Suchergebnisse

Die Entwicklung der künstlichen sozial-emotionalen Intelligenz wird intensiv beforscht und finanziell gefördert. Sozial und emotional intelligente Roboter sind noch "science fiction", allerdings finden Hilfsroboter in sozialen Bereichen wie in der Pflege sowie künstliche Intelligenz in Form von maschinellem Lernen auch in der Psychiatrie bereits ihren Einsatz. Welche Implikationen leiten sich daraus für die Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie ab? Der Nutzen der vereinzelt eingesetzten "sozialer" Roboter in der Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie sollte aus inhaltlicher, ethischer und politischer Sicht intensiv untersucht und kritisch hinterfragt werden. Maschinelles Lernen für die Entwicklung von Apps zur psychischen Gesundheit und therapeutischen Chatbots ist weltweit im Einsatz und aus dem digitalen Bereich der "mental health"-Versorgung nicht mehr wegzudenken. Hier kann die künstliche Intelligenz hilfreich und unterstützend sein, um Hilfsbedürftigen, die anderweitig keinen Zugang zu einer psychiatrischen Versorgung bekämen, zu erreichen. Sie kann in Form von Screenings massenhaft Daten verarbeiten und so gefährdete Menschen identifizieren und eine Unterstützung durch das Helfersystem ermöglichen. Für eine derartige Nutzung sollte sich die psychiatrische Fachgemeinschaft intensiv einbringen, um qualitative, ethische und rechtliche Standards zu erarbeiten. Künstliche Intelligenz sei es in Form von Robotik oder maschninellem Lernen kann immer nur als Werkzeug niemals als Ersatz fungieren.

Mit dem Einzug des Themas »Transidentität« in das Bewusstsein einer breiten Öffentlichkeit mehren sich in den kinder- und jugendpsychotherapeutischen Praxen die Behandlungswünsche Jugendlicher mit Genderdysphorie und transidentem Erleben. Die Einflussfaktoren für die Identitätsbildung sind vielfältig und die Begleitung der Alltagserprobung von Trans*Jugendlichen im gefühlten Geschlecht stellt Therapeut*innen vor eine besondere Herausforderung. Heiko Dietrich zeigt anhand von Falldarstellungen wesentliche Aspekte der therapeutischen Arbeit mit dieser Klientel. Er erörtert die Auseinandersetzung mit dem transidenten Erleben sowie den Einfluss psychischer Störungen auf das Selbstbild der Jugendlichen, um für die Behandler*innen Sicherheit für eine gute Entscheidungsfindung bei der Indikationsstellung zu medizinischen Maßnahmen zu gewinnen.

Pathological Internet use (but only with respect to gaming) is classified as mental disorder in the ICD-11. However, there is a large group of adolescents showing excessive Internet use, which may rather be considered adolescent risk-behavior. The aim was to test whether pathological and excessive Internet use should be considered as "psychopathology" or "risk-behavior". A representative, cross-sectional sample of 11.110 students from 10 European Union countries was analyzed. Structural equation models, including the factors "risk-behavior" and "psychopathology" and the variables excessive and pathological Internet use, were tested against each other. "Risk-behavior" was operationalized by several risk-behaviors (e.g. drug abuse, truancy, etc). "Psychopathology" included measures of several mental disorders (e.g. depression, hyperactivity, etc). Excessive Internet use was assessed as the duration and frequency of Internet use. Pathological Internet use was assessed with the Young Diagnostic Questionnaire (i.e., presence of addiction criteria). Excessive Internet use loaded on "risk-behavior" (λ = 0.484, p < .001) and on "psychopathology" (λ = 0.071, p < .007). Pathological Internet use loaded on "risk-behavior" (λ = 0.333, p < .001) and on "psychopathology" (λ = 0.852, p < .001). Chi-square tests determined that the loadings of excessive Internet use (χ2 (1) = 81.98, p < .001) were significantly stronger on "risk-behavior" than "psychopathology". Vice versa, pathological Internet use loaded significantly stronger on "psychopathology" (χ2 (1) = 107.10, p < .001). The results indicate that pathological Internet use should rather be considered as psychopathology. Excessive Internet use on the other hand, should be classified as adolescent risk-behavior.

Rising global rates of pathological Internet use (PIU) and related psychological impairments have gained considerable attention in recent years. In an effort to acquire evidence-based knowledge of this relationship, the main objective of this study was to investigate the association between PIU, psychopathology and self-destructive behaviours among school-based adolescents in eleven European countries. This cross-sectional study was implemented within the framework of the European Union project: Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe. A representative sample of 11,356 school-based adolescents (M/F: 4,856/6,500; mean age: 14.9) was included in the analyses. PIU was assessed using the Young's Diagnostic Questionnaire. Psychopathology was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-destructive behaviours were evaluated by the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory and Paykel Suicide Scale. Results showed that suicidal behaviours (suicidal ideation and suicide attempts), depression, anxiety, conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention were significant and independent predictors of PIU. The correlation between PIU, conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention was stronger among females, while the link between PIU and symptoms of depression, anxiety and peer relationship problems was stronger among males. The association between PIU, psychopathology and self-destructive behaviours was stronger in countries with a higher prevalence of PIU and suicide rates. These findings ascertain that psychopathology and suicidal behaviours are strongly related to PIU. This association is significantly influenced by gender and country suggesting socio-cultural influences. At the clinical and public health levels, targeting PIU among adolescents in the early stages could potentially lead to improvements of psychological well-being and a reduction of suicidal behaviours.

