial variables than did labelling-related stigma among individuals recently identified as CHR-p. That secrecy related to the CHR-p designation was greater than its symptom-related counterpart suggests that labelling-related stigma may still be problematic for some CHR-p participants. To optimise this pivotal early intervention effort, interventions should address the holistic ‘stigmatising experience’ of having symptoms, namely any harmful reactions received as well as participants’ socially influenced concerns about what their experiences mean, in addition to the symptoms themselves.

A collaborative evaluation of remote consultations in mental health services was undertaken by mental health service providers, experts by experience, academic institutions and a Health Innovation Network in south London, UK. ‘Learning healthcare systems’ thinking was applied. Workstream 1 reviewed international published evidence; workstream 2 synthesised findings from three health provider surveys of the perceptions and experiences of staff, patients and carers; and workstream 3 comprised an electronic survey on local projects.

Remote consultations can be acceptable to patients and staff. They improve access for some while restricting access for others, with digital exclusion being a key concern. Providing tailored choice is key.

The collaboration generated learning to inform choices by healthcare providers to embed or adapt remote delivery. A key output was freely downloadable survey questions for assessing the quantity and quality of appointments undertaken by phone or video or face to face.

Achieving equitable healthcare access is a global challenge. Improving whole-population mental health and reducing the global burden of mental disorders is a key recommendation of the 2018 Lancet Global Mental Health Commission, which proposed monitoring national indicators, including the proportion of people with severe mental disorders who are service-users. This study aims to derive an equity indicator from national datasets integrating need, service utilisation and socioeconomic status, and demonstrate its utility in identifying gaps in mental health service use amongst those with the greatest need, thereby guiding equitable healthcare delivery.

We present a case study of a universal health insurance scheme (Medicare) in Australia. We developed the equity indicator using three national datasets. Geographic areas were linked to an area-based socioeconomic deprivation quintile (Census 2016). Per geographic area, we estimated the number with a mental healthcare need using scores ≥30 on the Kessler-10 (Australian National Health Surveys 2015 and 2018), and obtained the number of services used, defined as mental health-related contacts with general practitioners and mental health professionals (Medicare administrative data 2015–2019). We divided the number of services by the population with an estimated mental healthcare need and averaged these use-rates across each socioeconomic deprivation quintile. The equity indicator is the ratio of the use-rates in the least versus most deprived quintiles.

Those estimated to have the greatest need for mental healthcare in 2019 ranged between 8.2% in the most disadvantaged area quintile (Q1) and 2.4% in the least (Q5), corresponding to a proportional increase of 27.7% in Q1 and 19.5% in Q5 since 2015. Equity-indicator-adjusted service rates of 4.2 (3.8–4.6) and 23.9 (22.4–25.4) showed that individuals with the highest need for care residing in Q1 areas received a stark 6 times fewer services compared to their Q5 counterparts, producing an equity indicator of 6.

As the global prevalence of common mental disorders may be increasing, it is crucial to calculate robust indicators evaluating the equity of mental health service use. In this Australian case study, we developed an equity indicator enabling the direct comparison of geographic areas with different need profiles. The results revealed striking inequities that persisted despite publicly-funded universal healthcare, recent service reforms and being a high-income country. This study demonstrates the importance and feasibility of generating such an indicator to inform and empower communities, healthcare providers and policymakers to pursue equitable service provision.

Child and adolescent mental health service in-patient beds are unevenly spread throughout England. Where demand outstrips bed availability, young people may be admitted at-distance or to adult psychiatric wards. The COVID-19 pandemic added pressures to already overstretched services. Understanding experiences during this period is vital to inform strategies for future emergencies.

To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on admissions to local, at-distance or adult psychiatric units, from the perspectives of young people, parents/carers and healthcare professionals.

Multi-methods data were collected from February 2021 to September 2022, as part of the Far Away from Home research programme. A 13-month national surveillance study collected information about admissions to general adolescent units >50 miles from home, out-of-region or to adult psychiatric units. Free-text data from respondents (n = 51) were analysed using content analysis. Interviews with young people (n = 30), parents/carers (n = 21) and healthcare professionals (n = 68) were analysed using thematic analysis.

Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic affected young people's contact with others; the requirement to self-isolate on admission and following overnight leave felt distressing, and visiting was limited. This disincentivised overnight leave, leading to some discharges being delayed and others feeling rushed and high risk. The COVID-19 pandemic also accelerated the introduction of virtual meetings, enabling community teams and families to be more involved in therapies, meetings and decision-making.

Restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic were often negatively perceived. However, the increased use of technology was felt to be positive, widening inclusion and mitigating some negative effects of distance on admissions.