We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Cross-sectional studies report high levels of depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in youth and females. However, longitudinal research comparing depressive symptoms before and during the pandemic is lacking. Little is known about how the pandemic affected individuals with familial history of mental illness. The present study examines the impact of the pandemic on youth depressive symptoms, including offspring of parents with major mood and psychotic disorders.
Methods
Between March 2018 and February 2020, we measured depressive symptoms in 412 youth aged 5–25 years. We measured depressive symptoms again in 371 (90%) of these youth between April 2020 and May 2022. Two thirds (249) participants had a biological parent with a major mood or psychotic disorder. We tested the effect of the pandemic by comparing depression symptoms before and after March 2020. We examined age, sex, and family history as potential moderators.
Results
We found an overall small increase in youth depressive symptoms (b = 0.07, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.15, p = 0.062). This was driven by an increase in female youth without familial history of mental illness (b = 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56, p = 0.001). There was no change in depressive symptoms among offspring of parents with mental illness or males.
Conclusions
Our results provide reassurance about the wellbeing of children of parents with mental illness during a period of restricted access to resources outside the family. Rather than increasing symptoms in established risk groups, the pandemic led to a redistribution of depression burden towards segments of the youth population that were previously considered to be low-risk.
Psychotic symptoms are common in children and adolescents and may be early manifestations of liability to severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia. SMI and psychotic symptoms are associated with impairment in executive functions. However, previous studies have not differentiated between ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ executive functions. We hypothesized that the propensity for psychotic symptoms is specifically associated with impairment in ‘hot’ executive functions, such as decision-making in the context of uncertain rewards and losses.
Methods
In a cohort of 156 youth (mean age 12.5, range 7–24 years) enriched for familial risk of SMI, we measured cold and hot executive functions with the spatial working memory (SWM) task (total errors) and the Cambridge Gambling Task (decision-making), respectively. We assessed psychotic symptoms using the semi-structured Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia interview, Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes, Funny Feelings, and Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument – Child and Youth version.
Results
In total 69 (44.23%) youth reported psychotic symptoms on one or more assessments. Cold executive functioning, indexed with SWM errors, was not significantly related to psychotic symptoms [odds ratio (OR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–2.17, p = 0.204). Poor hot executive functioning, indexed as decision-making score, was associated with psychotic symptoms after adjustment for age, sex and familial clustering (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.25–4.50, p = 0.008). The association between worse hot executive functions and psychotic symptoms remained significant in sensitivity analyses controlling for general cognitive ability and cold executive functions.
Conclusions
Impaired hot executive functions may be an indicator of risk and a target for pre-emptive early interventions in youth.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.