International audience ; BACKGROUND: There have been only a few reports illustrating the moderate effectiveness of suicide-preventive interventions in reducing suicidal behavior, and, in most of those studies, the target populations were primarily adults, whereas few focused on adolescents. Essentially, there have been no randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cultural adaptability of suicide-prevention strategies in schools. There is also a lack of information on whether suicide-preventive interventions can, in addition to preventing suicide, reduce risk behaviors and promote healthier ones as well as improve young people's mental health.The aim of the SEYLE project, which is funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Health Program, is to address these issues by collecting baseline and follow-up data on health and well-being among European adolescents and compiling an epidemiological database; testing, in a randomized controlled trial, three different suicide-preventive interventions; evaluating the outcome of each intervention in comparison with a control group from a multidisciplinary perspective; as well as recommending culturally adjusted models for promoting mental health and preventing suicidal behaviors. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study comprises 11,000 adolescents emitted from randomized schools in 11 European countries: Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, with Sweden serving as the scientific coordinating center. Each country performs three active interventions and one minimal intervention as a control group. The active interventions include gatekeeper training (QPR), awareness training on mental health promotion for adolescents, and screening for at-risk adolescents by health professionals. Structured questionnaires are utilized at baseline, 3- and 12-month follow-ups in order to assess changes. DISCUSSION: Although it has been reported that suicide-preventive interventions can be effective ...

International audience ; BACKGROUND: There have been only a few reports illustrating the moderate effectiveness of suicide-preventive interventions in reducing suicidal behavior, and, in most of those studies, the target populations were primarily adults, whereas few focused on adolescents. Essentially, there have been no randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cultural adaptability of suicide-prevention strategies in schools. There is also a lack of information on whether suicide-preventive interventions can, in addition to preventing suicide, reduce risk behaviors and promote healthier ones as well as improve young people's mental health.The aim of the SEYLE project, which is funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Health Program, is to address these issues by collecting baseline and follow-up data on health and well-being among European adolescents and compiling an epidemiological database; testing, in a randomized controlled trial, three different suicide-preventive interventions; evaluating the outcome of each intervention in comparison with a control group from a multidisciplinary perspective; as well as recommending culturally adjusted models for promoting mental health and preventing suicidal behaviors. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study comprises 11,000 adolescents emitted from randomized schools in 11 European countries: Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, with Sweden serving as the scientific coordinating center. Each country performs three active interventions and one minimal intervention as a control group. The active interventions include gatekeeper training (QPR), awareness training on mental health promotion for adolescents, and screening for at-risk adolescents by health professionals. Structured questionnaires are utilized at baseline, 3- and 12-month follow-ups in order to assess changes. DISCUSSION: Although it has been reported that suicide-preventive interventions can be effective ...

There have been only a few reports illustrating the moderate effectiveness of suicide-preventive interventions in reducing suicidal behavior, and, in most of those studies, the target populations were primarily adults, whereas few focused on adolescents. Essentially, there have been no randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cultural adaptability of suicide-prevention strategies in schools. There is also a lack of information on whether suicide-preventive interventions can, in addition to preventing suicide, reduce risk behaviors and promote healthier ones as well as improve young people's mental health. The aim of the SEYLE project, which is funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Health Program, is to address these issues by collecting baseline and follow-up data on health and well-being among European adolescents and compiling an epidemiological database; testing, in a randomized controlled trial, three different suicide-preventive interventions; evaluating the outcome of each intervention in comparison with a control group from a multidisciplinary perspective; as well as recommending culturally adjusted models for promoting mental health and preventing suicidal behaviors. The study comprises 11,000 adolescents emitted from randomized schools in 11 European countries: Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, with Sweden serving as the scientific coordinating center. Each country performs three active interventions and one minimal intervention as a control group. The active interventions include gatekeeper training (QPR), awareness training on mental health promotion for adolescents, and screening for at-risk adolescents by health professionals. Structured questionnaires are utilized at baseline, 3- and 12-month follow-ups in order to assess changes. Although it has been reported that suicide-preventive interventions can be effective in decreasing suicidal behavior, well-documented and randomized studies are lacking. The effects of such interventions in terms of combating unhealthy lifestyles in young people, which often characterize suicidal individuals, have never been reported. We know that unhealthy and risk-taking behaviors are detrimental to individuals' current and future health. It is, therefore, crucial to test well-designed, longitudinal mental health-promoting and suicide-preventive interventions by evaluating the implications of such activities for reducing unhealthy and risk behaviors while concurrently promoting healthy ones. Trial registration: The German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00000214.

International audience ; BACKGROUND: There have been only a few reports illustrating the moderate effectiveness of suicide-preventive interventions in reducing suicidal behavior, and, in most of those studies, the target populations were primarily adults, whereas few focused on adolescents. Essentially, there have been no randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cultural adaptability of suicide-prevention strategies in schools. There is also a lack of information on whether suicide-preventive interventions can, in addition to preventing suicide, reduce risk behaviors and promote healthier ones as well as improve young people's mental health.The aim of the SEYLE project, which is funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Health Program, is to address these issues by collecting baseline and follow-up data on health and well-being among European adolescents and compiling an epidemiological database; testing, in a randomized controlled trial, three different suicide-preventive interventions; evaluating the outcome of each intervention in comparison with a control group from a multidisciplinary perspective; as well as recommending culturally adjusted models for promoting mental health and preventing suicidal behaviors. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study comprises 11,000 adolescents emitted from randomized schools in 11 European countries: Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, with Sweden serving as the scientific coordinating center. Each country performs three active interventions and one minimal intervention as a control group. The active interventions include gatekeeper training (QPR), awareness training on mental health promotion for adolescents, and screening for at-risk adolescents by health professionals. Structured questionnaires are utilized at baseline, 3- and 12-month follow-ups in order to assess changes. DISCUSSION: Although it has been reported that suicide-preventive interventions can be effective ...