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.

Intellectual disability has a complex effect on the well-being of affected individuals and their families. Previous research has identified multiple risk and protective factors for parental mental health, including socioeconomic circumstances and child behaviour.

This study explored whether genetic cause of childhood intellectual disability contributes to parental well-being.

Children from across the UK with intellectual disability due to diverse genetic causes were recruited to the IMAGINE-ID study. Primary carers completed the Development and Well-being Assessment, including a measure of parental distress (Everyday Feeling Questionnaire). Genetic diagnoses were broadly categorised into aneuploidy, chromosomal rearrangements, copy number variants (CNVs) and single nucleotide variants.

Compared with the UK general population, IMAGINE-ID parents (n = 888) reported significantly elevated emotional distress (Cohen's d = 0.546). Within-sample variation was related to recent life events and the perceived impact of children's difficulties. Impact was predicted by child age, physical disability, autistic characteristics and other behavioural difficulties. Genetic diagnosis also predicted impact, indirectly influencing parental well-being. Specifically, CNVs were associated with higher impact, not explained by CNV inheritance, neighbourhood deprivation or family structure.

The mental health of parents caring for a child with intellectual disability is influenced by child and family factors, converging on parental appraisal of impact. We found that genetic aetiologies, broadly categorised, also influence impact and thereby family risks. Recognition of these risk factors could improve access to support for parents, reduce their long-term mental health needs and improve well-being of individuals with intellectual disability.

The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the population's mental health and well-being are likely to be profound and long lasting.

To investigate the trajectory of mental health and well-being during the first 6 weeks of lockdown in adults in the UK.

A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample was employed. Findings for waves 1 (31 March to 9 April 2020), 2 (10 April to 27 April 2020) and 3 (28 April to 11 May 2020) are reported here. A range of mental health factors was assessed: pre-existing mental health problems, suicide attempts and self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, mental well-being and loneliness.

A total of 3077 adults in the UK completed the survey at wave 1. Suicidal ideation increased over time. Symptoms of anxiety, and levels of defeat and entrapment decreased across waves whereas levels of depressive symptoms did not change significantly. Positive well-being also increased. Levels of loneliness did not change significantly over waves. Subgroup analyses showed that women, young people (18–29 years), those from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health problems have worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors.

The mental health and well-being of the UK adult population appears to have been affected in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasing rates of suicidal thoughts across waves, especially among young adults, are concerning.

The COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures are likely to have a marked effect on mental health. It is important to use longitudinal data to improve inferences.

To quantify the prevalence of depression, anxiety and mental well-being before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, to identify groups at risk of depression and/or anxiety during the pandemic.

Data were from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) index generation (n = 2850, mean age 28 years) and parent generation (n = 3720, mean age 59 years), and Generation Scotland (n = 4233, mean age 59 years). Depression was measured with the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in ALSPAC and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in Generation Scotland. Anxiety and mental well-being were measured with the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 and the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.

Depression during the pandemic was similar to pre-pandemic levels in the ALSPAC index generation, but those experiencing anxiety had almost doubled, at 24% (95% CI 23–26%) compared with a pre-pandemic level of 13% (95% CI 12–14%). In both studies, anxiety and depression during the pandemic was greater in younger members, women, those with pre-existing mental/physical health conditions and individuals in socioeconomic adversity, even when controlling for pre-pandemic anxiety and depression.

These results provide evidence for increased anxiety in young people that is coincident with the pandemic. Specific groups are at elevated risk of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important for planning current mental health provisions and for long-term impact beyond this pandemic.

Epidemiological data on the association between mental disorders and the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity are limited.

To evaluate the association between mental disorders and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes following COVID-19.

We performed a cohort study using the Korean COVID-19 patient database based on national health insurance data. Each person with a mental or behavioural disorder (diagnosed during the 6 months prior to their first SARS-CoV-2 test) was matched by age, gender and Charlson Comorbidity Index with up to four people without mental disorders. SARS-CoV-2-positivity risk and the risk of death or severe events (intensive care unit admission, use of mechanical ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome) post-infection were calculated using conditional logistic regression analysis.

Among 230 565 people tested for SARS-CoV-2, 33 653 (14.6%) had mental disorders; 928/33 653 (2.76%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 56/928 (6.03%) died. In multivariable analysis using the matched cohort, there was no association between mental disorders and SARS-CoV-2-positivity risk (odds ratio OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.87–1.04); however, a higher risk was associated with schizophrenia-related disorders (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.14–1.99). Among confirmed COVID-19 patients, the mortality risk was significantly higher in patients with than in those without mental disorders (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.15–3.43).

Mental disorders are likely contributing factors to mortality following COVID-19. Although the infection risk was not higher for people with mental disorders overall, those with schizophrenia-related disorders were more vulnerable to infection.