» Articles » PMID: 39411481

Risk Rates and Profiles at Intake in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Cohort and Latent Class Analyses of 21,688 Young People in South London

Abstract

Background: Children and young people (CYP) seen by child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) often experience safeguarding issues. Yet little is known about the volume and nature of these risks, including how different adversities or risks relate to one another. This exploratory study aims to bridge this gap, examining rates at entry to services and profiles of risk using a latent class analysis.

Methods: Data were extracted for CYP who received at least one risk assessment at CAMHs in South London between January 2007 and December 2017. In total, there were 21,688 risk assessments. Latent class analysis was used to identify profiles of risk from the risk assessments.

Results: Concerns about parent mental health ( = 5274; 24%), emotional abuse ( = 4487; 21%), violence towards others ( = 4210; 19%), destructive behaviour ( = 4005; 18%), and not attending school ( = 3762; 17%) were the most commonly identified risks. Six distinct profiles of risk were identified from the latent class analyses: (1) maltreatment and externalising behaviours, (2) maltreatment but low risk to self and others, (3) antisocial behaviour, (4) inadequate caregiver supervision and risk to self and others, (5) risk to self but not others, and (6) mental health needs but low risk.

Conclusions: These findings provide fresh insights into adverse experiences and risks identified by CAMHS. For professionals, the profiles identified in this study might provide insights into profiles of identified risks, in contrast to traditional cumulative approaches to risk. For researchers, these profiles may be fertile ground for hypothesis-driven work on the association between adversity and later outcomes.

Citing Articles

Predictive accuracy of the Violence Risk Assessment Checklist for Youth in acute institutions: A prospective naturalistic multicenter study.

Laake A, Roaldset J, Husum T, Bjorkly S, Chudiakow Gustavsen C, Grenabo S Eur Psychiatry. 2025; 68(1):e19.

PMID: 39801327 PMC: 11822959. DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.3.

References
1.
Liu R, Scopelliti K, Pittman S, Zamora A . Childhood maltreatment and non-suicidal self-injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017; 5(1):51-64. PMC: 5743605. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30469-8. View

2.
Aggett P, Messent P . Soapbox: Technical, relational and relational-collaborative approaches to risk management. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018; 24(3):642-649. DOI: 10.1177/1359104518796555. View

3.
Perera G, Broadbent M, Callard F, Chang C, Downs J, Dutta R . Cohort profile of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Biomedical Research Centre (SLaM BRC) Case Register: current status and recent enhancement of an Electronic Mental Health Record-derived data resource. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(3):e008721. PMC: 4785292. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008721. View

4.
Reynolds B, Basso M, Miller A, Whiteside D, Combs D . Executive function, impulsivity, and risky behaviors in young adults. Neuropsychology. 2018; 33(2):212-221. DOI: 10.1037/neu0000510. View

5.
Waller G, Newbury-Birch D, Simpson D, Armstrong E, James B, Chapman L . The barriers and facilitators to the reporting and recording of self-harm in young people aged 18 and under: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):158. PMC: 9871435. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15046-7. View